-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on:• patient outcomes;• processes of care; and• utilisation, including volume and cost.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to 'Studies awaiting classification'.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle-income country, and all other studies in high-income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow-up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse-doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied.Study findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low- or moderate-certainty evidence):• Nurse-led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor-led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse-led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low-certainty evidence).• Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse-led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate-certainty evidence).• Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low-certainty evidence).We are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.The effect of nurse-led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low-certainty evidence).We are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse-led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.
Topics: Family Practice; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Nurse Practitioners; Nursing Staff; Personnel Delegation; Practice Patterns, Nurses'; Primary Health Care; Quality of Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30011347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001271.pub3 -
Cardiovascular & Hematological Agents... 2019Artificial blood is an innovative concept of transfusion medicine where specifically designed compounds perform the task of transport and delivery of oxygen in the body...
Artificial blood is an innovative concept of transfusion medicine where specifically designed compounds perform the task of transport and delivery of oxygen in the body to replace this function of allogenic human blood transfusion. Several molecules have been developed in the past few decades to achieve this objective and continous refinements are being continuously made in the quest of the ideal blood substitute. Currently, available technology manufactures artificial blood from haemoglobin obtained from outdated human/bovine blood (Haemoglobin Based Oxygen Carriers) or utilizing Perfluorocarbons. These synthetic blood substitutes are advantageous in that they do not require compatibility testing, are free from blood borne infections, have prolonged shelf life and do not require refrigeration. Artificial blood is projected to have a significant impact on the development of medical care in the future. It can complement the current blood products for transfusion and create a stable supply of safe and effective products. It is likely to reduce the requirements of blood transfusions drastically especially in settings of trauma and surgery thereby reducing the reliance on banked donated blood.
Topics: Anemia; Animals; Blood Substitutes; Blood Transfusion; Fluorocarbons; Hemoglobins; Humans; Resuscitation
PubMed: 31204626
DOI: 10.2174/1871525717666190617120045 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 30073665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (17 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to October 2012, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to October 2012, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to October 2012), PubMed (October 2012), www.clinical trials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com. We also searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. We excluded cross-over trials and trials involving pregnant women and neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. We analysed trials with a 'double-intervention', such as those comparing colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, separately. We stratified the analysis according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 78 eligible trials; 70 of these presented mortality data.COLLOIDS COMPARED TO CRYSTALLOIDS: Albumin or plasma protein fraction - 24 trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 9920 patients. The pooled risk ratio (RR) from these trials was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10). When we excluded the trial with poor-quality allocation concealment, pooled RR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09). Hydroxyethyl starch - 25 trials compared hydroxyethyl starch with crystalloids and included 9147 patients. The pooled RR was 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19). Modified gelatin - 11 trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid and included 506 patients. The pooled RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.72). (When the trials by Boldt et al were removed from the three preceding analyses, the results were unchanged.) Dextran - nine trials compared dextran with a crystalloid and included 834 patients. The pooled RR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.65). COLLOIDS IN HYPERTONIC CRYSTALLOID COMPARED TO ISOTONIC CRYSTALLOID: Nine trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1985 randomised participants. Pooled RR for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.06).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death, compared to resuscitation with crystalloids, in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery. Furthermore, the use of hydroxyethyl starch might increase mortality. As colloids are not associated with an improvement in survival and are considerably more expensive than crystalloids, it is hard to see how their continued use in clinical practice can be justified.
Topics: Albumins; Blood Proteins; Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Dextrans; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Resuscitation
PubMed: 23450531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub6 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Mar 2021Systematic reviews have established the short-term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Medium- and long-term clinical benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures in intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical studies.
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews have established the short-term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in intrabony defects. However, a hierarchy of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures regarding the medium- to long-term results of treatment does not exist.
AIM
To systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question "In periodontitis patients with intrabony defects, what are the medium- and long-term benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared with open flap debridement (OFD), in terms of clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters and tooth retention?".
MATERIAL & METHODS
Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), reporting on clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures ≥3 years post-operatively, were systematically assessed. Clinical [residual probing pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, tooth loss] and radiographic [residual defect depth (RDD), bone gain (RBL)] outcome parameters were assessed. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed where possible.
RESULTS
Thirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood-derived growth factor constructs or with OFD only, were included. NMA based on 21 RCTs showed that OFD was clearly the least efficacious treatment; regenerative/reconstructive treatments resulted in significantly shallower residual PD in 4 out 8 comparisons [range of mean differences (MD): -2.37 to -0.60 mm] and larger CAL gain in 6 out 8 comparisons (range of MD: 1.26 to 2.66 mm), and combination approaches appeared as the most efficacious. Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse. There were only sparse radiographic data not allowing any relevant comparisons.
