Pain relief in hysterosalpingography.

There was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.

Stable angina pectoris is a chronic medical condition with significant impact on mortality and quality of life; it can be macrovascular or microvascular in origin. Ranolazine is a second-line anti-anginal drug approved for use in people with stable angina. However, the effects of ranolazine for people with angina are considered to be modest, with uncertain clinical relevance. To assess the effects of ranolazine on cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, quality of life, acute myocardial infarction incidence, angina episodes frequency and adverse events incidence in stable angina patients, used either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, and compared to placebo or any other anti-anginal agent. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science in February 2016, as well as regional databases and trials registers. We also screened reference lists. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the effects of ranolazine versus placebo or other anti-anginals in people with stable angina pectoris were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Estimates of treatment effects were calculated using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Where we found statistically significant heterogeneity (Chi² P < 0.10), we used a random-effects model for pooling estimates. Meta-analysis was not performed where we found considerable heterogeneity (I² ≥ 75%). We used GRADE criteria to assess evidence quality and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create 'Summary of findings' tables. We included 17 RCTs (9975 participants, mean age 63.3 years). We found very limited (or no) data to inform most planned comparisons. Summary data were used to inform comparison of ranolazine versus placebo. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear.For add-on ranolazine compared to placebo, no data were available to estimate cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We found uncertainty about the effect of ranolazine on: all-cause mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.71; 3 studies, 2053 participants; low quality evidence); quality of life (any dose, SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52; 4 studies, 1563 participants; I² = 73%; moderate quality evidence); and incidence of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1000mg twice daily, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07; 2 studies, 1509 participants; low quality evidence). Add-on ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily reduced the fervour of angina episodes (MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.35; 3 studies, 2004 participants; I² = 39%; moderate quality evidence) but increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; 3 studies, 2053 participants; moderate quality evidence).For ranolazine as monotherapy compared to placebo, we found uncertain effect on cardiovascular mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.88; 1 study, 2604 participants; low quality evidence). No data were available to estimate non-cardiovascular mortality. We also found an uncertain effect on all-cause mortality for ranolazine (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.25; 3 studies, 6249 participants; low quality evidence), quality of life (1000 mg twice daily, MD 0.28, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.13; 3 studies, 2254 participants; moderate quality evidence), non-fatal AMI incidence (any dose, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12; 3 studies, 2983 participants; I² = 50%; low quality evidence), and frequency of angina episodes (any dose, MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.01; 2 studies, 402 participants; low quality evidence). We found an increased risk for non-serious adverse events associated with ranolazine (any dose, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; 3 studies, 947 participants; very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence showing that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as monotherapy had increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo. We found low quality evidence indicating that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on the risk of cardiovascular death (for ranolazine given as monotherapy), all-cause death and non-fatal AMI, and the frequency of angina episodes (for ranolazine given as monotherapy) compared to those given placebo. Moderate quality evidence indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on quality of life compared with people who received placebo. Moderate quality evidence also indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as add-on therapy had fewer angina episodes but increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo.

Three classes of inhaler medications are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). When two classes of medications are required, LAMA plus LABA (LAMA+LABA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA+ICS) are often selected because these combinations can be administered via a single medication device. The previous Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance recommended LABA+ICS as the first-line treatment for managing stable COPD in high-risk people of categories C and D. However, the updated GOLD 2017 guidance recommends LAMA+LABA over LABA+ICS. To compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS for treatment of people with stable COPD. We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (2 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (4 June 2016), and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (4 June 2016), followed by a handsearch (5 June 2016). Two review authors screened and scrutinised the selected articles. We included individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials, and cross-over trials comparing LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS for stable COPD. The minimum accepted trial duration was one month and trials should have been conducted in an outpatient setting. Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5. Exacerbations were measured by counting the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbation. We included 11 studies comprising 9839 participants in our quantitative analysis. Most studies included people with moderate to severe COPD, without recent exacerbations. One pharmaceutical sponsored trial that included only people with recent exacerbations was the largest study and accounted for 37% of participants. All but one study were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, thus we rated them as having a high risk of 'other bias'. The unsponsored study was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and possible selective reporting.Five studies recruited GOLD Category B participants, one study recruited Category D participants, two studies recruited Category A/B participants, and three studies recruited participants regardless of category. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 52 weeks.Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled primary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: exacerbations, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.96, P = 0.01, I2 = 17%, low quality evidence); serious adverse events (SAE), OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.05, P = 0.18, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score change from the baseline, MD -1.22 (95% CI -2.52 to 0.07, P = 0.06, I2 = 71%, low quality evidence); and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) change from the baseline, MD 0.08 L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.09, P < 0.0001, I2 = 50%, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled secondary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: pneumonia, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79, P = 0.0006, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); all-cause death, OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.67, P = 0.88, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); and SGRQ total score change from the baseline of 4 points or greater (the minimal clinically important difference for the SGRQ is 4 points), OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.44, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence). For the treatment of COPD, LAMA+LABA has fewer exacerbations, a larger improvement of FEV1, a lower risk of pneumonia, and more frequent improvement in quality of life as measured by an increase over 4 units or more of the SGRQ. These data were supported by low or moderate quality evidence generated from mainly participants with moderate to severe COPD in heterogeneous trials with an observation period of less than one year. Our findings support the recently updated GOLD guidance.

