-
MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy.Cancer May 2014Mucositis is a highly significant, and sometimes dose-limiting, toxicity of cancer therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mucositis is a highly significant, and sometimes dose-limiting, toxicity of cancer therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted to identify eligible published articles, based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each article was independently reviewed by 2 reviewers. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws as per previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each treatment setting, was assigned a level of evidence, based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 8279 papers, 1032 of which were retrieved for detailed evaluation based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 570 qualified for final inclusion in the systematic reviews. Sixteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings. In total, the MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Guidelines now include 32 guidelines: 22 for oral mucositis and 10 for gastrointestinal mucositis. This article describes these updated guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis will help clinicians provide evidence-based management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy.
Topics: Amifostine; Analgesics; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Cryotherapy; Cytokines; Esophagitis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Low-Level Light Therapy; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Oral Hygiene; Phototherapy; Proctitis; Protective Agents; Radiation-Protective Agents; Radiotherapy; Stomatitis; Sucralfate
PubMed: 24615748
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28592 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 20215-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33433562
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab010 -
Biomedicines Mar 2023(1) Background: In early May 2022, an increasing number of human monkeypox (mpox) cases were reported in non-endemic disparate regions of the world, which raised... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: In early May 2022, an increasing number of human monkeypox (mpox) cases were reported in non-endemic disparate regions of the world, which raised concerns. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of mpox-confirmed patients presented in peer-reviewed publications over the 10 years before and during the 2022 outbreak from demographic, epidemiological, and clinical perspectives. (2) Methods: A systematic search was performed for relevant studies published in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar from 1 January 2012 up to 15 February 2023. Pooled frequencies with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed using the random or fixed effect model due to the estimated heterogeneity of the true effect sizes. (3) Results: Out of 10,163 articles, 67 met the inclusion criteria, and 31 cross-sectional studies were included for meta-analysis. Animal-to-human transmission was dominant in pre-2022 cases (61.64%), but almost all post-2022 reported cases had a history of human contact, especially sexual contact. The pooled frequency of MSM individuals was 93.5% (95% CI 91.0-95.4, I: 86.60%) and was reported only in post-2022 included studies. The male gender was predominant in both pre- and post-2022 outbreaks, and the mean age of confirmed cases was 29.92 years (5.77-41, SD: 9.38). The most common clinical manifestations were rash, fever, lymphadenopathy, and malaise/fatigue. Proctalgia/proctitis (16.6%, 95% CI 10.3-25.6, I: 97.76) and anal/perianal lesions (39.8%, 95% CI 30.4-49.9, I: 98.10) were the unprecedented clinical manifestations during the 2022 outbreak, which were not described before. Genitalia involvement was more common in post-2022 mpox patients (55.6%, 95% CI 51.7-59.4, I: 88.11). (4) Conclusions: There are speculations about the possibility of changes in the pathogenic properties of the virus. It seems that post-2022 mpox cases experience a milder disease with fewer rashes and lower mortality rates. Moreover, the vast majority of post-2022 cases are managed on an outpatient basis. Our study could serve as a basis for ongoing investigations to identify the different aspects of previous mpox outbreaks and compare them with the current ones.
PubMed: 36979936
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11030957 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology Jan 2024Mpox is a viral infection caused by the monkeypox virus, a member of the Poxviridae family and Orthopoxvirus genus. Other well-known viruses of the Orthopoxvirus genus...
INTRODUCTION
Mpox is a viral infection caused by the monkeypox virus, a member of the Poxviridae family and Orthopoxvirus genus. Other well-known viruses of the Orthopoxvirus genus include the variola virus (smallpox), cowpox virus and vaccinia virus. Although there is a plethora of research regarding the dermatological and influenza-like symptoms of mpox, particularly following the 2022 mpox outbreak, more research is needed on the gastrointestinal (GI) effects.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review is to outline the GI manifestations of the monkeypox virus.
