-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and psychological impact on patients' lives. Different approaches are used aiming to improve these scars, including intralesional corticosteroids, surgery and more recently, laser therapy. Since laser therapy is expensive and may have adverse effects, it is critical to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of this therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO Plus and LILACS. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treating hypertrophic or keloid scars (or both), comparing laser therapy with placebo, no intervention or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and carried out GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. A third review author arbitrated if there were disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs, involving 604 participants (children and adults) with study sample sizes ranging from 10 to 120 participants (mean 40.27). Where studies randomised different parts of the same scar, each scar segment was the unit of analysis (906 scar segments). The length of participant follow-up varied from 12 weeks to 12 months. All included trials had a high risk of bias for at least one domain: all studies were deemed at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. The variability of intervention types, controls, follow-up periods and limitations with report data meant we pooled data for one comparison (and only two outcomes within this). Several review secondary outcomes - cosmesis, tolerance, preference for different modes of treatment, adherence, and change in quality of life - were not reported in any of the included studies. Laser versus no treatment: We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be more hypertrophic and keloid scar improvement (that is scars are less severe) in 585-nm pulsed-dye laser (PDL) -treated scars compared with no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.45; two studies, 60 scar segments). It is unclear whether non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether fractional carbon dioxide (CO) laser impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). Eight studies reported treatment-related adverse effects but did not provide enough data for further analyses. Laser versus other treatments: We are uncertain whether treatment with 585-nm PDL impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with intralesional corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), intralesional Fluorouracil (5-FU) or combined use of TAC plus 5-FU (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether erbium laser impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with TAC (very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons included 585-nm PDL versus silicone gel sheeting, fractional CO laser versus TAC and fractional CO laser versus verapamil. However, the authors did not report enough data regarding the severity of scars to compare the interventions. As only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, charring (skin burning so that the surface becomes blackened), telangiectasia (a condition in which tiny blood vessels cause thread-like red lines on the skin), skin atrophy (skin thinning), purpuric discolorations, hypopigmentation (skin colour becomes lighter), and erosion (loss of part of the top layer of skin, leaving a denuded surface) secondary to blistering, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. Laser plus other treatment versus other treatment: It is unclear whether 585-nm PDL plus TAC plus 5-FU leads to a higher percentage of good to excellent improvement in hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with TAC plus 5-FU, as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low. Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is also uncertain whether CO laser plus TAC impacts on keloid scar severity compared with cryosurgery plus TAC. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser plus intralesional corticosteroid diprospan plus 5-FU on scar severity compared with diprospan plus 5-FU and about the effect of helium-neon (He-Ne) laser plus decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream on scar severity compared with decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream. Only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, atrophy, erythema, telangiectasia, hypopigmentation, regrowth, hyperpigmentation (skin colour becomes darker), and depigmentation (loss of colour from the skin). Therefore, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. The available information is also insufficient to perform a more accurate analysis on treatment-related adverse effects related to laser therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, conflicting results, study design issues and small sample sizes, further high-quality trials, with validated scales and core outcome sets should be developed. These trials should take into consideration the consumers' opinion and values, the need for long-term follow-up and the necessity of reporting the rate of recurrence of scars to determine whether lasers may achieve superior results when compared with other therapies for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aluminum; Atrophy; Carbon Dioxide; Child; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Erbium; Fluorouracil; Helium; Humans; Hypertrophy; Hypopigmentation; Keloid; Laser Therapy; Neodymium; Neon; Pain; Silicone Gels; Telangiectasis; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Verapamil; Wound Healing; Yttrium
PubMed: 36161591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011642.pub2 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Jun 2019Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) has traditionally been used as a root filling material in primary teeth pulpectomy. Calcium hydroxide and iodoform (Ca(OH)/iodoform) may have... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) has traditionally been used as a root filling material in primary teeth pulpectomy. Calcium hydroxide and iodoform (Ca(OH)/iodoform) may have advantages as a root canal filling material to evaluate treatment success of Ca(OH)/iodoform pulpectomy in primary teeth compared with ZOE based on clinical and radiographical criteria. All human clinical studies reporting clinical and radiographical outcomes of Ca(OH)iodoform compared with ZOE in primary teeth pulpectomy were identified in digital bibliographic databases. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted relevant study characteristics. Success of treatment was based on an accomplishment of specific clinical and radiographical criteria. Meta-analyses were performed to appraise study heterogeneity and aggregated statistics. Out of 5,000 articles identified in initial search, 15 articles met all inclusion criteria, while 10 were included in the meta-analyses. At 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the clinical and radiographical success rates of Ca(OH)/iodoform and ZOE. However, ZOE was shown to have statistically significant higher success rates at ≥18-month follow-up. On the basis of the findings of this systematic review, we recommend that Ca(OH)/iodoform be utilized for pulpectomy in primary teeth nearing exfoliation; conversely, ZOE should be utilized when exfoliation is not expected to occur soon. Future randomized control clinical trials with a long-term follow-up are needed before a reliable conclusion can be drawn as to the best pulpectomy material. The success of pulpectomy in primary teeth depends on selecting the ideal root canal filling material. It is challenging to select the appropriate filling materials for primary teeth. ZOE or ZOE/iodoform combined with Ca(OH) appears to be the materials of choice if primary teeth are not nearing exfoliation. More high-quality randomized control clinical trials with a long-term follow-up period are needed before a reliable conclusion can be drawn as to the best pulpectomy material in primary teeth (systematic review registration number: CRD42016037563).