CONCLUSION
Periodontal regenerative/reconstructive therapy in intrabony defects results, in general, in shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain compared with OFD, translating in high rates of tooth survival, on a medium (3-5 years) to long-term basis (5-20 years). Combination approaches appear, in general, more efficacious compared to monotherapy in terms of shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain. A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Transplantation; Dental Enamel Proteins; Follow-Up Studies; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33289191
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13409 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Elevated blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of preventable deaths globally. Diets high in sodium (predominantly sodium chloride) and low in potassium... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Elevated blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of preventable deaths globally. Diets high in sodium (predominantly sodium chloride) and low in potassium contribute to elevated blood pressure. The WHO recommends decreasing mean population sodium intake through effective and safe strategies to reduce hypertension and its associated disease burden. Incorporating low-sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) into population strategies has increasingly been recognised as a possible sodium reduction strategy, particularly in populations where a substantial proportion of overall sodium intake comes from discretionary salt. The LSSS contain lower concentrations of sodium through its displacement with potassium predominantly, or other minerals. Potassium-containing LSSS can potentially simultaneously decrease sodium intake and increase potassium intake. Benefits of LSSS include their potential blood pressure-lowering effect and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns about potential adverse effects of LSSS, such as hyperkalaemia, particularly in people at risk, for example, those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or taking medications that impair potassium excretion.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of replacing salt with LSSS to reduce sodium intake on cardiovascular health in adults, pregnant women and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 18 August 2021, and screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. No language or publication restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective analytical cohort studies in participants of any age in the general population, from any setting in any country. This included participants with non-communicable diseases and those taking medications that impair potassium excretion. Studies had to compare any type and method of implementation of LSSS with the use of regular salt, or no active intervention, at an individual, household or community level, for any duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility; and extracted data, assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We stratified analyses by adults, children (≤ 18 years) and pregnant women. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in diastolic and systolic blood pressure (DBP and SBP), hypertension and blood pressure control; cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality were additionally assessed as primary effectiveness outcomes in adults. Primary safety outcomes were change in blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 RCTs, 16 randomising individual participants and 10 randomising clusters (families, households or villages). A total of 34,961 adult participants and 92 children were randomised to either LSSS or regular salt, with the smallest trial including 10 and the largest including 20,995 participants. No studies in pregnant women were identified. Studies included only participants with hypertension (11/26), normal blood pressure (1/26), pre-hypertension (1/26), or participants with and without hypertension (11/26). This was unknown in the remaining studies. The largest study included only participants with an elevated risk of stroke at baseline. Seven studies included adult participants possibly at risk of hyperkalaemia. All 26 trials specifically excluded participants in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful. The majority of trials were conducted in rural or suburban settings, with more than half (14/26) conducted in low- and middle-income countries. The proportion of sodium chloride replacement in the LSSS interventions varied from approximately 3% to 77%. The majority of trials (23/26) investigated LSSS where potassium-containing salts were used to substitute sodium. In most trials, LSSS implementation was discretionary (22/26). Trial duration ranged from two months to nearly five years. We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in six trials and unclear in 12 trials. LSSS compared to regular salt in adults: LSSS compared to regular salt probably reduce DBP on average (mean difference (MD) -2.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.50 to -1.36; 20,830 participants, 19 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and SBP (MD -4.76 mmHg, 95% CI -6.01 to -3.50; 21,414 participants, 20 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly. On average, LSSS probably reduce non-fatal stroke (absolute effect (AE) 20 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -40 to 2; 21,250 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal acute coronary syndrome (AE 150 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -250 to -30; 20,995 participants, 1 RCT, moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (AE 180 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -310 to 0; 23,200 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly, and probably increase blood potassium slightly (MD 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.18; 784 participants, 6 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), compared to regular salt. LSSS may result in little to no difference, on average, in hypertension (AE 17 fewer/1000, 95% CI -58 to 17; 2566 participants, 1 RCT, low-certainty evidence) and hyperkalaemia (AE 4 more/100,000, 95% CI -47 to 121; 22,849 participants, 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) compared to regular salt. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure control, various cardiovascular events, stroke mortality, hypokalaemia, and other adverse events (very-low certainty evidence). LSSS compared to regular salt in children: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on DBP and SBP in children. We found no evidence about the effects of LSSS on hypertension, blood pressure control, blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to regular salt, LSSS probably reduce blood pressure, non-fatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality slightly in adults. However, LSSS also probably increase blood potassium slightly in adults. These small effects may be important when LSSS interventions are implemented at the population level. Evidence is limited for adults without elevated blood pressure, and there is a lack of evidence in pregnant women and people in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful, limiting conclusions on the safety of LSSS in the general population. We also cannot draw firm conclusions about effects of non-discretionary LSSS implementations. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure in children.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Hypertension; Hypokalemia; Potassium; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium; Sodium Chloride; Sodium Chloride, Dietary; Stroke
PubMed: 35944931
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015207 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2020Bone augmentation techniques have increasingly been indicated for re-creating adequate bone height and volume suitable for dental implant sites. This is particularly...