METHODS
The authors conducted this systematic review using guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A search was conducted through the PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from January 1958 to June 2023. The authors selected English language papers that discussed the GI symptoms in mpox patients. A manual search was also conducted in the reference sections of these publications for other relevant papers.
RESULTS
33 papers involving 830 patients were selected for this review. The GI manifestations in mpox patients are proctitis, vomiting, diarrhoea, rectal pain, nausea, tenesmus, rectal bleeding and abdominal pain. Although various papers explored transmission routes, one paper established a direct connection between anal-receptive sex transmission route and the development of a GI complication (proctitis). Another study reported that the mode of transmission could potentially impact the occurrence of GI symptoms and severity of the disease. The reviewed papers did not discover a relation between the severity of dermatological and influenza-like symptoms and the GI manifestations mentioned.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review confirms that GI manifestations are observed in mpox patients. GI symptoms of mpox are crucial for gastroenterologists and other healthcare professionals to recognise in order to address patient discomfort and further understand the pathophysiology of the virus.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Mpox (monkeypox); Proctitis; Vomiting
PubMed: 38184298
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001266 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2023Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction. Treatments such as endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy and rectal topical formalin have imposed a significant medical burden on CRP patients. In contrast, oral therapies offer a more accessible and acceptable option for managing CRP. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of oral treatments for CRP to assess their potential as an effective and convenient treatment option for this condition.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese VIP in February 2021. We included post-radiotherapy participants with CRP that compared oral medicine alone or in combination with other treatments versus control treatments. The primary outcomes were bleeding, diarrhoea and symptom score. Heterogeneity between studies was checked using Cochrane Q test statistics and I test statistics. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective study with 898 participants. Three placebo-controlled trials evaluated the effects of oral sucralfate on CRP, with meta-analysis showing no significant different with placebo arm. Four trials on TCM demonstrated significant improvement of symptoms, especially for the 3 trials on oral TCM drinks. Retinyl palmitate and high-fibre diet were found to reduce rectal bleeding. The combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol did not significantly change the process of CRP.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study implies that oral TCM drinks, retinyl palmitate and a high-fiber diet showed significant improvement in CRP symptoms, but not with the combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol. Further multicentre, larger-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of these treatments and optimize treatment strategies, ultimately improving the quality of life for patients with CRP.
Topics: Humans; Pentoxifylline; Tocopherols; Diarrhea; Proctitis
PubMed: 37608385
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02294-2 -
Cureus Aug 2023Ulcerative colitis (UC) management has changed significantly in the past decade. The goal is to treat the symptoms, aid tissue healing, and change the disease course to... (Review)
Review
Ulcerative colitis (UC) management has changed significantly in the past decade. The goal is to treat the symptoms, aid tissue healing, and change the disease course to improve future outcomes. Oral or topical mesalamine (5-ASA) is a well-known UC treatment. It is the standard for starting and maintaining recovery in mild-to-moderate illnesses. The majority of patients start the treatment in the first year after diagnosis and continue it for long periods. In this review article, PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were used to search medical databases for relevant medical literature. After the articles were gathered and evaluated, 10 publications were compiled and selected using the qualifying criteria. The included articles aimed to provide an overview of 5-ASA in UC patients. According to several studies, there was no statistical relevance between various 5-ASA doses or the number of times they were taken. One study showed that 5-ASA cream preparation is better than oral preparation for patients with proctitis and proctosigmoiditis. The majority of the studies performed a follow-up to assess remission based on the use of endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, and patient symptoms during the investigations. Based on the aforementioned information, further investigation is required to ascertain the optimal approach for managing UC, with the aim of incorporating it into routine clinical procedures and enhancing our understanding of the subject matter.
PubMed: 37638277
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44055 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022There are a limited number of treatment options for people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Animal models of inflammatory bowel disease and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are a limited number of treatment options for people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis. Animal models of inflammatory bowel disease and uncontrolled studies in humans suggest that tacrolimus may be an effective treatment for ulcerative colitis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus for induction of remission in people with corticosteroid-refractory ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gut group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility based on the prespecified criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed them using Review Manager Web. The primary outcomes were induction of remission and clinical improvement, as defined by the studies and expressed as a percentage of the participants randomised (intention-to-treat analysis).