For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

This is a copy of an article published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews © 2016 Cochrane Collaboration Publications. © The Author(s). http://www.cochranelibrary.com/

A variety of alpha-blockers are used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Silodosin is a novel, more selective alpha-blocker, which is specific to the lower urinary tract and may have fewer side effects than other alpha-blockers. To assess the effects of silodosin for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 13 June 2017. We included all parallel, randomized controlled trials. We also included cross-over designs. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. We included 19 unique studies with 4295 randomized participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. The mean age, prostate volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score were 66.5 years, 38.2 mL, and 19.1, respectively. Silodosin versus placeboBased on four studies with a total of 1968 randomized participants, silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men (mean difference (MD) -2.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.23 to -2.08; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely does not result in a clinically important reduction in quality of life (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.13; moderate-quality evidence). It may not increase rates of treatment withdrawal for any reason (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.66; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of silodosin on cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.45; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 26.07, 95% CI 12.36 to 54.97; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 180 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 82 more to 388 more). Silodosin versus tamsulosinBased on 13 studies with a total of 2129 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.04, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.69; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 6.05, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.31; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 141 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 71 more to 261 more). Silodosin versus naftopidilBased on five studies with a total of 763 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no differences in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.85, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.87; low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.27; low-quality evidence), treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.93; low-quality evidence), and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.56; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 5.93, 95% CI 2.16 to 16.29; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 74 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 17 more to 231 more). Silodosin versus alfuzosinBased on two studies with a total of 155 randomized participants, silodosin may or may not result in a clinically important increase in urologic symptom scores (MD 3.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.54; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely results in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.74; moderate-quality evidence). We found no event of treatment withdrawal for any reason. Silodosin may not reduce cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) but likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 37.21, 95% CI 5.32 to 260.07; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 217 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 26 more to 1000 more). Silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men compared to placebo. Quality of life and treatment withdrawals for any reason appears similar. Its efficacy appears similar to that of other alpha blockers (tamsulosin, naftopidil and alfuzosin) but the rate of sexual side effects is likely higher. Our certainty in the estimates of effect was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.

Most of the evidence derived by comparing DDAVP versus placebo was obtained in cardiac surgery, where DDAVP was administered after cardiopulmonary bypass. In adults undergoing cardiac surgery, the reduction in volume of red cells transfused and total blood loss was small and was unlikely to be clinically important. It is less clear whether DDAVP may be of benefit for children and for those undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A key area for researchers is examining the effects of DDAVP for people with platelet dysfunction. Few trials have compared DDAVP versus tranexamic acid or aprotinin; consequently, we are uncertain of the relative efficacy of these interventions.