Bone augmentation techniques have increasingly been indicated for re-creating adequate bone height and volume suitable for dental implant sites. This is particularly applicable in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla where sinus perforation (ruptured Schneiderian membrane) is a very common complication and sinus floor elevation or lift is frequently considered a standard procedure. The augmentation of the maxillary sinus can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials. Herein, numerous biomaterials and bone substitutes have been proposed, primarily to sustain the lifted space. In addition, cytokines and growth factors have been used to stimulate angiogenesis, enhance bone formation as well as improve healing and recovery period, either as the sole filling material or in combination with bone substitute materials. Within such, is the family of autologous blood extracts, so-called platelet concentrates, which are simply the "product" resulting from the simple centrifugation of collected whole blood samples of the patient, immediately pre-surgery. Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), a sub-family of platelet concentrates, is a three-dimensional (3-D) autogenous biomaterial obtained, without including anti-coagulants, bovine thrombin, additives, or any gelifying agents during the centrifugation process. Today, it is safe to say that, in implant dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery, PRFs (particularly, the pure platelet-rich fibrin or P-PRF and leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin or L-PRF sub-classes) are receiving the most attention, essentially due to their simplicity, rapidness, user-friendliness/malleability, and cost-effectiveness. Whether used as the sole "bioactive" filling/additive material or combined with bone substitutes, the revolutionary second-generation PRFs have been very often associated with clinical results. Hence, this review aims to provide a 10-years update on the clinical effectiveness of L-PRF when applied/used as the "sole" biomaterial in maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. An electronic search using specific keywords for L-PRF and maxillary sinus augmentation was conducted in three main databases (PubMed-MEDLINE database, Google Scholar and Cochrane library) for the period between January 2009-February 2020. The quest yielded a total of 468 articles. Based on the pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria, only seven articles were deemed eligible and included in the analysis. Surprisingly, of the 5 studies which used de-proteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in combination with L-PRF, 60% acclaimed no significant effects and only 40% declared positive effects. Of the two articles which had used allogenous bone graft, 50% declared no significant effects and 50% acclaimed positive effects. Only one study had used L-PRF as the sole grafting material and reported a positive effect. Likewise, positive effects were reported in one other study using L-PRF in combination with a collagen membrane. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, this review is limited by the inability to perform a proper systematic meta-analysis. Overall, most of the published studies reported results of L-PRF application as a grafting material (sole or adjuvant) in maxillary sinus augmentation and dental implant restorative procedures. Yet, distinct technical processing for L-PRF preparation was noted. Hence, studies should be approached with caution. Here in, in sinus lift and treatment of Schneider membrane, the formation of mature bone remains inconclusive. More studies are eagerly awaited in order to prove the beneficial or detrimental effects of PRFs, in general and L-PRFs, in specific; especially in their tissue regenerative potential pertaining to the promotion of angiogenesis, enhancing of cell proliferation, stimulation of cell migration and autocrine/paracrine secretion of growth factors, as well as to reach a consensus or a conclusive and distinct determination of the effect of leukocytes (and their inclusion) on inflammation or edema and pain; a call for standardization in PRFs and L-PRFs composition reporting and regimenting the preparation protocols.
PubMed: 33330603
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.537138 -
PloS One 2022Excessive salt intake results in hypertension (HTN), which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Excessive salt intake results in hypertension (HTN), which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). This review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of salt reduction interventions on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).
METHODS
Studies were identified via systematic searches of the databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. All the studies examining the effectiveness of salt reduction interventions on blood pressure (BP), regardless of age, sex, and HTN status, were included in the systematic review, and eligible studies were used in the meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied for quantitative data synthesis.
