Medical versus surgical treatment for refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones.

Patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones are often diagnosed using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), an invasive procedure with risk of significant complications. Using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or Magnetic Resonance CholangioPancreatography (MRCP) first to detect CBD stones can reduce the risk of unnecessary procedures, cut complications and may save costs

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy for assessing resectability in pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

Surgical resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer, but many patients undergo unnecessary laparotomy because tumours can be understaged by computerised tomography (CT). A recent Cochrane review found diagnostic laparoscopy can decrease unnecessary laparotomy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic laparoscopy prior to laparotomy versus direct laparotomy in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer with resectable disease based on CT scanning

Medical versus surgical treatment for refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: Refractory peptic ulcers are ulcers in the stomach or duodenum that do not heal after eight to 12 weeks of medical treatment or those that are associated with complications despite medical treatment. Recurrent peptic ulcers are peptic ulcers that recur after healing of the ulcer. Given the number of deaths due to peptic ulcer-related complications and the long-term complications of medical treatment (increased incidence of fracture), it is unclear whether medical or surgical intervention is the better treatment option in people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for people with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Upper GI and Pancreatic Diseases group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until September 2015 to identify randomised trials and non-randomised studies, using search strategies. We also searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing medical treatment with surgical treatment in people with refractory or recurrent peptic ulcer, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We planned to calculate the risk ratio, mean difference, standardised mean difference, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with Review Manager 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one non-randomised study published 30 years ago in the review. This study included 77 participants who had gastric ulcer and in whom medical therapy (histamine H2 receptor blockers, antacids, and diet) had failed after an average duration of treatment of 29 months. The authors do not state whether these were recurrent or refractory ulcers. It appears that the participants did not have previous complications such as bleeding or perforation. Of the 77 included participants, 37 participants continued to have medical therapy while 40 participants received surgical therapy (antrectomy with or without vagotomy; subtotal gastrectomy with or without vagotomy; vagotomy; pyloroplasty and suture of the ulcer; suture or closure of ulcer without vagotomy or excision of the ulcer; proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy alone; suture or closure of the ulcer with proximal gastric or parietal cell vagotomy). Whether to use medical or surgical treatment was determined by participant's or treating physician's preference. The study authors reported that two participants in the medical treatment group (2 out of 37; 5.4%) had gastric cancer, which was identified by repeated biopsy. They did not report the proportion of participants who had gastric cancer in the surgical treatment group. They also did not report the implications of the delayed diagnosis of gastric cancer in the medical treatment group. They did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (that is health-related quality of life (using any validated scale), adverse events and serious adverse events, peptic ulcer bleeding, peptic ulcer perforation, abdominal pain, and long-term mortality). AUTHORS'CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that provide the relative benefits and harms of medical versus surgical treatment for recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers. Studies that evaluate the natural history of recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers are urgently required to determine whether randomised controlled trials comparing medical versus surgical management in patients with recurrent or refractory peptic ulcers or both are necessary. Such studies will also provide information for the design of such randomised controlled trials. A minimum follow-up of two to three years will allow the calculation of the incidence of complications and gastric cancer (in gastric ulcers only) in recurrent and refractory peptic ulcers. In addition to complications related to treatment and disease, health-related quality of life and loss of productivity should also be measured

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery. There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I2 = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I2 = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I2 = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement

Non-surgical versus surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently surgery is the recommended treatment modality when possible. However, it is unclear whether non-surgical treatment options is equivalent to oesophagectomy in terms of survival. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-surgical treatment versus oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to 4th March 2016. We also screened reference lists of included studies. Selection criteria Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts of articles obtained from the literature searches and selected references for further assessment. For these selected references, we based trial inclusion on assessment of the full-text articles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. MAIN RESULTS Eight trials, which included 1132 participants in total, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. These trials were at high risk of bias trials. One trial (which included five participants) did not contribute any data to this Cochrane review, and we excluded 13 participants in the remaining trials after randomisation; this left a total of 1114 participants, 510 randomised to non-surgical treatment and 604 to surgical treatment for analysis. The non-surgical treatment was definitive chemoradiotherapy in five trials and definitive radiotherapy in three trials. All participants were suitable for major surgery. Most of the data were from trials that compared chemoradiotherapy with surgery. There was no difference in long-term mortality between chemoradiotherapy and surgery (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.03; 602 participants; four studies; low quality evidence). The long-term mortality was higher in radiotherapy than surgery (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.64; 512 participants; three studies; very low quality evidence). There was no difference in long-term recurrence between non-surgical treatment and surgery (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; 349 participants; two studies; low quality evidence). The difference between non-surgical and surgical treatments was imprecise for short-term mortality (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.35; 689 participants; five studies; very low quality evidence), the proportion of participants with serious adverse in three months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 80 participants; one study; very low quality evidence), and proportion of people with local recurrence at maximal follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.12; 449 participants; three studies; very low quality evidence). The health-related quality of life was higher in non-surgical treatment between four weeks and three months after treatment (Spitzer Quality of Life Index; MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.62; 165 participants; one study; very low quality evidence). The difference between non-surgical and surgical treatments was imprecise for medium-term health-related quality of life (three months to two years after treatment) (Spitzer Quality of Life Index; MD −0.95, 95% CI −2.10 to 0.20; 62 participants; one study; very low quality of evidence). The proportion of people with dysphagia at the last follow-up visit prior to death was higher with definitive chemoradiotherapy compared to surgical treatment (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19; 139 participants; one study; very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on low quality evidence, chemoradiotherapy appears to be at least equivalent to surgery in terms of short-term and long-term survival in people with oesophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma type) who are fit for surgery and are responsive to induction chemoradiotherapy. However, there is uncertainty in the comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy versus surgery for oesophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma type) and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of definitive chemoradiotherapy versus surgery. Based on very low quality evidence, the proportion of people with dysphagia at the last follow-up visit prior to death was higher with definitive chemoradiotherapy compared to surgery. Based on very low quality evidence, radiotherapy results in less long-term survival than surgery in people with oesophageal cancer who are fit for surgery. However, there is a risk of bias and random errors in these results, although the risk of bias in the studies included in this systematic review is likely to be lower than in non-randomised studies. Further trials at low risk of bias are necessary. Such trials need to compare endoscopic treatment with surgical treatment in early stage oesophageal cancer (carcinoma in situ and Stage Ia), and definitive chemoradiotherapy with surgical treatments in other stages of oesophageal cancer, and should measure and report patient-oriented outcomes. Early identification of responders to chemoradiotherapy and better second-line treatment for non-responders will also increase the need and acceptability of trials that compare definitive chemoradiotherapy with surgery

Pregabalin for decreasing pancreatic pain in chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain is one of the major symptoms in people with chronic pancreatitis. The role of pregabalin in people with chronic pancreatic pain due to chronic pancreatitis is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pregabalin in people with chronic abdominal pain due to chronic pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2015, issue 6, and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, trials registers until June 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatic pain due to chronic pancreatitis, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study, funded by Pfizer, met the inclusion criteria for the review. A total of 64 participants (with chronic pain due to chronic pancreatitis) were randomly assigned to receive escalating doses of pregabalin (150 mg per day to 600 mg per day; 34 participants) or matching placebo (30 participants). Participants received pregabalin or placebo for three weeks on an outpatient basis; the outcomes were measured at the end of the treatment (i.e. three weeks from commencement of treatment). Potential participants taking concomitant analgesic medication and expected to stay on a stable regime during the trial were allowed to enter the study. This trial was at low risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or moderate.Only the short-term outcomes were available in this trial. The medium and long-term outcomes, number of work days lost, and length of hospital stay due to admissions for pain control were not available. This trial found that the changes in opiate use (MD -26.00 mg; 95% CI -47.36 to -4.64; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence), and pain score percentage changes from baseline (MD -12.00; 95% CI -21.82 to -2.18; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence) were better in participants taking pregabalin compared to those taking placebo. This trial also found that there were more adverse events in participants taking pregabalin compared to those taking placebo (RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.43; participants = 64). The differences between pregabalin and placebo were imprecise for short-term health-related quality of life measured with the EORTC CLQ-30 questionnaire (MD 11.40; 95% CI -3.28 to 26.08; participants = 64; moderate-quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 1.76; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.96; participants = 64; low-quality evidence), and proportion of people requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.62; participants = 64; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to moderate-quality evidence, short-term use of pregabalin decreases short-term opiate use, and short-term pain scores, but increases the adverse events compared to placebo, in people with chronic pain due to chronic pancreatitis. The clinical implication of the decreases in short-term opiate use and short-term pain scores is not known.Future trials assessing the role of pregabalin in decreasing chronic pain in chronic pancreatitis should assess the medium- or long-term effects of pregabalin and should include outcomes such as, quality of life, treatment-related adverse events, number of work days lost, number of hospital admissions, and the length of hospital stay, in addition to pain scores, to assess the clinical and socioeconomic impact

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy

Comparative safety and efficacy of vasopressors for mortality in septic shock: A network meta-analysis