Topics: Calcium Hydroxide; Humans; Pulpectomy; Root Canal Filling Materials; Silicones; Tooth, Deciduous; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 31249711
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.173 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013Keloid and hypertrophic scars are common and are caused by a proliferation of dermal tissue following skin injury. They cause functional and psychological problems for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Keloid and hypertrophic scars are common and are caused by a proliferation of dermal tissue following skin injury. They cause functional and psychological problems for patients, and their management can be difficult. The use of silicone gel sheeting to prevent and treat hypertrophic scarring is still relatively new and started in 1981 with treatment of burn scars.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of silicone gel sheeting for:(1) prevention of hypertrophic or keloid scarring in people with newly healed wounds (e.g. post surgery);(2) treatment of established scarring in people with existing keloid or hypertrophic scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2013 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL for this second update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, or controlled clinical trials, comparing silicone gel sheeting for prevention or treatment of hypertrophic or keloid scars with any other non surgical treatment, no treatment or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed all relevant trials for methodological quality. Three review authors extracted data independently using a standardised form and cross-checked the results. We assessed all trials meeting the selection criteria for methodological quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials involving 873 people, ranging in age from 1.5 to 81 years. The trials compared adhesive silicone gel sheeting with no treatment; non silicone dressing; other silicone products; laser therapy; triamcinolone acetonide injection; topical onion extract and pressure therapy. In the prevention studies, when compared with a no treatment option, whilst silicone gel sheeting reduced the incidence of hypertrophic scarring in people prone to scarring (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.98) these studies were highly susceptible to bias. In treatment studies, silicone gel sheeting produced a statistically significant reduction in scar thickness (mean difference (MD) -2.00, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.85) and colour amelioration (RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.15) but again these studies were highly susceptible to bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is weak evidence of a benefit of silicone gel sheeting as a prevention for abnormal scarring in high-risk individuals but the poor quality of research means a great deal of uncertainty prevails. Trials evaluating silicone gel sheeting as a treatment for hypertrophic and keloid scarring showed improvements in scar thickness and scar colour but are of poor quality and highly susceptible to bias.
Topics: Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Humans; Keloid; Occlusive Dressings; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicone Gels
PubMed: 24030657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003826.pub3 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2015Head louse infection is diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch (but a few may take longer, up to 13 days) and may appear viable for weeks after... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Head louse infection is diagnosed by finding live lice, as eggs take 7 days to hatch (but a few may take longer, up to 13 days) and may appear viable for weeks after death of the egg. Infestation may be more likely in school children, with risks increased in children with more siblings or of lower socioeconomic group. Factors such as longer hair make diagnosis and treatment more difficult.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of physically acting treatments for head lice? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2014 (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 six 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: 1,2-octanediol, dimeticone, herbal and essential oils, and isopropyl myristate.
Topics: Animals; Antiparasitic Agents; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Humans; Lice Infestations; Myristates; Octanols; Oils, Volatile; Pediculus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25587918
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Aged; Allantoin; Bandages; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Fatty Acids; Hexachlorophene; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Olive Oil; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicones; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Squalene
PubMed: 30537080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009362.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2010Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space, resulting in retinal separation. It occurs in about 1 in 10,000 people a year.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent progression from retinal breaks or lattice degeneration to retinal detachment? What are the effects of different surgical interventions in people with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment? What are the effects of interventions to treat proliferative vitreoretinopathy occurring as a complication of retinal detachment or previous treatment for retinal detachment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 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 21 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: corticosteroids, cryotherapy, daunorubicin, fluorouracil plus low molecular weight heparin, laser photocoagulation, pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, short-acting or long-acting gas tamponade, silicone oil tamponade, and vitrectomy.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Silicone Oils; Vitrectomy; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 21406128
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2008Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space, resulting in retinal separation. It occurs in about 1 in 10,000 people a year.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent progression from retinal breaks or lattice degeneration to retinal detachment? What are the effects of different surgical interventions in people with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment? What are the effects of interventions to treat proliferative vitreoretinopathy occurring as a complication of retinal detachment or previous treatment for retinal detachment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 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 8 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: cryotherapy, fluorouracil plus low-molecular weight heparin added to infusion solution during vitrectomy surgery for proliferative vitreoretinopathy, laser photocoagulation, pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, short-acting or long-acting gas tamponade, and silicone oil vitrectomy.
Topics: Humans; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Silicone Oils; Treatment Outcome; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 19450333
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2010Colic in infants causes one in six families (17%) with children to consult a health professional. One systematic review of 15 community-based studies found a wide... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Colic in infants causes one in six families (17%) with children to consult a health professional. One systematic review of 15 community-based studies found a wide variation in prevalence, which depended on study design and method of recording.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for colic in infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 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 27 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: advice to increase carrying, advice to reduce stimulation, casein hydrolysate milk, cranial osteopathy, crib vibrator device, focused counselling, gripe water, infant massage, low-lactose milk, simethicone, soya-based infant feeds, spinal manipulation, and whey hydrolysate milk.
Topics: Animals; Colic; Crying; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Milk; Research Design; Simethicone
PubMed: 21729336
DOI: No ID Found -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2024The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: "silicone" AND "syringes" AND ("intraocular" OR "intravitreal") and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone, the administration technique, the physicochemical aspects of silicone release, and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialized syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding two that will probably be commercialized in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.
Topics: Syringes; Humans; Silicone Oils; Intravitreal Injections; Off-Label Use; Spain
PubMed: 38556370
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2024.01.008