-
BMC Oral Health Jun 2021XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) are commonly used in intracanal medicament removal. The effectiveness of these two techniques needs to be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) are commonly used in intracanal medicament removal. The effectiveness of these two techniques needs to be compared, and evidence-based research should be conducted.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to December 20th, 2020. The outcomes of the included trials were pooled into the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.3 software. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool 2.0 was applied to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Nine articles were included in this systematic review and processed for data extraction, and eight studies were identified for meta-analysis. In general, the use of PUI showed better medicament removal effectiveness than XPF (odds ratio [OR]: 3.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.96-4.86; P < 0.001). PUI was also significantly more efficient than XPF in the apical third (OR: 3.42; 95% CI, 1.32-8.84; P = 0.01). For trials using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) alone, PUI was also significantly more effective than XPF on intracanal medicaments removal (OR: 5.23; 95% CI, 2.79-9.82; P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between PUI and XPF when NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were used in combination (OR: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.74-3.09; P = 0.26). In addition, for studies whose intracanal medicament periods were two weeks, the effectiveness of PUI was statistically better than the XPF (OR: 7.73; 95% CI, 3.71-16.07; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, for trials whose intracanal medicament time was one week or over two weeks, no differences between the XPF and PUI were found (OR: 1.54; 95% CI, 0.74-3.22; P = 0.25) (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 0.44-4.61; P = 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis is the first study to quantitatively compare the effectiveness of XPF and PUI techniques on intracanal medicaments removal. With rigorous eligibility criteria, the study only included high-quality randomised controlled trials. The study indicated that PUI might be superior over XPF techniques for removing intracanal medicaments from artificial standardized grooves and cavities in the root canal system. The anatomical areas, irrigation protocol, and intracanal medicaments time may influence the cleaning efficacy.
Topics: Dental Pulp Cavity; Humans; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Sodium Hypochlorite; Therapeutic Irrigation; Ultrasonics
PubMed: 34107959
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01644-7 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Feb 2021The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials with disease outcomes in patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
In this single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials with a preintervention and postintervention design for chronic rhinosinusitis that were published between 1946 and January 23, 2019.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were the association of nonmedicated control substances with 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores or nasal symptom scores when SNOT-22 was not available.
RESULTS
A total of 2305 abstracts were identified and screened, 725 articles were reviewed in full text, and 38 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 38 included studies, a total of 2258 adults (mean age range, 27-53 years; 20.0%-72.5% women) were randomized to receive nonmedicated control substances or sham interventions. Topical nonmedicated control substances were associated with significant reduction in SNOT-22 scores (mean difference [MD], -8.81; 95% CI, -12.60 to -5.03). A subgroup analysis of topical therapies, limited to saline irrigation and nasal spray diluents, found that topical diluents were associated with a greater reduction in SNOT-22 scores (MD, -11.45; 95% CI, -13.50 to -9.41) compared with saline irrigation (MD, -13.60; 95% CI, -19.95 to -7.25). Nonmedicated control substances were associated with a significant reduction in nasal obstruction scores (standardized MD [SMD], -0.42; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.03). No significant change was found in rhinorrhea scores (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.69), postnasal drip scores (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -2.18 to 0.25), facial pain scores (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.55), or loss of smell scores (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.32).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials of chronic rhinosinusitis outcomes suggests that the use of nonmedicated control substances is associated with limited improvements in SNOT-22 and nasal obstruction scores. These findings highlight potential areas of future research directions and the importance of randomized clinical trials to accurately estimate treatment effect.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Endoscopy; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Sprays; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 33180113
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.3723 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease - such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness - are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months. None of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these. In adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). In children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.
Topics: Apnea; Child; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Exercise; Female; Humans; Isotonic Contraction; Male; Middle Aged; Myofunctional Therapy; Oropharynx; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Therapeutic Irrigation; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 33141943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013449.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.
Topics: Bias; Contrast Media; Fallopian Tubes; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Oils; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solubility; Therapeutic Irrigation; Water
PubMed: 33053612
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003718.pub5 -
Complementary Medicine Research 2021Einleitung: Ziel dieser systematischen Übersicht war die Bewertung der verfügbaren Evidenz zur Wirkung der Kneipp-Therapie. Methoden: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science,...
