Electromagnetic fields for treating osteoarthritis.

Role of Antimuscarinics Combined With Alpha-blockers in the Management of Urinary Storage Symptoms in Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Our systematic review shows that addition of iron to ESAs offers superior hematopoietic response, reduces the risk of RBC transfusions, and improves Hb levels, and appears to be well tolerated. None of the included RCTs reported overall survival. We found no evidence for a difference in quality of life with iron supplementation.

Due to the low- to very low-quality of the evidence for all treatment comparisons, outcomes, and follow-up periods investigated, it is uncertain if Back School is effective for chronic low back pain. Although the quality of the evidence was mostly very low, the results showed no difference or a trivial effect in favour of Back School. There are myriad potential variants on the Back School approach regarding the employment of different exercises and educational methods. While current evidence does not warrant their use, future variants on Back School may have different effects and will need to be studied in future RCTs and reviews.

available in English Español فارسی Français 한국어 Português ภาษาไทย 简体中文

Patients with CFS may generally benefit and feel less fatigued following exercise therapy, and no evidence suggests that exercise therapy may worsen outcomes. A positive effect with respect to sleep, physical function and self-perceived general health has been observed, but no conclusions for the outcomes of pain, quality of life, anxiety, depression, drop-out rate and health service resources were possible. The effectiveness of exercise therapy seems greater than that of pacing but similar to that of CBT. Randomised trials with low risk of bias are needed to investigate the type, duration and intensity of the most beneficial exercise intervention.

Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing parental substance misuse.

Fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome is a chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by musculoskeletal pain that often co-exists with sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue. Patients often report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Since there is no specific treatment that alters the pathogenesis of FM, drug therapy focuses on pain reduction and improvement of other bothersome symptoms. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) in the treatment of FM syndrome. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2010), EMBASE (1980 to November 2010) and the reference lists of reviewed articles. We selected all randomised, double-blind trials of MAOIs used for the treatment of FM pain in adult participants. Two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently onto a specially designed pro forma and a third review author cross-checked them. We included two studies of inconsistent risk of bias with a total of 230 patients diagnosed with FM. We evaluated two MAOIs: pirlindole and moclobemide. Pirlindole showed statistically significant results compared with placebo for several outcomes (pain, tender points and overall assessment by the patient and the physician), whereas moclobemide did not show statistically significant differences between groups. Pooled results of the two studies displayed a modest effect size in pain (mean difference (MD) -1.45 (121 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.71 to -0.20; number needed to treat (NNT) 2 (95% CI 1 to 12); I(2) = 59%)), implying a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and a small effect on tender points (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36 (121 patients; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.00; I(2) = 31%)). No effect was seen on global assessment by patient. Physical function and sleep disturbance were not measured. The most frequent adverse events were nausea and vomiting, with statistically significant differences between groups (risk ratio (RR) 7.82 (89 patients; 95% CI 1.02 to 59.97; NNT 7 (95% CI 4 to 33)). Data suggest that the effectiveness of MAOIs for the treatment of FM symptoms is limited. Although we observed a moderate effect size on pain and a small one on tender points, these results should be taken with caution as they are only based on two studies with a small number of patients and inconsistent risk of bias among them.

People with schizophrenia often experience long-term psychosocial disabilities and frequent relapse. Family plays a key role in caring for ill relatives, which in turn probably contributes to high levels of distress and burdens for the family. Family-based interventions have been developed and applied to family members and their relatives with schizophrenia to improve their outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was last updated in 2011, which has been split into this review, one on group- versus individual-based family interventions and one on family-based cognitive versus behavioural management interventions. To assess the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families compared with standard care. We searched the following electronic databases from inception until April 2023: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and accessible reviews for additional references. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families and reported at least one patient's and one family member's outcomes. In this update, we only investigated standard care as the comparator. We used standard Cochrane methods. The review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. We pooled data and estimated effects with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We judged the certainty of evidence using GRADEpro GDT. We divided the outcomes into short-term (≤ 1 month postintervention), medium-term (> 1 to 6 months postintervention), and long-term follow-up (> 6 months postintervention), if available. We identified 26 RCTs in this review, with 1985 people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders, and 2056 family members. Most family-based interventions were conducted on a weekly or biweekly basis, with duration ranging from five weeks to two years. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies given that we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias and several studies at high risk of detection, attrition or reporting bias. Low-certainty evidence indicated that family-based interventions may reduce patients' relapse at one month or less postintervention (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; 4 RCTs, 229 participants). We downgraded the evidence by two levels due to imprecision (small number of participants) and high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. Compared to standard care, family-based interventions probably reduce caregiver burden at one month or less postintervention (MD -5.84, 95% CI -6.77 to -4.92; 8 RCTs, 563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in more family members shifting from high to low expressed emotion (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.11 to 13.71; 2 RCTs, 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Family interventions may result in little to no difference in patients' death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.32; 6 RCTs, 304 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (≤ 1 month postintervention; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence) in comparison with standard care. Due to the heterogeneous measures and various follow-up periods, we were unable to provide pooled effect estimates for patients' compliance with medication and quality of life. We were very uncertain whether family interventions resulted in enhanced compliance with medication and improved quality of life for patients. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to high risk of bias across studies, inconsistency (different directions of effects across studies), and imprecision (small number of participants or CIs of most studies including the possibility of no effect). This review synthesised the latest evidence on family interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families. This review suggests that family interventions might improve patients' outcomes (e.g. relapse) and families' outcomes (e.g. caregiver burden and expressed emotion), with little to no difference in patients' hospital admission and adverse effects in terms of death. However, evidence on patients' compliance with medication and quality of life was very uncertain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low certainty. Future large and well-designed RCTs are needed to provide more reliable evaluation of effects of family interventions in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families.

