Rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery.

Several rehabilitation programs are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery. To evaluate the effects of active rehabilitation for adults after first-time lumbar disc surgery. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to May 2007. We only included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. Fourteen studies were included, seven of which had a low risk of bias. Most programs were only assessed in one study. Statistical pooling was only completed for three comparisons in which exercises were started four to six weeks post-surgery: exercise programs versus no treatment, high versus low intensity exercise programs, and supervised versus home exercises.There is low quality evidence (three RCTS, N = 156) that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (WMD -11.13; 95% CI -18.44 to -3.82) and moderate evidence (two RCTs, N = 136) that they are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (WMD -6.50; 95% CI -9.26 to -3.74). None of the studies reported that exercises increased the re-operation rate.There is low quality evidence (two RCTs, N =103) that high intensity are slightly more effective than low intensity exercise programs for pain in the short term (WMD -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30) and moderate evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36).There is low quality evidence (three RCTS, N = 95) that there were no significant differences between supervised and home exercises for short-term pain relief (SMD -1.12; 95% CI -2.77 to 0.53) or functional status (three RCTs, N = 88; SMD -1.18; 95% CI -2.63 to 0.26). Exercise programs starting four to six weeks post-surgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment. High intensity exercise programs seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than low intensity programs. There were no significant differences between supervised and home exercises for pain relief, disability, or global perceived effect. There is no evidence that active programs increase the re-operation rate after first-time lumbar surgery.

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.

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.

'Fast-track surgery' or 'enhanced recovery protocol' or 'fast-track rehabilitation', incorporating one or more elements of preoperative education, pain relief, early mobilisation, enteral nutrition and growth factors, may improve health-related quality of life and reduce length of hospital stay and costs. The role of enhanced recovery protocols in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery is unclear. To assess the benefits and harms of enhanced recovery protocols compared with standard care (or usual practice) in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status for inclusion in the review. Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5, based on available case analysis. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and nine studies provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1014 participants were randomly assigned to the enhanced recovery protocol (499 participants) or standard care (515 participants) in the nine RCTs. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants with high performance status undergoing different upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. Eight trials incorporated more than one element of the enhanced recovery protocol. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term health-related quality of life(three months to one year), time to return to normal activity, or time to return to work. The difference between the enhanced recovery protocol and standard care were imprecise for short-term mortality (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/425 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 1/443 (0.2%); seven trials; 868 participants; RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.44 to 17.73; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/157 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 0/184 (0.0%); two trials; 341 participants; RR 5.57; 95% CI 0.68 to 45.89; very low quality evidence), number of serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 34/421 (8 per 100 participants); standard care: 46/438 (11 per 100 participants); seven trials; 859 participants; rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; very low quality evidence), health-related quality of life (four trials; 373 participants; SMD 0.29; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.62; very low quality evidence) and hospital readmissions (enhanced recovery protocol: 14/355 (adjusted proportion = 3.3%); standard care: 9/378 (2.4%); seven trials; 733 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.87; very low quality evidence). The enhanced recovery protocol group had a lower proportion of people with mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 31/254 (adjusted proportion = 10.9%); standard care: 51/271 (18.8%); four trials; 525 participants; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85; low quality evidence), fewer number of mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 69/499 (13 per 100 participants); standard care: 128/515 (25 per 100 participants); nine trials; 1014 participants; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; low quality evidence), shorter length of hospital stay (nine trials; 1014 participants; MD -2.19 days; 95% CI -2.53 to -1.85; low quality evidence) and lower costs (four trials; 282 participants; MD USD -6300; 95% CI -8400 to -4200; low quality evidence) than standard care group. Based on low quality evidence, enhanced recovery protocols may reduce length of hospital stay and costs (primarily because of reduction in hospital stay) in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. However, the validity of the results is uncertain because of the risk of bias in the trials and the way the outcomes were measured. Future RCTs should be conducted with low risk of bias, and measure clinically important outcomes for including the three months to one year period.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.