UNLABELLED
Einleitung: Ziel dieser systematischen Übersicht war die Bewertung der verfügbaren Evidenz zur Wirkung der Kneipp-Therapie. Methoden: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane-Library und CAMbase wurden nach relevanten Artikeln, veröffentlicht zwischen 2000 und 2019, durchsucht. Graue Literatur wurde über Google Scholar und andere Tools bezogen. Studien mit jeglicher Art von Studiendesign, die die Effekte der Kneipp-Therapie untersuchten, wurden eingeschlossen. Die Qualitätsbewertung erfolgte mittels EPHPP-QAT. Ergebnisse: 25 Quellen, darunter 14 kontrol-lierte Studien, wurden eingeschlossen. Gemäß EPHPP-QAT wurden 3 Studien "stark", 13 "moderat" und 9 "schwach" bewertet. Neun (64%) der kontrollierten Studien berichteten signifikante Verbesserungen nach Kneipp-Therapie im Gruppenvergleich bei chronisch-venöser Insuffizienz, Hypertonie, leichter Herzinsuffizienz, menopausalen Be-schwerden und Schlafstörungen in verschiedenen Patientenkollektiven sowie verbesserte Immunparameter bei gesunden Probanden. Im Hinblick auf Depression und Angst bei Mammakarzinom-Patientinnen mit klimakterischen Beschwerden, Lebensqualität bei Post-Polio-Syndrom, krankheitsbedingten polyneuropathischen Beschwerden und Inzidenz von Erkältungsepisoden bei Kindern konnten keine signifikanten Gruppenunterschiede festgestellt werden. Elf unkontrollierte Studien berichteten Verbesse-rungen bei allergischen Symptomen, Dyspepsie, Lebens-qualität, Herzratenvariabilität, Infekten, Hypertonie, Wohlbefinden, Schmerz und polyneuropathischen Beschwerden. Diskussion/Schlussfolgerung: Die Kneipp-Therapie scheint bei zahlreichen Beschwerdebildern in verschiedenen Patientenkollektiven positive Effekte zu bewirken. Zukünftige Studien sollten noch stärker auf eine methodisch sorgfältige Studienplanung achten (Kontrollgruppen, Randomisierung, adäquate Fallzahlen, Verblindung), um Verzerrungen entgegenzuwirken.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available evidence on the effect of Kneipp therapy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CAMbase were searched for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2019. Grey literature was obtained through Google Scholar and other tools. Studies with any kind of study design that examined the effects of Kneipp therapy were included. The quality assessment was carried out using EPHPP-QAT.
RESULTS
25 sources, including 14 controlled studies, were included. According to EPHPP-QAT, 3 studies were rated as “strong,” 13 as “moderate” and 9 as “weak.” Nine (64%) of the controlled studies reported significant improvements after Kneipp therapy in a between-group comparison in chronic venous insufficiency, hypertension, mild heart failure, menopausal complaints, and sleep disorders in different patient collectives as well as improved immune parameters in healthy subjects. Regarding depression and anxiety in breast cancer patients with climacteric complaints, quality of life in post-polio syndrome, disease-related polyneuropathic complaints and incidence of cold episodes in children, no significant group differences were found. Eleven uncontrolled studies reported improvements in allergic symptoms, dyspepsia, quality of life, heart rate variability, infections, hypertension, well-being, pain and polyneuropathic complaints.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Kneipp therapy seems to be beneficial for numerous symptoms in different patient groups. Future studies should pay even more attention to methodologically careful study planning (control groups, randomisation, adequate case numbers, blinding) to counteract bias.
Topics: Humans; Hydrotherapy; Phytotherapy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33049739
DOI: 10.1159/000510452 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2020This study evaluates the current clinical evidence of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) to establish its clinical application... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study evaluates the current clinical evidence of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) to establish its clinical application and efficacy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from 1946 to July 2019 for studies reporting clinical outcomes on wounds treated with NPWTi-d. The primary outcome was proportion of wounds with complete healing. The secondary outcomes were mean time for healing, NPWTi-d settings, cost, length of stay, and adverse events. Thirteen articles were included with a total of 624 wounds in 542 patients involving wounds of various aetiology. The pooled proportion of wound that achieved complete healing was 93.65% (95%CI: 84.02-99.04). Normal saline was the most commonly used instillation solution with the mean dwell time of 14.23 minutes (95%CI: 10.88-17.59) and instillation cycle every 4.17 ± 2.32 hourly. The mean therapy duration was 10.69 days (95%CI: 10.46-10.91) with daily cost of $194.80. The mean hospital stay was 18.1 days (95%CI: 17.20-19.00). There were no severe adverse effects reported. NPWTi-d is an adjuntive therapy to aid complete healing of the vast majority of wounds. However, the current data are limited by the lack of level 1 evidence.
