-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2010Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Mouth Diseases; Neoplasms; Oral Ulcer; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 20687070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001973.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Following surgery, incisions are usually closed by fixing the edges together with sutures (stitches), staples, adhesives (glue) or clips. This process helps the cut... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Following surgery, incisions are usually closed by fixing the edges together with sutures (stitches), staples, adhesives (glue) or clips. This process helps the cut edges heal together and is called 'healing by primary intention'. However, a minority of surgical wounds are not closed in this way. Where the risk of infection is high or there has been significant loss of tissue, wounds may be left open to heal by the growth of new tissue rather than by primary closure; this is known as 'healing by secondary intention'. There is a risk of infection in open wounds, which may impact on wound healing, and antiseptic or antibiotic treatments may be used with the aim of preventing or treating such infections. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the evidence on antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It aims to present current evidence related to the use of antiseptics and antibiotics for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics for the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with a surgical wound healing by secondary intention and assessed treatment with an antiseptic or antibiotic treatment. Studies enrolling people with skin graft donor sites were not included, neither were studies of wounds with a non-surgical origin which had subsequently undergone sharp or surgical debridement or other surgical treatments or wounds within the oral or aural cavities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies with a total of 886 participants were included in the review. These evaluated a range of comparisons in a range of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. In general studies were small and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence.Two comparisons compared different iodine preparations with no antiseptic treatment and found no clear evidence of effects for these treatments. The outcome data available were limited and what evidence there was low quality.One study compared a zinc oxide mesh dressing with a plain mesh dressing. There was no clear evidence of a difference in time to wound healing between groups. There was some evidence of a difference in measures used to assess wound infection (wound with foul smell and number of participants prescribed antibiotics) which favoured the zinc oxide group. This was low quality evidence.One study reported that sucralfate cream increased the likelihood of healing open wounds following haemorrhoidectomy compared to a petrolatum cream (RR: 1.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.99) over a three week period. This evidence was graded as being of moderate quality. The study also reported lower wound pain scores in the sucralfate group.There was a reduction in time to healing of open wounds following haemorrhoidectomy when treated with Triclosan post-operatively compared with a standard sodium hypochlorite solution (mean difference -1.70 days, 95% CI -3.41 to 0.01). This was classed as low quality evidence.There was moderate quality evidence that more open wounds resulting from excision of pyomyositis abscesses healed when treated with a honey-soaked gauze compared with a EUSOL-soaked gauze over three weeks' follow-up (RR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.42). There was also some evidence of a reduction in the mean length of hospital stay in the honey group. Evidence was taken from one small study that only had 43 participants.There was moderate quality evidence that more Dermacym®-treated post-operative foot wounds in people with diabetes healed compared to those treated with iodine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93). Again estimates came from one small study with 40 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no robust evidence on the relative effectiveness of any antiseptic/antibiotic/anti-bacterial preparation evaluated to date for use on SWHSI. Where some evidence for possible treatment effects was reported, it stemmed from single studies with small participant numbers and was classed as moderate or low quality evidence. This means it is likely or very likely that further research will have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect, and may change this estimate.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate; Surgical Mesh; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Wound Healing; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 27021482
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011712.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the main cause of peptic ulcer disease. The role of H pylori in non-ulcer dyspepsia is less clear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the main cause of peptic ulcer disease. The role of H pylori in non-ulcer dyspepsia is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of H pylori eradication on dyspepsia symptoms in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and keywords, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and with pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs to eradicate H pylori with placebo or other drugs known not to eradicate H pylori for patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on individual and global dyspeptic symptom scores, quality of life measures and adverse effects. Dyspepsia outcomes were dichotomised into minimal/resolved versus same/worse symptoms.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty one randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Eighteen trials compared antisecretory dual or triple therapy with placebo antibiotics +/- antisecretory therapy, and evaluated dyspepsia at 3-12 months. Seventeen of these trials gave results as dichotomous outcomes evaluating 3566 patients and there was no significant heterogeneity between the studies. There was a 10% relative risk reduction in the H pylori eradication group (95% CI = 6% to 14%) compared to placebo. The number needed to treat to cure one case of dyspepsia = 14 (95% CI = 10 to 25). A further three trials compared Bismuth based H pylori eradication with an alternative pharmacological agent. These trials were smaller and had a shorter follow-up but suggested H pylori eradication was more effective than either H2 receptor antagonists or sucralfate in treating non-ulcer dyspepsia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
