-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and depend in part on the perception of normal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and depend in part on the perception of normal bowel habit. Constipation is highly prevalent, with approximately 12 million general practitioner prescriptions for laxatives in England in 2001.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug interventions, bulk-forming laxatives, faecal softeners, stimulant laxatives, osmotic laxatives, prostaglandin derivatives, and 5-HT4 agonists in adults with idiopathic chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 51systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: arachis oil, biofeedback, bisacodyl, cascara, docusate, exercise, glycerol/glycerine suppositories, high-fibre diet, increasing fluids, ispaghula husk, lactitol, lactulose, lubiprostone, macrogols (polyethylene glycols), magnesium salts, methylcellulose, paraffin, phosphate enemas, seed oils, senna, sodium citrate enemas, prucalopride, and sterculia.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Constipation; Defecation; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21418672
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Optometry 2023Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management,... (Review)
Review
Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO registration CRD42022369619) comparing the efficacy of artificial tears in patients with dry eye to inform prescribing choices using Web of Science, PubMed and Medline databases identified 64 relevant articles. There is good evidence that artificial tears improve symptoms of dry eye disease within a month of regular use, applied about four times a day, but signs generally take several months to improve. Not all patients with dry eye disease benefit from artificial tears, so if there is no benefit over a month, alternative management should be considered. Combination formulations are more effective than single active ingredient artificial tears. Artificial tears containing polyethylene glycol are more effective than those containing carboxymethylcellulose/carmellose sodium and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Those classified as having evaporative dry eye disease, benefit from artificial tears with liposomes, especially of higher concentration. The data available is limited by the definition of dry eye disease applied in published studies being variable, as well as the disease severity examined and compliance with artificial tears being rarely quantified.
PubMed: 36647552
DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S350185 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2011Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) are rare before the age of 40 years, after which prevalence increases steadily and reaches over 25% by 60... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) are rare before the age of 40 years, after which prevalence increases steadily and reaches over 25% by 60 years. However, only 10% to 25% of affected people will develop symptoms such as lower abdominal pain. Recurrent symptoms are common, and 5% of people with diverticula eventually develop complications such as perforation, obstruction, haemorrhage, fistulae, or abscesses.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: treatments for uncomplicated diverticular disease; treatments to prevent complications; and treatments for acute diverticulitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antispasmodics, elective surgery, increasing fibre intake with bran or ispaghula husk, lactulose, medical treatment, mesalazine, methylcellulose, rifaximin, and surgery.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Dietary Fiber; Diverticulitis; Diverticulosis, Colonic; Diverticulum; Humans
PubMed: 21401970
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2007Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and in part depend on the perception of normal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and in part depend on the perception of normal bowel habit. Constipation is highly prevalent, with approximately 12 million general practitioner prescriptions for laxatives in England in 2001.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug interventions, and of other interventions, in adults with idiopathic chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (BMJ Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 42 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: arachis oil, biofeedback, bisacodyl, cascara, docusate, exercise, glycerine suppositories, glycerol, high-fibre diet, increasing fluids, ispaghula husk, lactitol, lactulose, macrogols (polyethylene glycols), magnesium salts, methylcellulose, paraffin, phosphate enemas, seed oils, senna, sodium citrate enemas, sterculia.
Topics: Adult; Biofeedback, Psychology; Bisacodyl; Constipation; Defecation; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 19454117
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2007Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) affect over 5% of adults aged 40 years and older, but only 10-25% of affected people will develop... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diverticula (mucosal outpouching through the wall of the colon) affect over 5% of adults aged 40 years and older, but only 10-25% of affected people will develop symptoms such as lower abdominal pain. Recurrent symptoms are common, and 5% of people with diverticula eventually develop complications such as perforation, obstruction, haemorrhage, fistulae, or abscesses.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: treatments for uncomplicated diverticular disease; treatments to prevent complications; and treatments for acute diverticulitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 13 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antispasmodics, bran, elective surgery, increasing fibre intake, ispaghula husk, lactulose, medical treatment, mesalazine, methylcellulose, rifaximin, surgery.