Fatigue is a prevalent and burdensome symptom for patients with incurable cancer receiving cancer treatment with palliative intent and is associated with reduced quality of life. Psychosocial interventions seem promising for management of fatigue among cancer patients. To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for fatigue in adult patients with incurable cancer receiving cancer treatment with palliative intent. We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and seven clinical trial registries; we also searched the reference lists of articles. The date of our most recent search was 29 November 2016. We included randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions in adults aged 18 years or over undergoing cancer treatment with palliative intent for incurable cancer versus usual care or other controls. Psychosocial interventions were defined as various kinds of interventions provided to influence or change cognitions, emotions, behaviours, social interactions, or a combination of these. Psychosocial interventions of interest to this review had to involve at least two interactions between the patient and the care provider in which the care provider gave the patient personal feedback concerning changes sought by these interventions. We included trials that reported fatigue as an outcome of interest. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We identified 14 studies (16 reports) that met inclusion criteria for this review and involved 3077 randomised participants in total. Most of these studies included a mixed sample of participants; we obtained data for the subset of interest for this review (diagnosis of incurable cancer and receiving cancer treatment) from the study investigators of 12 studies, for which we included 535 participants in the subset meta-analysis for fatigue post intervention. Researchers investigated a broad range of psychosocial interventions with different intervention aims and durations. We identified sources of potential bias, including lack of description of methods of blinding and allocation concealment and inclusion of small study populations.Findings from our meta-analysis do not support the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing fatigue post intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.50 to 0.00; not significant; 535 participants, 12 studies; very low-quality evidence). First follow-up findings on fatigue suggested benefit for participants assigned to the psychosocial intervention compared with control (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.32; 147 participants, four studies; very low-quality evidence), which was not sustained at second follow-up (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.30; not significant; very low-quality evidence).Results for our secondary outcomes revealed very low-quality evidence for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in improving physical functioning post intervention (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.63; 307 participants, seven studies). These findings were not sustained at first follow-up (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.94; not significant; 122 participants, two studies; very low-quality evidence). Findings do not support the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for improving social functioning (mean difference (MD) 4.16, 95% CI -11.20 to 19.53; not significant; 141 participants, four studies), role functioning (MD 3.49, 95% CI -12.78 to 19.76; not significant; 143 participants, four studies), emotional functioning (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.35; not significant; 115 participants, three studies), or cognitive functioning (MD -2.23, 95% CI -12.52 to 8.06; not significant; 86 participants, two studies) post intervention. Only three studies evaluated adverse events. These studies found no difference between the number of adverse events among participants in the intervention versus control group.Using GRADE, we considered the overall quality of evidence for our primary and secondary outcomes to be very low. Therefore, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate, and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Limitations in study quality and imprecision due to sparse data resulted in downgrading of the quality of data. Additionally, most studies were at high risk of bias owing to their small sample size for the subset of patients with incurable cancer (fewer than 50 participants per arm), leading to uncertainty about effect estimates. We found little evidence around the benefits of psychosocial interventions provided to reduce fatigue in adult patients with incurable cancer receiving cancer treatment with palliative intent. Additional studies with larger samples are required to assess whether psychosocial interventions are beneficial for addressing fatigue in patients with incurable cancer.

Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD. Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD. We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017. Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD. Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures. We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study). Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.

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 study aimed to evaluate and rank the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea severity, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced cancer. A comprehensive search of PUBMED, HINARI, CENTRAL, and ResearchGate was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare interventions, calculating mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-scores were used to rank the interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated using the GRADE framework. A total of 42 RCTs, encompassing 3,832 patients, were included in the analysis. Among the evaluated interventions, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief (SMD = -1.91; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.49; QOE: moderate), followed by acupressure/reflexology (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -2.02 to -0.06; QOE: very low). Activity rehabilitation was the only intervention that significantly reduced anxiety compared to the control group (SMD = -0.64; 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.32; QOE: very low). While all interventions showed trends of improving exercise capacity, none reached statistical significance. Notably, acupressure/reflexology significantly enhanced HRQoL (SMD = 1.55; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.88; QOE: moderate). Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly HFNC and acupressure/reflexology, were more effective than pharmacological approaches in improving dyspnea relief and HRQoL. However, the low quality of evidence underscores the need for high-quality, large-scale trials to confirm these findings and refine treatment strategies for dyspnea management in advanced cancer patients. PROSPERO CRD42023479041.