In developing countries, diarrhoea causes around two million child deaths annually. Zinc supplementation during acute diarrhoea is currently recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. To evaluate oral zinc supplementation for treating children with acute or persistent diarrhoea. In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, mRCT, and reference lists. We also contacted researchers. Randomized controlled trials comparing oral zinc supplementation with placebo in children aged one month to five years with acute or persistent diarrhoea, including dysentery. Both authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, extracted and analysed data, and drafted the review. Diarrhoea duration and severity were the primary outcomes. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses (using the fixed- or random-effects model) and assessed heterogeneity.The quality of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE methods Twenty-four trials, enrolling 9128 children, met our inclusion criteria. The majority of the data is from Asia, from countries at high risk of zinc deficiency, and may not be applicable elsewhere.Acute diarrhoeaThere is currently not enough evidence from well conducted randomized controlled trials to be able to say whether zinc supplementation during acute diarrhoea reduces death or hospitalization (very low quality evidence).In children aged greater than six months with acute diarrhoea, zinc supplementation may shorten the duration of diarrhoea by around 10 hours (MD -10.44 hours, 95% CI -21.13 to 0.25; 2091 children, five trials, low quality evidence), and probably reduces the number of children whose diarrhoea persists until day seven (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 3865 children, six trials, moderate quality evidence). In children with signs of moderate malnutrition the effect appears greater, reducing the duration of diarrhoea by around 27 hours (MD -26.98 hours, 95% CI -14.62 to -39.34; 336 children, three trials, high quality evidence).Conversely, In children aged less than six months, the available evidence suggests zinc supplementation may have no effect on mean diarrhoea duration (MD 5.23 hours, 95% CI -4.00 to 14.45; 1334 children, two trials, low quality evidence), and may even increase the proportion of children whose diarrhoea persists until day seven (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54; 1074 children, one trial, moderate quality evidence).No trials reported serious adverse events, but zinc supplementation during acute diarrhoea causes vomiting in both age groups (RR 1.59, 95% 1.27 to 1.99; 5189 children, 10 trials, high quality evidence).Persistent diarrhoeaIn children with persistent diarrhoea, zinc supplementation probably shortens the duration of diarrhoea by around 16 hours (MD -15.84 hours, 95% CI -25.43 to -6.24; 529 children, five trials, moderate quality evidence). In areas where the prevalence of zinc deficiency or the prevalence of moderate malnutrition is high, zinc may be of benefit in children aged six months or more.The current evidence does not support the use of zinc supplementation in children below six months of age.

Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 LABA versus placebo: both groups receiving similar dose of ICS, Outcome 1 # participants with exacerbations requiring systemic steroids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 LABA versus placebo: both groups receiving similar dose of ICS, Outcome 2 # participants with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 LABA versus placebo: both groups receiving similar dose of ICS, Outcome 3 # participants with exacerbations requiring urgent care visit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 LABA versus placebo: both groups receiving similar dose of ICS, Outcome 4 Serious adverse events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Approximately 10% of all newborns require resuscitation at birth. Training healthcare providers in standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programmes may improve neonatal outcomes. Substantial healthcare resources are expended on SFNRT. To determine whether SFNRT programmes reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity, improve acquisition and retention of knowledge and skills, or change teamwork and resuscitation behaviour. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, ongoing trials and conference proceedings in April 2014 and updated in March 2015. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials including cluster-randomised trials, comparing a SFNRT with no SFNRT, additions to SFNRT or types of SFNRT, and reporting at least one of our specified outcomes. Two authors extracted data independently and performed statistical analyses including typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) (all with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). We analysed cluster-randomised trials using the generic inverse variance and the approximate analysis methods. We identified two community-based and three manikin-based trials that assessed the effect of SFNRT compared with no SFNRT. Very low quality evidence from one study suggested improvement in acquisition of knowledge (RR 5.96, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.87) and skills (RR 170, 95% CI 10.8 to 2711) and retention of knowledge (RR 3.60, 95% CI 2.43 to 5.35) and the other study suggested improvement in resuscitation and behavioural scores.We identified three community-based cluster-randomised trials in developing countries comparing SFNRT with basic resuscitation training (Early Newborn Care). In this setting, there was moderate quality evidence that SFNRT decreased early neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 3 studies, 66,162 neonates) and when analysed by the approximate analysis method (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; RD -0.0044, 95% CI -0.0082 to -0.0006; NNTB 227, 95% CI 122 to 1667). Low quality evidence from one trial showed that SFNRT may decrease 28-day mortality (typical RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91) but the effect on late neonatal mortality was more uncertain (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11). None of our a priori defined neonatal morbidities were reported. We did not identify any randomised studies in the developed world.We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with team training to SFNRT. Teamwork training of physician trainees with simulation may increase any teamwork behaviour (assessed by frequency) (MD 2.41, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.11) and decrease resuscitation duration (MD -149.54, 95% CI -214.73 to -84.34) but may lead to little or no difference in Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) scores (MD 1.40, 95% CI -2.02 to 4.82; 98 participants, low quality evidence).We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with booster courses to SFNRT. It is uncertain whether booster courses improve retention of resuscitation knowledge (84 participants, very low quality evidence) but may improve procedural and behavioural skills (40 participants, very low quality evidence).We identified two trials on decision support tools, one on a cognitive aid that did not change resuscitation scores and the other on an electronic decision support tool that improved the frequency of correct decision making on positive pressure ventilation, cardiac compressions and frequency of fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) adjustments (97 participants, very low quality evidence). SFNRT compared to basic newborn care or basic newborn resuscitation, in developing countries, results in a reduction of early neonatal and 28-day mortality. Randomised trials of SFNRT should report on neonatal morbidity including hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Innovative educational methods that enhance knowledge and skills and teamwork behaviour should be evaluated.

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation has been implicated in the development and relapse of psychotic disorders. Elevated cortisol secretion has been positively linked with symptom severity in people with psychosis. Antiglucocorticoid and related drugs that target the HPA axis may be useful for the treatment of individuals with psychosis. 1. To determine the effects of antiglucocorticoid and related drugs for the treatment of psychosis, when used alone or in combination with antipsychotic medication.2. To determine whether the effects of these medications differs between those in a prodromal phase or first episode of psychosis, and those with more established illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 2009 and April 2014). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiglucocorticoid and related drugs compared to placebo (either as a sole treatment or as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotics, typical antipsychotics, antidepressants or other combination treatment) for people with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, or for individuals at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder. Review authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous measures. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table. We included 11 studies that randomly assigned 509 people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or psychotic depression. No trials were conducted in patients at their first episode of psychotic illness and none included populations at high risk for developing psychosis. Our pre-stated outcomes of interest were mental state, global state, general functioning, adverse effects and quality of life.Two trials compared antiglucocorticoid drugs (mifepristone) versus placebo as sole treatment. Limited data from one trial showed no difference in the proportion responding to mifepristone when mental state was assessed immediately post intervention using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD -5.20, 95% CI -17.91 to 7.51; very low-quality evidence); depressive symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) total) were also similar between groups (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD 1.67, 95% CI -16.44 to 19.78; very low-quality evidence). However, a significant difference favoured treatment at short-term follow-up for global state (30% reduction in total BPRS, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; low-grade quality evidence). This effect was also seen for short-term positive psychotic symptoms (50% reduction in BPRS positive symptom subscale, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.84; low-grade quality evidence). Participants receiving mifepristone experienced a similar overall number of adverse effects as those receiving placebo (n = 226, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09; moderate-quality evidence). No data on general functioning or quality of life were available.One trial compared an antiglucocorticoid, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotic treatment to adjunctive placebo. Data for main outcomes of interest were of low quality, and analysis of useable data showed no significant effects of treatment on mental state or adverse effects. Data on global state, general functioning and quality of life were not available.Data from six trials comparing antiglucocorticoid drugs as an adjunct to combination treatment versus adjunctive placebo showed no significant differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for overall psychotic symptoms (n = 171, 6 RCTs, SMD 0.01, 95% CI - 0.29 to 0.32) or positive psychotic symptoms (n = 151, 5 RCTs, SMD -0.07, 95% CI - 0.40 to 0.25). Data from three trials showed no differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for negative symptoms (n = 94, 3 RCTs, MD 2.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 4.55). One study found improvements in global state that were similar between groups (n = 30, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.06; very low-quality evidence). In this comparison, pooled results showed that antiglucorticoids caused a greater overall number of adverse events (n = 199, 7 RCTs, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.32; moderate quality evidence), but no quality of life data were available. Good evidence is insufficient to conclude whether antiglucocorticoid drugs provide effective treatment for psychosis. Some global state findings suggest a favourable effect for mifepristone, and a few overall adverse effect findings favour placebo. Additional large randomised controlled trials are needed to justify findings.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To investigate the effects of caregiver-mediated exercises on outcome in terms of body function, activities and participation of the person with stroke, as well as its impact on mood and burden of their caregiver. The primary objective is to determine if caregiver-mediated exercises improve functional ability in adults after stroke in basic and extended activities of daily living (ADL), and to determine the effect on mood, burden and QoL of the caregiver. The secondary objective is to determine the effect of caregiver-mediated exercises on outcome measures of gait, motor impairment, QoL, mood, fatigue, adverse outcomes, upper limb function and length of stay or treatment period.

