Antibiotics for sore throat

Background: Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it. Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information. Main results: We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms - Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non‐suppurative complications - The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two‐thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications - Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction - Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs. Authors' conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non‐suppurative complications in high‐income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low‐income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.Griffith Health, School of MedicineFull Tex

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care

Background Health care‐associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review. Objectives To assess the short‐ and long‐term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care‐associated infection. Search methods We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016. Selection criteria We included randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, controlled before‐after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol‐based hand rub (ABHR), or both. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta‐analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non‐randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long‐term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention. Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence). Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence. Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence. Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence. Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence. Authors' conclusions With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Email is one of the most widely used methods of communication, but its use in healthcare is still uncommon. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not well known. We updated a 2012 review of the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Exploiting Multiple Sensory Modalities in Brain-Machine Interfaces

Recent improvements in cortically-controlled brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) have raised hopes that such technologies may improve the quality of life of severely motor-disabled patients. However, current generation BMIs do not perform up to their potential due to the neglect of the full range of sensory feedback in their strategies for training and control. Here we confirm that neurons in the primary motor cortex (MI) encode sensory information and demonstrate a significant heterogeneity in their responses with respect to the type of sensory modality available to the subject about a reaching task. We further show using mutual information and directional tuning analyses that the presence of multi-sensory feedback (i.e. vision and proprioception) during replay of movements evokes neural responses in MI that are almost indistinguishable from those responses measured during overt movement. Finally, we suggest how these playback-evoked responses may be used to improve BMI performance

Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common after radical prostatectomy and can also occur in some circumstances after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.   OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of conservative management for urinary incontinence up to 12 months after transurethral, suprapubic, laparoscopic, radical retropubic or perineal prostatectomy, including any single conservative therapy or any combination of conservative therapies.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (5 February 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), EMBASE (January 2010 to Week 3 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 18 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (both searched 29 January 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of the trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.  MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria, 45 in men after radical prostatectomy, four trials after TURP and one trial after either operation. The trials included 4717 men of whom 2736 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence up to 12 months after radical prostatectomy; the quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate (for example 57% with urinary incontinence in the intervention group versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22). One large multi-centre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrow CIs. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one PFMT therapy after TURP. Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation, or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. Amongst trials of conservative treatment for all men after radical prostatectomy, aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was moderate evidence of an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of urinary incontinence (for example 10% with urinary incontinence after one year in the intervention groups versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution because the risk of bias assessment showed methodological limitations. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remained undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. The evidence is conflicting and therefore rigorous, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which abide by the principles and recommendations of the CONSORT statement are still needed to obtain a definitive answer. The trials should be robustly designed to answer specific well constructed research questions and include outcomes which are important from the patient's perspective in decision making and are also relevant to the healthcare professionals. Long-term incontinence may be managed by an external penile clamp, but there are safety problems