490 research outputs found
Dietary modifications for infantile colic
Infantile colic can be defined as periods of inconsolable, unexplained, and incessant crying in a seemingly healthy infant that, quite understandably, leads to exhausted, frustrated, and concerned parents seeking to comfort their child (Landgren 2010).
The prevalence of excessive crying varies according to the definition used although, most often, it peaks during the second month of life,with a prevalence of 1.5%to 11.9%(Reijneveld 2001).Traditionally, the definition of the condition was based on the rule of
three (Wessel 1954): that is, unexplained episodes of paroxysmal crying for more than three hours per day, for three days per week, for at least three weeks. More recently a new definition has been proposed. It refers to a clinical condition of fussing and crying for at least one week in an otherwise healthy infant (Hyman 2006). Colic can be graded as mild, moderate, or severe, though there is no consensus for this classification. Colic can affect up to 10% to 30% of infants worldwide (Clifford 2002; Rosen 2007)
Measuring antibiotic availability and use in 20 low- and middle-income countries
Objective To assess antibiotic availability and use in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries, using the service provision assessment and service availability and readiness assessment surveys.
Methods We obtained data on antibiotic availability at 13 561 health facilities in 13 service provision assessment and 8 service availability and readiness assessment surveys. In 10 service provision assessment surveys, child consultations with health-care providers were observed, giving data on antibiotic use in 22 699 children. Antibiotics were classified as access, watch or reserve, according to the World Health Organizationâs AWaRe categories. The percentage of health-care facilities across countries with specific antibiotics available and the proportion of children receiving antibiotics for key clinical syndromes were estimated.
Findings The surveys assessed the availability of 27 antibiotics (19 access, 7 watch, 1 unclassified). Co-trimoxazole and metronidazole were most widely available, being in stock at 89.5% (interquartile range, IQR: 11.6%) and 87.1% (IQR: 15.9%) of health facilities, respectively. In contrast, 17 other access and watch antibiotics were stocked, by fewer than a median of 50% of facilities. Of the 22 699 children observed, 60.1% (13 638) were prescribed antibiotics (mostly co-trimoxazole or amoxicillin). Children with respiratory conditions were most often prescribed antibiotics (76.1%; 8972/11 796) followed by undifferentiated fever (50.1%; 760/1518), diarrhoea (45.7%; 1293/2832) and malaria (30.3%; 352/1160).
Conclusion Routine health facility surveys provided a valuable data source on the availability and use of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries. Many access antibiotics were unavailable in a majority of most health-care facilities
Anxiety above the clouds
The first in this series of Dr Cochrane clinical vignettes is based upon an overview of Cochrane Reviews that was published in the previous issue of Evidence-Based Child Health: Manassis K, Russell K, Newton AS: The Cochrane Library and the treatment on childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders: an overview of reviews. Evid-Based Child Health 2010, 5: 541\u2013554.
Dr Cochrane is a unique self-learning experience\u2014the integration of Cochrane evidence with a quirky fictional story and multiple-choice questions provides readers with the opportunity to explore and understand the applicability of a Cochrane Review or Overview in a new way.
In this series of fictional clinical vignettes, Dr Cochrane travels across time from the past century to the present day, to solve clinical problems using evidence from Cochrane Reviews. Read the associated article and/or listen to the Evidence-Based Child Health podcast available online at www.cochrane.org/podcasts/ and then test your knowledge with six multiple choice questions. You can find the answers to the questions on page 1547.
In the next issue of Evidence-based Child Health, Dr Cochrane explores the evidence for chronic cough, based upon the Cochrane Overview available in this issue (Russell K, Chang AB, Foisy M, Thomson D, Williams K: The Cochrane Library and the Treatment of Chronic Cough in Children: An Overview of Reviews. Evid-Based Child Health 2010, 5: 1196\u20131205). Copyright \ua9 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboratio
Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants
Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025
Systematic reviews highlight the complex balance between good and harm from screening studies
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the prevention of migraine in adults
Background:
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards migraine prevention. Another updated review is under development to cover tension-type headache.
Migraine is a common disorder. The chronic forms are associated with disability and have a high economic impact. In view of discoveries about the role of serotonin and other neurotransmitters in pain mechanisms, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of migraine.
Objectives:
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in adults.
Search strategy:
For the original review, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we applied a revised search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials.
Selection criteria:
We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older of either sex with migraine.
Data collection and analysis:
Two authors independently extracted data (migraine frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; days off work; quality of life; mood improvement; cost-effectiveness; and adverse events) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome of this updated review is migraine frequency.
Main results:
The original review included eight studies on migraine. Overall, we now include 11 studies on five SSRIs and one SNRI with a total of 585 participants. Six studies were placebo-controlled, four compared a SSRI or SNRI to amitriptyline, and one was a head-to-head comparison (escitalopram versus venlafaxine). Most studies had methodological or reporting shortcomings (or both): all studies were at unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Follow-up rarely extended beyond three months. The lack of adequate power of most of the studies is also a major concern.