MAIN RESULTS
This review included five RCTs with 347 participants who had active ulcerative colitis or ulcerative proctitis. The duration of intervention varied between two weeks and eight weeks. Tacrolimus versus placebo Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior in achieving clinical remission compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (14/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 1/61 participants with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 3.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 13.73; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus (oral and rectal) may be superior for clinical improvement compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (45/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 7/61 participants with placebo; RR 4.47, 95% CI 2.15 to 9.29; 3 studies). These results are of low certainty due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of tacrolimus (oral and rectal) on serious adverse events compared to placebo (oral and rectal) (2/87 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/61 participants with placebo; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 48.77; 3 studies). These results are of very low certainty due to high imprecision and risk of bias. Tacrolimus versus ciclosporin One study compared oral tacrolimus to intravenous ciclosporin, with an intervention lasting two weeks and 113 randomised participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on achievement of clinical remission compared to ciclosporin (15/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 24/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.50). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and high imprecision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus on clinical improvement compared to intravenous ciclosporin (23/33 participants with tacrolimus versus 62/80 participants with ciclosporin; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). The results are of very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision. Tacrolimus versus beclometasone One study compared tacrolimus suppositories with beclometasone suppositories in an intervention lasting four weeks with 88 randomised participants. There may be little to no difference in achievement of clinical remission (16/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 15/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.88). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in clinical improvement when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (22/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 22/44 with beclometasone; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52). The results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in serious adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (1/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 0/44 with beclometasone; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.70). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. There may be little to no difference in total adverse events when comparing tacrolimus suppositories to beclometasone suppositories (21/44 participants with tacrolimus versus 14/44 participants with beclometasone; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.55). These results are of low certainty due to high imprecision. No secondary outcomes were reported for people requiring rescue medication or to undergo surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence that tacrolimus may be superior to placebo for achievement of clinical remission and clinical improvement in corticosteroid-refractory colitis or corticosteroid-refractory proctitis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tacrolimus compared to ciclosporin for achievement of clinical remission or clinical improvement. There may be no difference between tacrolimus and beclometasone for inducing clinical remission or clinical improvement. The cohorts studied to date were small, with missing data sets, offered short follow-up and the clinical endpoints used were not in line with those suggested by regulatory bodies. Therefore, no clinical practice conclusions can be made. This review highlights the need for further research that targets the relevant clinical questions, uses appropriate trial methodology and reports key findings in a systematic manner that facilitates future integration of findings with current evidence to better inform clinicians and patients. Future studies need to be adequately powered and of pertinent duration so as to capture the efficacy and effectiveness of tacrolimus in the medium to long term. Well-structured efficacy studies need to be followed up by long-term phase 4 extensions to provide key outputs and inform in a real-world setting.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Beclomethasone; Colitis, Ulcerative; Cyclosporine; Humans; Proctitis; Remission Induction; Suppositories; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 35388476
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007216.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Mar 2014Elderly patients represent an increasing proportion of the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elderly patients represent an increasing proportion of the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population.
AIM
To critically review available data regarding the care of elderly IBD patients.
METHODS
Bibliographic searches (MEDLINE) up to June 2013.
RESULTS
Approximately 10-15% of cases of IBD are diagnosed in patients aged >60 years, and 10-30% of the IBD population are aged >60 years. In the elderly, IBD is easily confused with other more common diseases, mainly diverticular disease and ischaemic colitis. The clinical features of IBD in older patients are generally similar to those in younger patients. Crohn's disease (CD) in elderly patients is characterised by its predominantly colonic localisation and uncomplicated course. Proctitis and left-sided ulcerative colitis are more common in patients aged >60 years. Infections are associated with age and account for significant mortality in IBD patients. The treatment of IBD in the elderly is generally similar. However, the therapeutic approach in the elderly should be 'start low-go slow'. The benefit of thiopurines in older CD patients remains debatable. Although the indications for anti-tumour necrosis factors in the elderly are generally similar to those for younger patients, lower response and higher adverse events have been reported in the elderly. Surgery in elderly patients does not generally differ. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis can be successful, provided the patient retains good anal sphincter function.