Topics: Acute Disease; Diverticulitis; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Diverticulosis, Colonic; Diverticulum; Humans; Mesalamine
PubMed: 19454119
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the most common adverse effect of opioids. There is no reason to believe that people with chronic non-malignant disease who take opioids will be any less troubled by this adverse effect.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: oral laxatives, rectally applied medications, and opioid antagonists for constipation in people prescribed opioids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: arachis oil enemas, bisacodyl, co-danthrusate/co-danthramer, docusate, glycerol suppositories, ispaghula husk, lactulose, liquid paraffin, macrogols plus electrolyte solutions, magnesium salts, methylcellulose, opioid antagonists, phosphate enemas, senna, sodium citrate micro-enema, and sodium picosulfate.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives
PubMed: 21718572
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Experimental & Clinical... Jun 2021Immunotherapy is currently under intensive investigation as a potential breakthrough treatment option for glioblastoma. Given the anatomical and immunological... (Review)
Review
Immunotherapy is currently under intensive investigation as a potential breakthrough treatment option for glioblastoma. Given the anatomical and immunological complexities surrounding glioblastoma, lymphocytes that infiltrate the brain to develop durable immunity with memory will be key. Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid, or poly(I:C), and its derivative poly-ICLC could serve as a priming or boosting therapy to unleash lymphocytes and other factors in the (immuno)therapeutic armory against glioblastoma. Here, we present a systematic review on the effects and efficacy of poly(I:C)/poly-ICLC for glioblastoma treatment, ranging from preclinical work on cellular and murine glioblastoma models to reported and ongoing clinical studies. MEDLINE was searched until 15 May 2021 to identify preclinical (glioblastoma cells, murine models) and clinical studies that investigated poly(I:C) or poly-ICLC in glioblastoma. A systematic review approach was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for ongoing clinical studies. Direct pro-tumorigenic effects of poly(I:C) on glioblastoma cells have not been described. On the contrary, poly(I:C) changes the immunological profile of glioblastoma cells and can also kill them directly. In murine glioblastoma models, poly(I:C) has shown therapeutic relevance as an adjuvant therapy to several treatment modalities, including vaccination and immune checkpoint blockade. Clinically, mostly as an adjuvant to dendritic cell or peptide vaccines, poly-ICLC has been demonstrated to be safe and capable of eliciting immunological activity to boost therapeutic responses. Poly-ICLC could be a valuable tool to enhance immunotherapeutic approaches for glioblastoma. We conclude by proposing several promising combination strategies that might advance glioblastoma immunotherapy and discuss key pre-clinical aspects to improve clinical translation.
Topics: Animals; Brain Neoplasms; Cancer Vaccines; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Clinical Trials as Topic; Glioblastoma; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Mice; Poly I-C; Polylysine
PubMed: 34172082
DOI: 10.1186/s13046-021-02017-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our...
BACKGROUND
Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.
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
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.
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
In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Burns; Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium; Facial Injuries; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin, Artificial; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32725896
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008058.pub3 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Apr 2012The exact pathogenesis of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon is not well established. However, the hypothesis that a low-fibre diet may result in diverticulosis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The exact pathogenesis of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon is not well established. However, the hypothesis that a low-fibre diet may result in diverticulosis and a high-fibre diet will prevent symptoms or complications of diverticular disease is widely accepted. The aim of this review is to assess whether a high-fibre diet can improve symptoms and/or prevent complications of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon and/or prevent recurrent diverticulitis after a primary episode.
METHODS
Clinical studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the treatment of diverticular disease or the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis with a high-fibre diet. The following exclusion criteria were used for study selection: studies without comparison of the patient group with a control group.
RESULTS
No studies concerning prevention of recurrent diverticulitis with a high-fibre diet met our inclusion criteria. Three randomised controlled trials (RCT) and one case-control study were included in this systematic review. One RCT of moderate quality showed no difference in the primary endpoints. A second RCT of moderate quality and the case-control study found a significant difference in favour of a high-fibre diet in the treatment of symptomatic diverticular disease. The third RCT of moderate quality found a significant difference in favour of methylcellulose (fibre supplement). This study also showed a placebo effect.
CONCLUSION
High-quality evidence for a high-fibre diet in the treatment of diverticular disease is lacking, and most recommendations are based on inconsistent level 2 and mostly level 3 evidence. Nevertheless, high-fibre diet is still recommended in several guidelines.
Topics: Dietary Fiber; Diverticulum; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 21922199
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-011-1308-3 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2023Ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) are commonly used during cataract surgery to protect the corneal endothelium. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) are commonly used during cataract surgery to protect the corneal endothelium. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the clinical evidence of OVDs composed of chondroitin sulfate-hyaluronic acid (CS-HA) versus other OVDs in maintaining endothelial cell density (ECD) and corneal thickness (CT).
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from 2000 to 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs, N ≥ 20 per group) comparing an OVD containing CS-HA (ie, VISCOAT, DuoVisc or DisCoVisc) to any other OVD were included. The identified comparators were limited to the OVDs found in the literature, which included those composed of HA-only or hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC). Outcomes of focus included changes in ECD (baseline to 3 months) and CT (baseline to 24 hours). Meta-analyses were performed using R software, to assess mean differences (MD) in ECD and CT change between CS-HA OVDs and HA-only or HPMC OVDs.
RESULTS
A total of 966 abstracts were screened, and data were extracted from 12 RCTs. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model revealed significantly lower percent (%) decrease in ECD for CS-HA OVDs compared to both HA-only (MD: -4.10%; 95% CI: -5.81 to -2.40; p < 0.0001; 9 studies) and HPMC (MD: -6.47%; 95% CI: -10.41 to -2.52; p = 0.001; 2 studies) products. Similarly, % CT increase was significantly lower with CS-HA than with HA-only OVDs (MD: -3.22%; 95% CI: -6.24% to -0.20%; p = 0.04; 4 studies). However, there were no significant differences when comparing % CT change between CS-HA and HPMC OVDs (MD: 2.65%; 95% CI: -0.43% to 0.95%; p = 0.4; 2 studies).
CONCLUSION
CS-HA OVDs lead to less postoperative loss of endothelial cells and may better protect corneal endothelium during cataract surgery, relative to other OVDs. Future randomized studies may be needed to solidify these findings.
PubMed: 37521151
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S419863