Depression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychotherapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009. To determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression. Our secondary outcomes included drop-outs from exercise and control groups, costs, quality of life and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sports Discus and PsycINFO for eligible studies (to February 2010). We also searched www.controlled-trials.com in November 2010. The CCDAN Group searched its Specialised Register in June 2011 and potentially eligible trials were listed as 'awaiting assessment'. Randomised controlled trials in which exercise was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We excluded trials of postnatal depression. For this update, two review authors extracted data on outcomes at the end of the trial. We used these data to calculate effect sizes for each trial using Hedges' g method and a standardised mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effect, using a random-effects model. Where trials used a number of different tools to assess depression, we included the main outcome measure only in the meta-analysis. We systematically extracted data on adverse effects and two authors performed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. Thirty-two trials (1858 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 30 provided data for meta-analyses. Randomisation was adequately concealed in 11 studies, 12 used intention-to-treat analyses and nine used blinded outcome assessors. For the 28 trials (1101 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, at post-treatment analysis the pooled SMD was -0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.90 to -0.43), indicating a moderate clinical effect. However, when we included only the four trials (326 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD was -0.31 (95% CI -0.63 to 0.01) indicating a small effect in favour of exercise. There was no difference in drop-outs between exercise and control groups. Pooled data from the seven trials (373 participants) that provided long-term follow-up data also found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.09). Of the six trials comparing exercise with cognitive behavioural therapy (152 participants), the effect of exercise was not significantly different from that of cognitive therapy. There were insufficient data to determine risks, costs and quality of life.Five potentially eligible studies identified by the search of the CCDAN Specialised Register in 2011 are listed as 'awaiting classification' and will be included in the next update of this review. Exercise seems to improve depressive symptoms in people with a diagnosis of depression when compared with no treatment or control intervention, however since analyses of methodologically robust trials show a much smaller effect in favour of exercise, some caution is required in interpreting these results.