© 2015, © The Intensive Care Society 2015.Introduction: Septic shock is a life-threatening condition requiring vasopressor agents to support the circulatory system. Several agents exist with choice typically guided by the specific clinical scenario. We used a network meta-analysis approach to rate the comparative efficacy and safety of vasopressors for mortality and arrhythmia incidence in septic shock patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive electronic database search including Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane database. Randomised trials investigating vasopressor agents in septic shock patients and specifically assessing 28-day mortality or arrhythmia incidence were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Results: Thirteen trials of low to moderate risk of bias in which 3146 patients were randomised were included. There was no pairwise evidence to suggest one agent was superior over another for mortality. In the network meta-analysis, vasopressin was significantly superior to dopamine (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.94)) for mortality. For arrhythmia incidence, standard pairwise meta-analyses confirmed that dopamine led to a higher incidence of arrhythmias than norepinephrine (OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.08 to 3.47)). In the network meta-analysis, there was no evidence of superiority of one agent over another. Conclusions: In this network meta-analysis, vasopressin was superior to dopamine for 28-day mortality in septic shock. Existing pairwise information supports the use of norepinephrine over dopamine. Our findings suggest that dopamine should be avoided in patients with septic shock and that other vasopressor agents should continue to be based on existing guidelines and clinical judgement of the specific presentation of the patient

Duodenum-preserving pancreatic resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy for chronic pancreatitis

BACKGROUND: Surgical excision by removal of the head of the pancreas to decompress the obstructed ducts is one of the treatment options for people with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Surgical excision of the head of the pancreas can be performed by excision of the duodenum along with the head of the pancreas (pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)) or without excision of the duodenum (duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR)). There is currently no consensus on the method of pancreatic head resection in people with chronic pancreatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection versus pancreaticoduodenectomy in people with chronic pancreatitis for whom pancreatic resection is considered the main treatment option. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to June 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed in people with chronic pancreatitis undergoing pancreatic head resection, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), rate ratio (RaR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an available-case analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials including 292 participants met the inclusion criteria for the review. After exclusion of 23 participants mainly due to pancreatic cancer or because participants did not receive the planned treatment, a total of 269 participants (with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis involving the head of pancreas and requiring surgery) were randomly assigned to receive DPPHR (135 participants) or PD (134 participants). The trials did not report the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of the participants. All the trials were single-centre trials and included people with and without obstructive jaundice and people with and without duodenal stenosis but did not report data separately for those with and without jaundice or those with and without duodenal stenosis. The surgical procedures compared in the five trials included DPPHR (Beger or Frey procedures, or wide local excision of the head of the pancreas) and PD (pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy or Whipple procedure). The participants were followed up for various periods of time ranging from one to 15 years. The trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.The differences in short-term mortality (up to 90 days after surgery) (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.31 to 26.87; 369 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 2/135 (1.5%) versus PD: 0/134 (0%); very low quality evidence) or long-term mortality (maximal follow-up) (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), medium-term (three months to five years) (only a narrative summary was possible; 229 participants; 4 studies; very low quality evidence), or long-term quality of life (more than five years) (MD 8.45, 95% CI -0.27 to 17.18; 101 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence), proportion of people with adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.35; 226 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 23/113 (adjusted proportion 20%) versus PD: 41/113 (36.3%); very low quality evidence), number of people with adverse events (RaR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.12; 43 participants; 1 study; DPPHR: 12/22 (54.3 events per 100 participants) versus PD: 12/21 (57.1 events per 100 participants); very low quality evidence), proportion of people employed (maximal follow-up) (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.37; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 65/98 (adjusted proportion 69.4%) versus PD: 41/91 (45.1%); low quality evidence), incidence proportion of diabetes mellitus (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 269 participants; 5 studies; DPPHR: 25/135 (adjusted proportion 18.6%) versus PD: 32/134 (23.9%); very low quality evidence), and prevalence proportion of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (maximum follow-up) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 189 participants; 4 studies; DPPHR: 62/98 (adjusted proportion 62.0%) versus PD: 68/91 (74.7%); very low quality evidence) were imprecise. The length of hospital stay appeared to be lower with DPPHR compared to PD and ranged between a reduction of one day and five days in the trials (208 participants; 4 studies; low quality evidence). None of the trials reported short-term quality of life (four weeks to three months), clinically significant pancreatic fistulas, serious adverse events, time to return to normal activity, time to return to work, and pain scores using a visual analogue scale. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence suggested that DPPHR may result in shorter hospital stay than PD. Based on low or very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of any difference in the mortality, adverse events, or quality of life between DPPHR and PD. However, the results were imprecise and further RCTs are required on this topic. Future RCTs comparing DPPHR with PD should report the severity as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and their impact on patient recovery. In such trials, participant and observer blinding should be performed and the analysis should be performed on an intention-to-treat basis to decrease the bias. In addition to the short-term benefits and harms such as mortality, surgery-related complications, quality of life, length of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and return to work, future trials should consider linkage of trial participants to health databases, social databases, and mortality registers to obtain the long-term benefits and harms of the different treatments