-
American Family Physician Oct 2013Acute otitis media is diagnosed in patients with acute onset, presence of middle ear effusion, physical evidence of middle ear inflammation, and symptoms such as pain,... (Review)
Review
Acute otitis media is diagnosed in patients with acute onset, presence of middle ear effusion, physical evidence of middle ear inflammation, and symptoms such as pain, irritability, or fever. Acute otitis media is usually a complication of eustachian tube dysfunction that occurs during a viral upper respiratory tract infection. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis are the most common organisms isolated from middle ear fluid. Management of acute otitis media should begin with adequate analgesia. Antibiotic therapy can be deferred in children two years or older with mild symptoms. High-dose amoxicillin (80 to 90 mg per kg per day) is the antibiotic of choice for treating acute otitis media in patients who are not allergic to penicillin. Children with persistent symptoms despite 48 to 72 hours of antibiotic therapy should be reexamined, and a second-line agent, such as amoxicillin/clavulanate, should be used if appropriate. Otitis media with effusion is defined as middle ear effusion in the absence of acute symptoms. Antibiotics, decongestants, or nasal steroids do not hasten the clearance of middle ear fluid and are not recommended. Children with evidence of anatomic damage, hearing loss, or language delay should be referred to an otolaryngologist.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Middle Ear Ventilation; Otitis Media; Otitis Media with Effusion; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 24134083
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2014Simple febrile seizures are generalised in onset and have a brief duration. The American Academy of Pediatrics defines this brief duration to be <15 minutes; whereas, in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Simple febrile seizures are generalised in onset and have a brief duration. The American Academy of Pediatrics defines this brief duration to be <15 minutes; whereas, in the UK, a maximum duration of 10 minutes is used. Simple febrile seizures do not occur more than once in 24 hours and resolve spontaneously. Complex febrile seizures are longer lasting, have focal symptoms (at onset or during the seizure), and can recur within 24 hours or within the same febrile illness. This review only deals with simple febrile seizures. About 2% to 5% of children in the US and Western Europe, and 6% to 9% of infants and children in Japan, will have experienced at least one febrile seizure by the age of 5 years. A very small number of children with simple febrile seizures may develop afebrile seizures, but simple febrile seizures are not associated with any permanent neurological deficits.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments given during episodes of fever in children (aged 6 months to 5 years) with one or more previous simple febrile seizures? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2013 (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 4 RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs 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: intermittent anticonvulsants (clobazam, diazepam, lorazepam), antipyretic drug treatments (paracetamol, ibuprofen), and conservative measures (watchful waiting, physical antipyretic measures [tepid sponging, removing clothes, cooling room, direct fanning of child]).
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Europe; Fever; Humans; Seizures, Febrile
PubMed: 24484859
DOI: No ID Found -
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2007Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a...
Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Epidemiologic Research Design; Observation; Publishing
PubMed: 18064739
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X -
PLoS Medicine Oct 2007Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a... (Review)
Review
Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Epidemiologic Research Design; Observation; Publishing
PubMed: 17941714
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Oct 2007Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a...
Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Epidemiologic Research Design; Observation; Publishing
PubMed: 17938396
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Sep 2023A Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP) is a variant of uterine ectopic pregnancy defined by full or partial implantation of the gestational sac in the scar of a previous... (Review)
Review
A Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP) is a variant of uterine ectopic pregnancy defined by full or partial implantation of the gestational sac in the scar of a previous cesarean section. The continuous increase of Cesarean Deliveries is causing a parallel increase in CSP and its complications. Considering its high morbidity, the most usual recommendation has been termination of pregnancy in the first trimester; however, several cases progress to viable births. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the outcome of CSP managed expectantly and understand whether sonographic signs could correlate to the outcomes. An online-based search of PubMed and Cochrane Library Databases was used to gather studies including women diagnosed with a CSP who were managed expectantly. The description of all cases was analysed by the authors in order to obtain information for each outcome. 47 studies of different types were retrieved, and the gestational outcome was available in 194 patients. Out of these, 39 patients (20,1%) had a miscarriage and 16 (8,3%) suffered foetal death. 50 patients (25,8%) had a term delivery and 81 (41,8%) patients had a preterm birth, out of which 27 (13,9%) delivered before 34 weeks of gestation. In 102 (52,6%) patients, a hysterectomy was performed. Placenta Accreta Spectrum (PAS) was a common disorder among CSP and was linked to a higher rate of complications such as foetal death, preterm birth, hysterectomy, haemorrhagic morbidity and surgical complications. Some of the analysed articles showed that sonographic signs with specific characteristics, such as type II and III CSP classification, Crossover Sign - 1, "In the niche" implantation and lower myometrial thickness could be related to worse outcomes of CSP. This article provides a good understanding of CSP as an entity that, although rare, presents with a high rate of relevant morbidity. It is also understood that pregnancies with confirmed PAS had an even higher rate of morbidity. Some sonographic signs were shown to predict the prognosis of these pregnancies and further investigation is necessary to validate one or more signs so they can be used for a more reliable counselling of women with CSP.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Cesarean Section; Premature Birth; Cicatrix; Watchful Waiting; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Pregnancy Outcome; Placenta Accreta; Fetal Death; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37421745
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.06.030 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2014Sentinel-node biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure for regional melanoma staging, was evaluated in a phase 3 trial. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Sentinel-node biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure for regional melanoma staging, was evaluated in a phase 3 trial.
METHODS
We evaluated outcomes in 2001 patients with primary cutaneous melanomas randomly assigned to undergo wide excision and nodal observation, with lymphadenectomy for nodal relapse (observation group), or wide excision and sentinel-node biopsy, with immediate lymphadenectomy for nodal metastases detected on biopsy (biopsy group). Results No significant treatment-related difference in the 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate was seen in the overall study population (20.8% with and 79.2% without nodal metastases). Mean (± SE) 10-year disease-free survival rates were significantly improved in the biopsy group, as compared with the observation group, among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas, defined as 1.20 to 3.50 mm (71.3 ± 1.8% vs. 64.7 ± 2.3%; hazard ratio for recurrence or metastasis, 0.76; P=0.01), and those with thick melanomas, defined as >3.50 mm (50.7 ± 4.0% vs. 40.5 ± 4.7%; hazard ratio, 0.70; P=0.03). Among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas, the 10-year melanoma-specific survival rate was 62.1 ± 4.8% among those with metastasis versus 85.1 ± 1.5% for those without metastasis (hazard ratio for death from melanoma, 3.09; P<0.001); among patients with thick melanomas, the respective rates were 48.0 ± 7.0% and 64.6 ± 4.9% (hazard ratio, 1.75; P=0.03). Biopsy-based management improved the 10-year rate of distant disease-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis, 0.62; P=0.02) and the 10-year rate of melanoma-specific survival (hazard ratio for death from melanoma, 0.56; P=0.006) for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas and nodal metastases. Accelerated-failure-time latent-subgroup analysis was performed to account for the fact that nodal status was initially known only in the biopsy group, and a significant treatment benefit persisted.
CONCLUSIONS
Biopsy-based staging of intermediate-thickness or thick primary melanomas provides important prognostic information and identifies patients with nodal metastases who may benefit from immediate complete lymphadenectomy. Biopsy-based management prolongs disease-free survival for all patients and prolongs distant disease-free survival and melanoma-specific survival for patients with nodal metastases from intermediate-thickness melanomas. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and the Australia and New Zealand Melanoma Trials Group; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00275496.).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Observation; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Skin Neoplasms; Survival Rate
PubMed: 24521106
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310460 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Abortion, Missed; Abortion, Spontaneous; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Vacuum Curettage; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 34061352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012602.pub2