RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of ageing is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older adults to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. Two types of herpes zoster vaccines are currently available. One of them is the single-dose live attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV), which contains the same live attenuated virus used in the chickenpox vaccine, but it has over 14-fold more plaque-forming units of the attenuated virus per dose. The other is the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) which does not contain the live attenuated virus, but rather a small fraction of the virus that cannot replicate but can boost immunogenicity. The recommended schedule for the RZV is two doses two months apart. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010, and updated in 2012, 2016, and 2019. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October 2022), Embase (2010 to October 2022), CINAHL (1981 to October 2022), LILACS (1982 to October 2022), and three trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies involving healthy older adults (mean age 60 years or older). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were cumulative incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included two new studies involving 1736 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 26 studies involving 90,259 healthy older adults with a mean age of 63.7 years. Only three studies assessed the cumulative incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan and one study was conducted in the Republic of Korea. Sixteen studies used LZV. Ten studies tested an RZV. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, which indicates that the intervention probably works. Most data for the primary outcome (cumulative incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants. The cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years of follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-certainty evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6; moderate-certainty evidence) of mild to moderate intensity. These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or older. Two studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-certainty evidence), probably indicating a favourable profile of the intervention. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that their symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies. We did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. The conclusions did not change in relation to the previous version of the systematic review.

Assuntos

Varicela , Vacina contra Herpes Zoster , Herpes Zoster , Humanos , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Herpesvirus Humano 3 , Vacina contra Herpes Zoster/efeitos adversos , Varicela/induzido quimicamente , Varicela/tratamento farmacológico , Herpes Zoster/prevenção & controle , Herpes Zoster/induzido quimicamente , Herpes Zoster/tratamento farmacológico , Vacinas Atenuadas/efeitos adversos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I2 = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I2 = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I2 = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.

Assuntos

Fertilização in vitro , Hiperandrogenismo/tratamento farmacológico , Hiperinsulinismo/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Nascido Vivo/epidemiologia , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/complicações , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Aborto Espontâneo/prevenção & controle , Viés , Intervalos de Confiança , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Metformina/efeitos adversos , Síndrome de Hiperestimulação Ovariana/epidemiologia , Síndrome de Hiperestimulação Ovariana/prevenção & controle , Indução da Ovulação/métodos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Injeções de Esperma Intracitoplásmicas

RESUMO

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome, metformin treatment before or during assisted reproductive technology cycles increases clinical pregnancy rates and decreases the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. However, there is no conclusive evidence of a benefit in live birth rates.

Assuntos

Fertilidade/efeitos dos fármacos , Fertilização in vitro , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Infertilidade Feminina/terapia , Metformina/administração & dosagem , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/tratamento farmacológico , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Infertilidade Feminina/diagnóstico , Infertilidade Feminina/etiologia , Infertilidade Feminina/fisiopatologia , Nascido Vivo , Masculino , Metformina/efeitos adversos , Razão de Chances , Síndrome de Hiperestimulação Ovariana/prevenção & controle , Indução da Ovulação/efeitos adversos , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/complicações , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/diagnóstico , Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Fatores de Risco , Injeções de Esperma Intracitoplásmicas , Resultado do Tratamento

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.

Assuntos

Transtornos de Deglutição/complicações , Nutrição Enteral/métodos , Gastrostomia/métodos , Desnutrição/terapia , Adulto , Nutrição Enteral/mortalidade , Gastrostomia/efeitos adversos , Gastrostomia/mortalidade , Humanos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/métodos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/mortalidade , Desnutrição/etiologia , Pneumonia/etiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Falha de Tratamento