Few studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on migraine frequency, the primary endpoint. Two studies with unclear reporting compared SSRIs and SNRIs to placebo, suggesting a lack of evidence for a difference. Two studies compared SSRIs or SNRIs versus amitriptyline and found no evidence for a difference in terms of migraine frequency (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.80; I2 = 72%), or other secondary outcomes such as migraine intensity and duration.
SSRIs or SNRIs were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of participants who withdrew due to adverse advents or for other reasons (one study, odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.50 and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.34).
We did not find studies comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. antiepileptics and anti-hypertensives)
Clinical Evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice?
Background: Research has shown that many healthcare professionals have problems with guidelines as they would prefer to be given all relevent information relevent to decision-making rather than being told what they should do. This study assesses doctors' judgement of the validity, relevance, clarity and usability of the Italian translation of Clinical Evidence (CE) after its free distribution launched by the Italian Ministry of Health. Methods: Opinions elicited using a standardised questionnaire delivered either by mail or during educational or professional meetings. Results: Twenty percent (n = 1350) doctors participated the study. Most of them found CE's content valid, useful and relevant for their clinical practice, and said CE can foster communications among clinicians, particularly among GPs and specialists. Hospital doctors (63%) more often than GPs (48%) read the detailed presentation of individual chapters. Twenty-nine percent said CE brought changes in their clinical practice. Doctors appreciated CE's nature of an evidence-based information compendium and would have not preferred a collection of practice guidelines. Conclusions: Overall, the pilot initiative launched by the Italian Ministry of Health seems to have been well received and to support the subsequent decision to make the Italian edition of Clinical Evidence concise available to all doctors practising in the country. Local implementation initiatives should be warranted to favour doctor's use of CE
Using Clinical Evidence in a national continuing medical education program in Italy.
No abstrac
Pain-relieving agents for infantile colic
Background: Infantile colic is a common disorder in the first months of life, affecting somewhere between 4% and 28% of infants worldwide, depending on geography and definitions used. Although it is self limiting and resolves by four months of age, colic is perceived by parents as a problem that requires action. Pain-relieving agents, such as drugs, sugars and herbal remedies, have been suggested as interventions to reduce crying episodes and severity of symptoms. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pain-relieving agents for reducing colic in infants younger than four months of age. Search methods: We searched the following databases in March 2015 and again in May 2016: CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, along with 11 other databases. We also searched two trial registers, four thesis repositories and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of pain-relieving agents given to infants with colic. Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results: We included 18 RCTs involving 1014 infants. All studies were small and at high risk of bias, often presenting major shortcomings across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, performance, attrition, lack of washout period). Three studies compared simethicone with placebo, and one with Mentha piperita; four studies compared herbal agents with placebo; two compared sucrose or glucose with placebo; five compared dicyclomine with placebo; and two compared cimetropium - one against placebo and the other at two different dosages. One multiple-arm study compared sucrose and herbal tea versus no treatment. Simethicone. Comparison with placebo revealed no difference in daily hours of crying reported for simethicone at the end of treatment in one small, low-quality study involving 27 infants. A meta-analysis of data from two cross-over studies comparing simethicone with placebo showed no difference in the number of of infants who responded positively to treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.23; 110 infants, low-quality evidence). One small study (30 participants) compared simethicone with Mentha piperita and found no difference in crying duration, number of crying episodes or number of responders. Herbal agents. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that herbal agents reduce the duration of crying compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.96; three studies, 279 infants), with different magnitude of benefit noted across studies (I2 = 96%). We found moderate-quality evidence indicating that herbal agents increase response over placebo (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.70; three studies, 277 infants). Sucrose. One very low-quality study involving 35 infants reported that sucrose reduced hours spent crying compared with placebo (MD 1.72, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.06). Dicyclomine. We could consider only one of the five studies of dicyclomine (48 infants) for the primary comparison. In this study, more of the infants given dicyclomine responded than than those given placebo (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.34). Cimetropium bromide. Data from one very low-quality study comparing cimetropium bromide with placebo showed reduced crying duration among infants treated with cimetropium bromide (MD -30.20 minutes per crisis, 95% CI -39.51 to -20.89; 86 infants). The same study reported that cimetropium increased the number of responders (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.64). No serious adverse events were reported for all of the agents considered, with the exception of dicyclomine, for which two of five studies reported relevant adverse effects (longer sleep 4%, wide-eyed state 4%, drowsiness 13%). Authors' conclusions: At the present time, evidence of the effectiveness of pain-relieving agents for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and prone to bias. The few available studies included small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. Benefits, when reported, were inconsistent. We found no evidence to support the use of simethicone as a pain-relieving agent for infantile colic. Available evidence shows that herbal agents, sugar, dicyclomine and cimetropium bromide cannot be recommended for infants with colic. Investigators must conduct RCTs using standardised measures that allow comparisons among pain-relieving agents and pooling of results across studies. Parents, who most often provide the intervention and assess the outcome, should always be blinded
- âŚ