The optimal antithrombotic therapy after surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (BAVR) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with surgical BAVR. We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 3 November 2017 for studies evaluating antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation early after surgical BAVR. We performed title and abstract screening, full-text review, risk of bias evaluation and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, and pooled data using a random effects model. We identified 2 RCTs (n = 397) and 5 observational studies (n = 2,012) meeting our eligibility criteria. The mean follow-up for all outcomes was 3 months in RCTs, and 10 months for observational studies. Antiplatelet compared with anticoagulant therapy demonstrated a trend towards fewer major bleeds in RCTs (relative risk [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-1.04, p = 0.06, I 2 = 0%, low quality evidence), and significantly fewer major bleeds in observational studies (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.58, p ≤ 0.0001, I 2 = 0%, very low quality evidence), but stroke, thromboembolism and mortality did not show a significant difference in either RCTs or observational studies. Antiplatelet therapy demonstrated reduced bleeding risk with no negative effects on stroke, thromboembolism or mortality compared with anticoagulation therapy after surgical BAVR. Our confidence in the results is reduced by the low quality of the available evidence.

Effectiveness of Chengqi-series decoctions in treating severe acute pancreatitis: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically review evidence comparing the effect of low-dose versus high-dose ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation, functional capacity and side effects in patients with heart...

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.

Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing parental substance misuse.

People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a new treatment for people with schizophrenia, especially those who experience persistent auditory hallucinations.To estimate the effects of TMS alone, compared with sham TMS or with 'standard management' and any other comparison interventions in reducing psychotic symptoms associated with schizophrenia.We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2006, June 2008, April 2013). This register is compiled by methodical searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, LILACS, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, and Sociofile, and is supplemented with handsearching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings.We included all randomised controlled trials recruiting at least five participants and comparing TMS with sham TMS or any other treatment for people with schizophrenia.We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We included 41 studies with 1473 participants in the review. We found significant differences in favour of temporoparietal TMS compared to sham TMS for global state measured on the CGI scale (7 RCTs, n = 224, MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.23, very low-quality evidence) and positive symptoms measured on the PANSS scale (5 RCTs, n = 127, MD -6.09, 95% CI -10.95 to -1.22, very low-quality evidence). Participants experienced significantly more headaches in the temporoparietal TMS group (10 RCTs, n = 392, RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.50, very low-quality evidence). However, no more participants left the study early from the TMS group than from the sham group (very low-quality evidence). Cognitive state was assessed using 39 different measures, and all were equivocal (very low-quality evidence).We included only two trials which compared temporoparietal TMS with standard treatment. In both trials the participants received first- and second-generation antipsychotic medication in both treatment groups, therefore TMS was used an adjunctive therapy to medication. We found no significant differences in the number of participants that showed clinical improvement in global state (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.57) or left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 140, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.46) (both very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on global state score, mental state, cognitive state and adverse effects.For prefrontal TMS compared to sham TMS, global state was measured on three different scales, all of which presented equivocal results (very low quality evidence). We could not pool data for mental state on the PANSS scale due to high heterogeneity. Cognitive state was assessed using 19 different measures, with 15/19 being equivocal (very low-quality evidence). Prefrontal TMS caused more headaches (6 RCTs, n = 164, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.26, very low-quality evidence) but there was no difference in the number of participants leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). No studies reported data for clinical improvement.We found a significant difference in favour of prefrontal theta burst stimulation TMS compared to sham TMS for mental state on the PANNS scale (3 RCTs, n = 108, MD -5.71, 95% CI -9.32 to -2.10, very low evidence). We found no difference for clinical improvement, cognitive state, number of headaches, and leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported satisfaction with care.Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of TMS to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. Although some evidence suggests that TMS, and in particular temporoparietal TMS, may improve certain symptoms (such as auditory hallucinations and positive symptoms of schizophrenia) compared to sham TMS, the results were not robust enough to be unequivocal across the assessment measures used. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any added benefit with TMS used as an adjunctive therapy to antipsychotic medication.The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low due to risk of bias, and this was accompanied by an imprecision in estimates due to the relatively small number of participants in the studies. Thus, consideration is required in improving the quality of trial processes, as well as the quality of reporting of ongoing and future TMS trials, so as to facilitate accurate future judgements in assessing risk of bias. Differences in TMS techniques in relation to stimulation intensity, stimulation length, brain areas stimulated and variations in the design of sham TMS all contributed to the heterogeneity of study findings and limited the interpretation and applicability of the results. In addition, the trials assessed their outcomes with a variety of scales, and usable data were limited. Therefore, to better evaluate the treatment effects of TMS in people with schizophrenia, we favour the use of standardised treatment protocols and outcome measures.