H pylori eradication therapy has a small but statistically significant effect in H pylori positive non-ulcer dyspepsia. An economic model suggests this modest benefit may still be cost-effective but more research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16625554
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002096.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2005Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the main cause of peptic ulcer disease. The role of H pylori in non-ulcer dyspepsia is less clear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) is the main cause of peptic ulcer disease. The role of H pylori in non-ulcer dyspepsia is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of H pylori eradication on dyspepsia symptoms in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SIGLE, using appropriate subject headings and keywords, searching bibliographies of retrieved articles, and through contacts with experts in the fields of dyspepsia and with pharmaceutical companies. These searches were updated in October 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs to eradicate H pylori with placebo or other drugs known not to eradicate H pylori for patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected on individual and global dyspeptic symptom scores, quality of life measures and adverse effects. Dyspepsia outcomes were dichotomised into minimal/resolved versus same/worse symptoms.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Fourteen trials compared antisecretory dual or triple therapy with placebo antibiotics +/- antisecretory therapy, and evaluated dyspepsia at 3-12 months. Thirteen of these trials gave results as dichotomous outcomes evaluating 3186 patients and there was no significant heterogeneity between the studies. There was a 8% relative risk reduction in the H pylori eradication group (95% CI = 3% to 12%) compared to placebo. The number needed to treat to cure one case of dyspepsia = 18 (95% CI = 12 to 48). A further three trials compared Bismuth based H pylori eradication with an alternative pharmacological agent. These trials were smaller and had a shorter follow-up but suggested H pylori eradication was more effective than either H2 receptor antagonists or sucralfate in treating non-ulcer dyspepsia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
H pylori eradication therapy has a small but statistically significant effect in H pylori positive non-ulcer dyspepsia. An economic model suggests this modest benefit may still be cost-effective but more research is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15674892
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002096.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (ulceration), remain a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched. Authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: May 2001 (CCTR 2001, issue 3)
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, oral pain, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effects models as no significant heterogeneity was detected (P>0.1).
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 876 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR=0.63 95%CI 0.42 to 0.96) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR=0.59 95%CI 0.42 to 0.84; vitamin E RR=0.38 95%CI 0.14 to 0.97). The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and "magic" (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKCA.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash and vitamin E improves or eradicates mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
Topics: Humans; Mouth Diseases; Mouth Mucosa; Neoplasms; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 11869616
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001973 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches August 2003: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effect models.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials involving 1292 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.49; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Two of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: Granulocyte Macrophage-Colony Stimulating Factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKPCA.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
Topics: Humans; Mouth Diseases; Mouth Mucosa; Neoplasms; Pain; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis
PubMed: 15106165
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001973.pub2 -
Critical Care Medicine Nov 2004In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for other supportive therapies in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for other supportive therapies in sepsis that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and improve outcome in severe sepsis.
DESIGN
The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee.
METHODS
The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591.
CONCLUSION
Patients with severe sepsis should be treated with deep-vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin is preferred. Use of graduated compression devices is recommended in septic patients with contraindication to the use of heparin or combined with heparin in very high-risk patients. Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be given to all patients with severe sepsis. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists are more effective than sucralfate in decreasing bleeding risk and transfusion requirements. Proton pump inhibitors have not been assessed in a direct comparison with histamine-2 receptor antagonists but do demonstrate equivalency and ability to increase gastric pH.
Topics: Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Sepsis; Stress, Physiological; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 15542966
DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000145915.53268.a8 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Mar 2003Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity in critically ill patients. Interventions beneficial to the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity in critically ill patients. Interventions beneficial to the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia would therefore have a significant impact on the care of these patients.