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal, ligamentous and osseous groin injuries are common in athletes and may result in a delay of several months to resume sports. Even then, this may not be at the former level of sport activity. The treatment of exercise-related groin pain is mainly conservative (non-surgical), using interventions such as exercises, electrotherapy, manual therapy and steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1948 to November week 3 2011); EMBASE (1980 to Week 49 2011); CINAHL (1982 to December 2011); LILACS (1982 to December 2011); PEDro (1929 to December 2011), SPORTDiscus (1985 to December 2011), OTseeker (to December 2011), reference lists of papers and conference proceedings (2000 to 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for treating exercise-related musculotendinous, ligamentous and osseous groin pain were included. Studies comparing conservative with surgical treatments were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments. There was no pooling of data. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies, involving a total of 122 participants who had experienced adductor-related groin pain for at least two months, were included in this review. All but one of the participants were male athletes aged between 18 and 50 years old. Both studies were assessed as 'high risk of bias' for at least one source of bias domain. The 'successful treatment' outcome reported in both studies was based primarily on pain measures.One study, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, found a significant difference favouring exercise therapy (strengthening with an emphasis on the adductor and abdominal muscles and training muscular co-ordination) compared with 'conventional' physiotherapy (stretching exercises, electrotherapy and transverse friction massage) in successful treatment at 16-week follow-up (25/34 (74%) versus 10/34 (29%); risk ratio (RR) 2.50, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.37, P = 0.001). Similarly, of those followed-up significantly more athletes treated by exercise therapy returned to sport at the same level (23/29 (79%) versus 4/30 (13%); RR 5.95, 95% CI 2.34 to 15.09, P = 0.0002). Although still favouring the exercise group, the differences between the two groups in patients' subjective global assessment at 16 weeks and successful treatment at 8 to 12 years follow-up were not statistically significant.The second study (54 participants) found no significant differences at 16-week follow-up between a multi-modal treatment (heat, manual therapy and stretching) and exercise therapy (the same intervention as in the above study) for the outcomes of successful treatment (14/26 (54%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.66, P = 0.96) and return to full sports participation (13/26 (50%) versus 12/22 (55%); RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.58, P = 0.75). Those returning to full sports participation returned on average 4.5 weeks earlier after receiving multi-modal therapy (mean difference -4.50 weeks, 95% CI -8.60 to -0.40, P = 0.03) than those in the exercise therapy group. This study reported that there were no complications or side effects found in either intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from the randomized trials is insufficient to advise on any specific conservative modality for treating exercise-related groin pain. While still low quality, the best evidence is from one trial which found that exercise therapy (strengthening of hip and abdominal muscles) in athletes improves short-term outcomes (based primarily on pain measures) and return to sports compared with physiotherapy consisting of passive modalities. Given the low quality of the available evidence from both included trials, further randomized trials are necessary to reinforce their findings.

Assuntos

Traumatismos em Atletas/terapia , Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Exercício Físico , Dor Musculoesquelética/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Feminino , Virilha , Humanos , Ligamentos , Masculino , Massagem , Exercícios de Alongamento Muscular , Dor Musculoesquelética/etiologia , Medição da Dor , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock are highly variable throughout different regions or services and can be upwards of 50%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy, thus reducing mortality; however, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment by using a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by reviewing the patient's microbial culture results and then making changes to the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock caused by any micro-organism. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); MEDLINE via PubMed (from inception to October 2012); EMBASE (from inception to October 2012); LILACS (from inception to October 2012); Current Controlled Trials; bibliographic references of relevant studies; and specialists in the area. We applied no language restriction. We had previously searched the databases to August 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing de-escalation (based on culture results) versus standard therapy for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality (at 28 days, hospital discharge or at the end of the follow-up period). Studies including patients initially treated with an empirical but not adequate antimicrobial therapy were not considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors planned to independently select and extract data and to evaluate methodological quality of all studies. We planned to use relative risk (risk ratio) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use the random-effects statistical model when the estimate effects of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Our search strategy retrieved 493 studies. No published RCTs testing de-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic were included in this review. We found one ongoing RCT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no adequate, direct evidence as to whether de-escalation of antimicrobial agents is effective and safe for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. This uncertainty warrants further research via RCTs and the authors are awaiting the results of an ongoing RCT testing the de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy for severe sepsis.

Assuntos

Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Sepse/tratamento farmacológico , Suspensão de Tratamento , Adulto , Humanos , Choque Séptico/tratamento farmacológico

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Dyslexia (or developmental dyslexia or specific reading disability) is a specific learning disorder that has a neurobiological origin. It is marked by difficulties with accurate or fluent recognition of words and poor spelling in people who have average or above average intelligence and these difficulties cannot be attributed to another cause, for example, poor vision, hearing difficulty, or lack of socio-environmental opportunities, motivation, or adequate instruction. Studies have correlated reading skills with musical abilities. It has been hypothesized that musical training may be able to remediate timing difficulties, improve pitch perception, or increase spatial awareness, thereby having a positive effect on skills needed in the development of language and literacy. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of music education on reading skills (that is, oral reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency, phonological awareness, and spelling) in children and adolescents with dyslexia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases in June 2012: CENTRAL (2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1948 to May Week 4 2012 ), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 22), CINAHL (searched 7 June 2012), LILACS (searched 7 June 2012), PsycINFO (1887 to May Week 5 2012), ERIC (searched 7 June 2012), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1970 to 6 June 2012), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences and Humanities (1990 to 6 June 2012), and WorldCat (searched 7 June 2012). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of studies. We did not apply any date or language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials. We looked for studies that included at least one of our primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were related to the main domain of the reading: oral reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency, phonological awareness, and spelling, measured through validated instruments. The secondary outcomes were self esteem and academic achievement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (HCM and RBA) independently screened all titles and abstracts identified through the search strategy to determine their eligibility. For our analysis we had planned to use mean difference for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals, and to use the random-effects statistical model when the effect estimates of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 851 references via the search strategy. No randomized controlled trials testing music education for the improvement of reading skills in children with dyslexia could be included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available from randomized controlled trials on which to base a judgment about the effectiveness of music education for the improvement of reading skills in children and adolescents with dyslexia. This uncertainty warrants further research via randomized controlled trials, involving a interdisciplinary team: musicians, hearing and speech therapists, psychologists, and physicians.