CONCLUSIONS
Management of the older IBD patient differs from that of younger patients; therefore, conventional practice algorithms may have to be modified to account for advanced age.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Middle Aged
PubMed: 24405149
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12616 -
Health Science Reports Oct 2023The 2022-mpox outbreak has spread worldwide in a short time. Integrated knowledge of the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and transmission of mpox are limited....
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The 2022-mpox outbreak has spread worldwide in a short time. Integrated knowledge of the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and transmission of mpox are limited. This systematic review of peer-reviewed articles and gray literature was conducted to shed light on the epidemiology, clinical features, and transmission of 2022-mpox outbreak.
METHODS
We identified 45 peer-reviewed manuscripts for data analysis. The standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement and Cochrane Collaboration were followed for conducting the study.
RESULTS
The case number of mpox has increased about 100 times worldwide. About 99% of the cases in 2022 outbreak was from non-endemic regions. Men (70%-98% cases) were mostly infected with homosexual and bisexual behavior (30%-60%). The ages of the infected people ranged between 30 and 40 years. The presence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among 30%-60% of cases were reported. Human-to-human transmission via direct contact and different body fluids were involved in the majority of the cases (90%-100%). Lesions in genitals, perianal, and anogenital areas were more prevalent. Unusually, pharyngitis (15%-40%) and proctitis (20%-40%) were more common during 2022 outbreak than pre-2022 outbreaks. Brincidofovir is approved for the treatment of smallpox by FDA (USA). Two vaccines, including JYNNEOSTM and ACAM2000®, are approved and used for pre- and post-prophylaxis in cases. About 100% of the cases in non-endemic regions were associated with isolates of IIb clade with a divergence of 0.0018-0.0035. Isolates from B.1 lineage were the most predominant followed by B.1.2 and B.1.10.
CONCLUSION
This study will add integrated knowledge of the epidemiology, clinical features, and transmission of mpox.
PubMed: 37808926
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1603 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Cancer is a significant global health problem. Radiotherapy is a treatment for many cancers and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer is a significant global health problem. Radiotherapy is a treatment for many cancers and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) developing months or years later. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based upon the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of problems following surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of HBOT for treating or preventing LRTI.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE, EMBASE, DORCTIHM and reference lists of articles in December 2015. We also searched for ongoing trials at clinicaltrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant trials using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and extracted the data from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials contributed to this review (753 participants). There was some moderate quality evidence that HBOT was more likely to achieve mucosal coverage with osteoradionecrosis (ORN) (risk ratio (RR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6, P value = 0.003, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; 246 participants, 3 studies). There was also moderate quality evidence of a significantly improved chance of wound breakdown without HBOT following operative treatment for ORN (RR 4.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 16.8, P value = 0.04, NNTB 4; 264 participants, 2 studies). From single studies there was a significantly increased chance of improvement or cure following HBOT for radiation proctitis (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.9, P value = 0.04, NNTB 5), and following both surgical flaps (RR 8.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 27.5, P value = 0.0002, NNTB 4) and hemimandibulectomy (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8, P value = 0.001, NNTB 5). There was also a significantly improved probability of healing irradiated tooth sockets following dental extraction (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7, P value = 0.009, NNTB 4).There was no evidence of benefit in clinical outcomes with established radiation injury to neural tissue, and no randomised data reported on the use of HBOT to treat other manifestations of LRTI. These trials did not report adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These small trials suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, anus and rectum, HBOT is associated with improved outcome. HBOT also appears to reduce the chance of ORN following tooth extraction in an irradiated field. There was no such evidence of any important clinical effect on neurological tissues. The application of HBOT to selected participants and tissues may be justified. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should be undertaken.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Neoplasms; Organs at Risk; Osteoradionecrosis; Radiation Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 27123955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005005.pub4