PURPOSE
To perform a literature review and synthesis of methods for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1966-2001), the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were required to be prospective and controlled in design and to evaluate clinically important or surrogate outcomes. Surrogate outcomes were required to have a direct link to clinically important outcomes supported by the literature.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data on patients, definitions, study design, and outcomes were abstracted and graded by using preestablished criteria.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The preventive practices with the strongest supportive evidence were semi-recumbent positioning, sucralfate instead of H2-antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and selective digestive tract decontamination. Aspiration of subglottic secretions and oscillating beds may be useful in select populations. There is no evidence to support specific methods of enteral feeding or increased frequency of ventilator circuitry changes.
CONCLUSIONS
After evaluation of potential benefits and risks, the authors recommend considering several specific interventions to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: semi-recumbent positioning in all eligible patients, sucralfate rather than H2-antagonists in patients at low to moderate risk for gastrointestinal tract bleeding, and aspiration of subglottic secretions and oscillating beds in select patient populations. Selective digestive tract decontamination is not recommended because routine use may increase antimicrobial resistance.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Beds; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enteral Nutrition; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Oropharynx; Pneumonia; Posture; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Assessment; Sucralfate; Suction
PubMed: 12639084
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00015 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Aug 2013Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is regarded as standard of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, recent randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is regarded as standard of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, recent randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have questioned the rationale and level of evidence for this recommendation. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate if SUP in the critically ill patients is indicated.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE including MeSH, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
PARTICIPANTS
patients in the ICU.
INTERVENTIONS
pharmacological and non-pharmacological SUP.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Risk of bias was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and risk of random errors in cumulative meta-analyses was assessed with trial sequential analysis. A total of 57 studies were included in the review. The literature on SUP in the ICU includes limited trial data and methodological weak studies. The reported incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding varies considerably. Data on the incidence and severity of GI bleeding in general ICUs in the developed world as of today are lacking. The best intervention for SUP is yet to be settled by balancing efficacy and harm. In essence, it is unresolved if intensive care patients benefit overall from SUP. The following clinically research questions are unanswered: (1) What is the incidence of GI bleeding, and which interventions are used for SUP in general ICUs today?; (2) Which criteria are used to prescribe SUP?; (3) What is the best SUP intervention?; (4) Do intensive care patients benefit from SUP with proton pump inhibitors as compared with other SUP interventions? Systematic reviews of possible interventions and well-powered observational studies and RCTs are needed.
Topics: Antacids; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Blood Coagulation Disorders; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Evidence-Based Medicine; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Misoprostol; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Peptic Ulcer; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Stress, Physiological; Sucralfate
PubMed: 23495933
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12099 -
British Journal of Cancer Jul 2002Chronic radiation proctitis produces a range of clinical symptoms for which there is currently no recommended standard management. The aim of this review was to identify... (Review)
Review
Chronic radiation proctitis produces a range of clinical symptoms for which there is currently no recommended standard management. The aim of this review was to identify the various non-surgical treatment options for the management of late chronic radiation proctitis and evaluate the evidence for their efficacy. Synonyms for radiation therapy and for the spectrum of lower gastrointestinal radiation toxicity were combined in an extensive search strategy and applied to a range of databases. The included studies were those that involved interventions for the non-surgical management of late radiation proctitis. Sixty-three studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria, including six randomised controlled trials that described the effects of anti-inflammatory agents in combination, rectal steroids alone, rectal sucralfate, short chain fatty acid enemas and different types of thermal therapy. However, these studies could not be compared. If the management of late radiation proctitis is to become evidence based, then, in view of its episodic and variable nature, placebo controlled studies need to be conducted to clarify which therapeutic options should be recommended. From the current data, although certain interventions look promising and may be effective, one small or modest sized study, even if well-conducted, is insufficient to implement changes in practice. In order to increase recruitment to trials, a national register of cases with established late radiation toxicity would facilitate multi-centre trials with specific entry criteria, formal baseline and therapeutic assessments providing standardised outcome data.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Chronic Disease; Combined Modality Therapy; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Electrocoagulation; Enema; Fatty Acids, Volatile; Female; Formaldehyde; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Male; Metronidazole; Pelvic Neoplasms; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Proctitis; Prospective Studies; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 12107832
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600360