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that HBMS programmes in breast cancer survivors appear to have a short-term beneficial effect of improving breast cancer-specific quality of life and global quality of life as measured by FACT-B and EORTC-C30, respectively. In addition, HBMS programmes are associated with a reduction in anxiety, fatigue and insomnia immediately after the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence across studies as moderate for some outcomes, meaning that we are fairly confident about the results, while we assessed other outcomes as being low-quality, meaning that we are uncertain about the result.

There was high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of topical azelaic acid, topical ivermectin, brimonidine, doxycycline and isotretinoin for rosacea. Moderate quality evidence was available for topical metronidazole and oral tetracycline. There was low quality evidence for low dose minocycline, laser and intense pulsed light therapy and ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Time needed to response and response duration should be addressed more completely, with more rigorous reporting of adverse events. Further studies on treatment of ocular rosacea are warranted.

During menopause a decreasing ovarian follicular response generally causes a fluctuation and eventual decrease in estrogen levels. This can lead to the development of various perimenopausal and postmenopausal symptoms (for example hot flushes, night sweats, vaginal dryness). Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is one of the main precursors of androgens, which in turn are converted to testosterone and estrogens. It is possible that the administration of DHEA may increase estrogen and testosterone levels in peri- and postmenopausal women to alleviate their symptoms and improve general wellbeing and sexual function (for example libido, dyspareunia, satisfaction). Treatment with DHEA is controversial as there is uncertainty about its effectiveness and safety. This review should clearly outline the evidence for DHEA in the treatment of menopausal symptoms and evaluate its effectiveness and safety by combining the results of randomised controlled trials. To assess the effectiveness and safety of administering DHEA to women with menopausal symptoms in the peri- or postmenopausal phase. The databases that we searched (3 June 2014) with no language restrictions applied were the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the trials registers. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked. We included randomised controlled trials comparing any dose and form of DHEA by any route of administration versus any other active intervention, placebo or no treatment for a minimal treatment duration of seven days in peri- and postmenopausal women. Two authors independently extracted data after assessing eligibility for inclusion and quality of studies. Authors were contacted for additional information. Twenty-eight trials with 1273 menopausal women were included in this review. Data could be extracted from 16 trials to conduct the meta-analysis. The overall quality of the studies was moderate to low with the majority of studies that were included in the meta-analysis having reasonable methodology. Compared to placebo, DHEA did not improve quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.34, P = 0.10, 8 studies, 287 women (132 from parallel and 155 from crossover trials), I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence; one trial of the nine that reported on this outcome was removed in a sensitivity analysis as it was judged to be at high risk of bias). DHEA was found to be associated with androgenic side effects (mainly acne) (odds ratio (OR) 3.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.4, P = 0.01, 5 studies, 376 women, I² = 10%, moderate quality evidence) when compared to placebo. No associations were found with other adverse effects. It was unclear whether DHEA affected menopausal symptoms as the results from the trials were inconsistent and could not easily be pooled to provide an overall effect due to different types of measurement (for example continuous, dichotomous, change and end scores). DHEA was found to improve sexual function (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55, P = 0.01, 5 studies, 261 women (239 women from parallel trials and 22 women from crossover trials), I² = 0%; one trial judged to be at high risk of bias was removed during sensitivity analysis) compared to placebo.There was no difference in the acne associated with DHEA when comparing studies that used oral DHEA (OR 2.16, 95% CI 0.47 to 9.96, P = 0.90, 3 studies, 136 women, I² = 5%, very low quality evidence) to one study that used skin application of DHEA (OR 2.74, 95% CI 0.10 to 74.87, P = 0.90, 1 study, 22 women, very low quality evidence). The effects did not differ for sexual function when studies using oral DHEA (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.35, P = 0.36, 5 studies, 340 women, I² = 0) were compared to a study using intravaginal DHEA (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.81, 1 study, 218 women). Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 1.77, df = 1 (P = 0.18), I² = 43.4%. Insufficient data were available to assess quality of life and menopausal symptoms for this comparison.There were insufficient data available to compare the effects of DHEA to hormone therapy (HT) for quality of life, menopausal symptoms, and adverse effects. No large differences in treatment effects were found for sexual function when comparing DHEA to HT (mean difference (MD) 1.26, 95% CI -0.21 to 2.73, P = 0.09, 2 studies, 41 women, I² = 0%). There is no evidence that DHEA improves quality of life but there is some evidence that it is associated with androgenic side effects. There is uncertainty whether DHEA decreases menopausal symptoms, but DHEA may slightly improve sexual function compared with placebo.