Topics: Humans; Length of Stay; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Saline Solution; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33016602
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13487 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of...
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of HCWs are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help reduce the risk of active infection being passed from infected patients to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves, or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. Understanding these possible side effects is particularly important when the HCWs are otherwise fit and well.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to protect themselves when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.
SEARCH METHODS
Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: RCTs; quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to HCWs, with or without the same intervention being given to the patients with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) viral content of aerosol, when present (if intervention administered to patients); 4) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 5) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified three ongoing studies (including two RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 700 participants. The interventions included in these trials are povidone iodine, nitric oxide and GLS-1200 oral spray (the constituent of this spray is unclear and may not be antimicrobial in nature). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by two RCTs and a non-randomised study. We are concerned that only one of the ongoing studies specifically states that it will evaluate adverse events and it is not clear if this will include changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular, where those receiving the intervention are otherwise fit and well, it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Nose; Occupational Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 32936949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013626.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of...
Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them.
SEARCH METHODS
Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Nose; Occupational Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 32936948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013627.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone,...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are the fourth most common traumatic injury, causing an estimated 180,000 deaths annually worldwide. Superficial burns can be managed with dressings alone, but deeper burns or those that fail to heal promptly are usually treated surgically. Acute burns surgery aims to debride burnt skin until healthy tissue is reached, at which point skin grafts or temporising dressings are applied. Conventional debridement is performed with an angled blade, tangentially shaving burned tissue until healthy tissue is encountered. Hydrosurgery, an alternative to conventional blade debridement, simultaneously debrides, irrigates, and removes tissue with the aim of minimising damage to uninjured tissue. Despite the increasing use of hydrosurgery, its efficacy and the risk of adverse events following surgery for burns is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hydrosurgical debridement and skin grafting versus conventional surgical debridement and skin grafting for the treatment of acute partial-thickness burns.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people of any age with acute partial-thickness burn injury and assessed the use of hydrosurgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
One RCT met the inclusion criteria of this review. The study sample size was 61 paediatric participants with acute partial-thickness burns of 3% to 4% total burn surface area. Participants were randomised to hydrosurgery or conventional debridement. There may be little or no difference in mean time to complete healing (mean difference (MD) 0.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.25 to 6.25) or postoperative infection risk (risk ratio 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11). These results are based on very low-certainty evidence, which was downgraded twice for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in operative time between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement (MD 0.2 minutes, 95% CI -12.2 to 12.6); again, the certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. There may be little or no difference in scar outcomes at six months. Health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review contains one randomised trial of hydrosurgery versus conventional debridement in a paediatric population with low percentage of total body surface area burn injuries. Based on the available trial data, there may be little or no difference between hydrosurgery and conventional debridement in terms of time to complete healing, postoperative infection, operative time, and scar outcomes at six months. These results are based on very low-certainty evidence. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as health-related quality of life, resource use, and other adverse event outcomes is required.
Topics: Bias; Burns; Child; Debridement; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Operative Time; Skin Transplantation; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32882071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012826.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2020Aquatic therapy is one of the most common treatments for alleviating musculoskeletal pathologies. Its effectiveness has been evaluated with functional tests and...
Aquatic therapy is one of the most common treatments for alleviating musculoskeletal pathologies. Its effectiveness has been evaluated with functional tests and questionnaires. Functional tests are used in aquatic therapy; however, in most cases, they are carried out in a non-aquatic environment and, as such, their results may differ from those of tests performed in an aquatic environment. A systematic review was performed to assess the accuracy of functional tests and patient-reported outcomes to assess aquatic therapy interventions. The authors conducted a literature search in July 2019. In total, 70,863 records were identified after duplicates removed. Of these, 14 records were included about functional tests assessment in aquatic environment and 725 records for questionnaires. The majority of the tests had also been assessed in a dry environment, allowing differences and similarities between the tests in the two environments to be observed. Different variables have been assessed in tests included in the present systematic review (cardiorespiratory, neuromuscular, kinematic, physiological, kinetic responses and rating of perceived exertion) which are included in the manuscript. Visual Analogue Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were the assessments most commonly used by the different authors.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Muscle Strength; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Physical Therapy Modalities; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32781711
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17165690