RESULTS
A total of 50 trials extracted from 40 articles (21 trials on nutrition education,10 on self-help materials,17 on salt substitutes, and 2 on food reformulation) were included in the systematic review. The pooled results of 44 eligible trials showed that salt substitution and nutrition education interventions had significant effects on both SBP (WMD: -7.44 mmHg, P<0.001 and WMD: -2.75 mmHg, P<0.001, respectively), and DBP (WMD: -3.77 mmHg, P<0.001 and WMD: -2.11 mmHg, P<0.001, respectively). Furthermore, using self-help materials led to a significant reduction in SBP among subjects aged 25-60 years (WMD: -2.60 mmHg, P = 0.008); it also decreased both SBP and DBP among those who were hypertensive (WMD: -3.87 mmHg, P = 0.003 and WMD: -2.91 mmHg, P<0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Our results supported that salt substitution and nutrition education are effective nutrition strategies to lower BP. It seems that multi-component approaches could be more effective in improving BP status. However, further trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Sodium Chloride, Dietary; Blood Pressure; Health Education
PubMed: 36477548
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277929 -
Venous Blood Derivatives as FBS-Substitutes for Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Systematic Scoping Review.Brazilian Dental Journal 2017Although the biological properties of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are well-characterized in vitro, MSC clinical application is still far away to be achieved, mainly due... (Review)
Review
Although the biological properties of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are well-characterized in vitro, MSC clinical application is still far away to be achieved, mainly due to the need of xenogeneic substances for cell expansion, such as fetal bovine serum (FBS). FBS presents risks regarding pathogens transmissions and internalization of animal's proteins, which can unleash antigenic responses in patients after MSC implantation. A wide range of venous blood derivatives (VBD) has been reported as FBS substitutes showing promising results. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic scoping review to analyze whether VBD are effective FBS substitutes for MSC ex vivo expansion. The search was performed in SciVerse ScopusTM, PubMed, Web of ScienceTM, BIREME, Cochrane library up to January 2016. The keywords were selected using MeSH and entry terms. Two independent reviewers scrutinized the records obtained considering specific inclusion criteria. The included studies were evaluated in accordance with a modified Arksey and O' Malley's framework. From 184 found studies, 90 were included. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSC) were presented in most of these studies. Overall, VBD allowed for either, maintenance of MCS's fibroblast-like morphology, high proliferation, high colony-formation ability and maintenance of multipotency. Besides. MSC expanded in VBD supplements presented higher mitogen activity than FBS. VBD seems to be excellent xeno-free serum for ex vivo expansion of mesenchymal stem cells. However, an accentuated heterogeneity was observed between the carried out protocols for VBD isolation did not allowing for direct comparisons between the included studies.
Topics: Animals; Blood Substitutes; Cattle; Culture Media; Humans; Mesenchymal Stem Cells; Veins
PubMed: 29211118
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201701646 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Phenylketonuria is an inherited metabolic disorder characterised by an absence or deficiency of the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase. The aim of treatment is to lower... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Phenylketonuria is an inherited metabolic disorder characterised by an absence or deficiency of the enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase. The aim of treatment is to lower blood phenylalanine concentrations to the recommended therapeutic range to prevent developmental delay and support normal growth. Current treatment consists of a low-phenylalanine diet in combination with a protein substitute which is free from or low in phenylalanine. Guidance regarding the use, dosage, and distribution of dosage of the protein substitute over a 24-hour period is unclear, and there is variation in recommendations among treatment centres. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and adverse effects of protein substitute, its dosage, and distribution of dose in children and adults with phenylketonuria who are adhering to a low-phenylalanine diet.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which consists of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also contacted manufacturers of the phenylalanine-free and low-phenylalanine protein substitutes for any data from published and unpublished randomised controlled trials.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 03 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing: any dose of protein substitute with no protein substitute; an alternative dosage; or the same dose, but given as frequent small doses throughout the day compared with the same total daily dose given as larger boluses less frequently.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials (69 participants) are included in this review. One trial investigated the use of protein substitute in 16 participants, while a further two trials investigated the dosage of protein substitute in a total of 53 participants. Due to issues with data presentation in each trial, described in full in the review, formal statistical analyses of the data were impossible. Investigators will be contacted for further information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions could be drawn about the short- or long-term use of protein substitute in phenylketonuria due to the lack of adequate or analysable trial data. Additional data and randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate the use of protein substitute in phenylketonuria. Until further evidence is available, current practice in the use of protein substitute should continue to be monitored with care.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dietary Proteins; Food, Formulated; Humans; Phenylalanine; Phenylalanine Hydroxylase; Phenylketonurias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25723866
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004731.pub4