The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the use of neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) either alone, or together with conventional exercise training, might improve the condition of the peripheral muscles, increase exercise capacity and functional performance, reduce symptoms and improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To determine the effects of NMES, applied in isolation or concurrently with conventional exercise training to one or more peripheral muscles, on peripheral muscle force and endurance, muscle size, exercise capacity, functional performance, symptoms, HRQoL and adverse events in people with COPD. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, clinical trial registries and conference abstracts on 14 March 2018. Randomised controlled trials that recruited adults with COPD if they had compared outcomes between a group that received NMES and a group that received usual care or compared outcomes between a group that received NMES plus conventional exercise training and a group that participated in conventional exercise training alone. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We expressed continuous data as either the standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria of which 16 contributed data on 267 participants with COPD (mean age 56 to 76 years and 67% were men). Of these 16 studies, seven explored the effect of NMES versus usual care and nine explored the effect of NMES plus conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone. Six studies utilised sham stimulation in the control group. When applied in isolation, NMES produced an increase in peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.65; low-quality evidence) and quadriceps endurance (SMD 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.12; low-quality evidence) but the effect on thigh muscle size was unclear (MD 0.25, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.61; low-quality evidence). There were increases in six-minute walk distance (6MWD) (MD 39.26 m, 95% CI 16.31 to 62.22; low-quality evidence) and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity (MD 3.62 minutes, 95% CI 2.33 to 4.91). There was a reduction in the severity of leg fatigue on completion of an exercise test (MD -1.12 units, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.43). The increase in peak rate of oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was of borderline significance (MD 0.10 L/minute, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19).For NMES with conventional exercise training, there was an uncertain effect on peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence) and there were insufficient studies to undertake a meta-analysis on the effect on quadriceps endurance or thigh muscle size. However, there was an increase in 6MWD in favour of NMES combined with conventional exercise training (MD 25.87 m, 95% CI 1.06 to 50.69; very low-quality evidence). In people admitted to either in an intensive care unit or a respiratory high dependency centre, NMES combined with conventional exercise reduced the time taken for participants to first sit out of bed by 4.98 days (95% CI -8.55 to -1.41; very low-quality evidence), although the statistical heterogeneity for this analysis was high (I2 = 60%). For both types of studies (i.e. NMES versus usual care and NMES with conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone), there was no risk difference for mortality or minor adverse events in participants who received NMES. NMES, when applied in isolation, increased quadriceps force and endurance, 6MWD and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity, and reduced the severity of leg fatigue on completion of exercise testing. It may increase VO2peak, but the true effect on this outcome measure could be trivial. However, the quality of evidence was low or very low due to risk of bias within the studies, imprecision of the estimates, small number of studies and inconsistency between the studies. Although there were no additional gains in quadriceps force with NMES plus conventional exercise training, there was evidence of an increase in 6MWD. Further, in people who were the most debilitated, the addition of NMES may have accelerated the achievement of a functional milestone, that is, the first time someone sits out of bed.

Evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.

Relaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio-analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review.

Our results indicate that the evidence available for the use of antifibrinolytics in haematology patients is very limited. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics decrease bleeding. No trials reported the number of platelet transfusions per participant. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics increased the risk of thromboembolic events or other adverse events. There are three ongoing RCTs (1276 participants) due to be completed in 2017 and 2020.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures. The most common technical cause of reconstruction failure is graft malpositioning. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) aims to improve the accuracy of graft placement. Although posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury and reconstruction are far less common, PCL reconstruction has comparable difficulties relating to graft placement. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011. To assess the effects of computer-assisted reconstruction surgery versus conventional operating techniques for ACL or PCL injuries in adults. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (from 2010 to July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (from 2010 to July 2013), EMBASE (from 2010 to July 2013), CINAHL (from 2010 to July 2013), article references and prospective trial registers. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared CAS for ACL or PCL reconstruction versus conventional operating techniques not involving CAS. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The updated search resulted in the inclusion of one new study. This review now includes five RCTs with 366 participants. There were more female than male participants (70% were female); their ages ranged from 14 to 53 years. All trials involved ACL reconstructions performed by experienced surgeons.Assessing the studies' risk of bias was hampered by poor reporting of trial methods, and consequently several studies were judged to be 'unclear' for several types of bias. One trial presenting primary outcome data was at high risk of detection bias from lack of clinician blinding and attrition bias from an unaccounted loss to follow-up at two years.We found moderate quality evidence (three trials, 193 participants) of no clinically relevant difference between CAS and conventional surgery in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores (self-reported measure of knee function; scale of 0 to 100 where 100 was best function). Pooled data from two of these trials (120 participants) showed a small, but clinically irrelevant difference favouring CAS (MD 2.05, 95% CI -2.16 to 6.25). A third trial (73 participants) also found minimal difference in IKDC subjective scores (reported MD 0.2).We found low quality evidence (two trials, 120 participants) showing no difference between the two groups in Lysholm scores, also measured on a scale 0 to 100 where 100 is best function (MD 0.25, 95% CI -3.75 to 4.25). We found very low quality evidence (one trial, 40 participants) showing no difference between the two groups in Tegner scores. We found low quality evidence (three trials, 173 participants) showing the majority of participants in both groups were assessed as having normal or nearly normal knee function (86/87 with CAS versus 84/86 with no CAS; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06).Similarly, no differences were found for our secondary outcome measures of knee stability, loss in range of motion and tunnel placement. None of the trials reported on re-operation.No adverse post-surgical events were reported in two trials (133 participants); this outcome was not reported by the other three trials.CAS use was associated with longer operating times compared with conventional operating techniques: the mean difference in operating times reported in the studies ranged between 9 and 27 minutes. From the available evidence, we are unable to demonstrate or refute a favourable effect of CAS for cruciate ligament reconstructions of the knee compared with conventional reconstructions. However, the currently available evidence does not indicate that CAS in knee ligament reconstruction improves outcome. There is a need for improved reporting of future studies of this technology.