Assuntos

Dislexia/reabilitação , Musicoterapia/educação , Música , Leitura , Adolescente , Criança , Compreensão , Humanos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a regional muscular pain syndrome characterised by the presence of trigger points, which are painful points in one or more muscles. The pain can be felt at the site where the trigger point is located or it can be felt away from that place when the muscle is pressed (referred pain). Botulinum toxin is a protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum and is a potent neurotoxin that eventually inhibits muscle contractions. It is capable of selectively weakening painful muscles and interrupting the pain cycle. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of botulinum toxin in treating MPS, excluding MPS in neck and head muscles. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy was composed of terms for myofascial pain and botulinum toxin. We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (PaPaS) Review Group's Specialised Register until December 2011, CENTRAL (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 4), PUBMED (from 1966 to 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to 2011) and LILACS (from 1982 to 2011). There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving botulinum toxin for treating participants with MPS. We excluded studies with MPS of the neck and head from this review, as they have already been assessed in existing systematic reviews. We considered a diagnosis of MPS to be based on the identification of trigger points in the taut band through palpation of sensitive nodules, local twitch response and specific patterns of referred pain associated with each trigger point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened identified studies, extracted data, assessed trial quality and analysed results using the Cochrane PaPaS Review Group criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 233 participants, comparing botulinum toxin A (BTXA) with placebo, met the inclusion criteria. In one study with 145 participants, a significant improvement rate of pain intensity scores, as shown by the mean difference (MD) of -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.20; P value < 0.00001) and duration of daily pain (MD -1.11; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.85; P value < 0.00001), was demonstrated when comparing BTXA with placebo. The three other studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between BTXA and placebo in pain intensity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of botulinum toxin in the treatment of MPS based on data from four studies with a total of 233 participants, which we considered adequate to be included in this review. Meta-analyses were not possible due to the heterogeneity between studies. We suggest that in future studies the same methodology to assess pain, a standardised dose of treatment, follow-up of at least four months (to observe the maximum/minimum curve of the drug effect) and appropriate data presentation should be used. More high-quality RCTs of botulinum toxin for treating MPS need to be conducted before firm conclusions on its effectiveness and safety can be drawn.

Assuntos

Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Síndromes da Dor Miofascial/tratamento farmacológico , Fármacos Neuromusculares/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Pontos-Gatilho

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances, by updating our previous Cochrane review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to September 2011, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled studies. We did not identify new eligible studies published after our previous review literature search date (August 2009). Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.

Assuntos

Transtornos de Deglutição/complicações , Nutrição Enteral/métodos , Gastrostomia/métodos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/métodos , Desnutrição/terapia , Adulto , Nutrição Enteral/mortalidade , Gastrostomia/efeitos adversos , Gastrostomia/mortalidade , Humanos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Intubação Gastrointestinal/mortalidade , Desnutrição/etiologia , Pneumonia/etiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Falha de Tratamento

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Congenital choanal atresia is a rare abnormality characterized by unilateral or bilateral lack of patency of the posterior end of the nasal cavity. With an incidence of 1:5000 to 1:8000 births, it is twice as prevalent in females as it is in males. Surgical procedures aim to provide adequate functional choanal patency and a low rate of restenosis, avoid harm to any structure in development, enable shorter surgery and hospitalization times, and minimize morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the available surgical techniques for the treatment of congenital choanal atresia in patients with unilateral and bilateral atresia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 31 January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include parallel randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials testing surgical approaches for the treatment of congenital atresia (irrespective of gender and age) that evaluated normal/adequate respiratory function (self reported or preserved nasal airway) and restenosis as the main primary outcomes. We did not consider reoperation and non-congenital atresia (e.g. traumatic, iatrogenic atresias) for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of the identified articles to determine potential relevance. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we planned to calculate risk ratios (relative risks; RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), respectively. We planned to use the random-effects model since we were expecting substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials were identified. From the 120 reports retrieved using our search strategy, 46 primary studies had the potential to be included since they had tested surgical approaches for choanal atresia. However, we excluded all of them during the final selection process because their study designs did not meet our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no definitive evidence, based on randomized controlled trials, to demonstrate the potential advantages and disadvantages of any specific surgical technique for patients with choanal atresia. Specialists should unify their efforts in multicenter randomized controlled trials that test the effectiveness and safety of different surgical techniques in patients with choanal atresia.

Assuntos

Atresia das Cóanas/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino