Yoga for treating urinary incontinence in women

Background Urinary incontinence in women is associated with poor quality of life and difficulties in social, psychological and sexual functioning. The condition may affect up to 15% of middle-aged or older women in the general population. Conservative treatments such as lifestyle interventions, bladder training and pelvic floor muscle training (used either alone or in combination with other interventions) are the initial approaches to the management of urinary incontinence. Many women are interested in additional treatments such as yoga, a system of philosophy, lifestyle and physical practice that originated in ancient India. Objectives To assess the effects of yoga for treating urinary incontinence in women. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Complementary Medicine Specialised Registers. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies. We handsearched Proceedings of the International Congress on Complementary Medicine Research and the European Congress for Integrative Medicine. We searched the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for economic studies, and supplemented this search with searches for economics studies in MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 onwards. Database searches are up-to-date as of 21 June 2018. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials in women diagnosed with urinary incontinence in which one group was allocated to treatment with yoga. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each reported outcome. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. We planned to combine clinically comparable studies in Review Manager 5 using random-effects meta-analysis and to carry out sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We planned to create a table listing economic studies on yoga for incontinence but not carry out any analyses on these studies. Main results We included two studies (involving a total of 49 women). Each study compared yoga to a different comparator, therefore we were unable to combine the data in a meta-analysis. A third study that has been completed but not yet fully reported is awaiting assessment. One included study was a six-week study comparing yoga to a waiting list in 19 women with either urgency urinary incontinence or stress urinary incontinence. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all reported outcomes as very low due to performance bias, detection bias, and imprecision. The number of women reporting cure was not reported. We are uncertain whether yoga results in satisfaction with cure or improvement of incontinence (risk ratio (RR) 6.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 27.88; an increase of 592 from 111 per 1000, 95% CI 160 to 1000). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between yoga and waiting list in condition-specific quality of life as measured on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (mean difference (MD) 1.74, 95% CI -33.02 to 36.50); the number of micturitions (MD -0.77, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.59); the number of incontinence episodes (MD -1.57, 95% CI -2.83 to -0.31); or the bothersomeness of incontinence as measured on the Urogenital Distress Inventory 6 (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.34). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of women who experienced at least one adverse event (risk difference 0%, 95% CI -38% to 38%; no difference from 222 per 1000, 95% CI 380 fewer to 380 more). The second included study was an eight-week study in 30 women with urgency urinary incontinence that compared mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to an active control intervention of yoga classes. The study was unblinded, and there was high attrition from both study arms for all outcome assessments. We judged the certainty of the evidence for all reported outcomes as very low due to performance bias, attrition bias, imprecision and indirectness. The number of women reporting cure was not reported. We are uncertain whether women in the yoga group were less likely to report improvement in incontinence at eight weeks compared to women in the MBSR group (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.43; a decrease of 419 from 461 per 1000, 95% CI 5 to 660). We are uncertain about the effect of MBSR compared to yoga on reports of cure or improvement in incontinence, improvement in condition-specific quality of life measured on the Overactive Bladder Health-Related Quality of Life Scale, reduction in incontinence episodes or reduction in bothersomeness of incontinence as measured on the Overactive Bladder Symptom and Quality of Life-Short Form at eight weeks. The study did not report on adverse effects. Authors' conclusions We identified few trials on yoga for incontinence, and the existing trials were small and at high risk of bias. In addition, we did not find any studies of economic outcomes related to yoga for urinary incontinence. Due to the lack of evidence to answer the review question, we are uncertain whether yoga is useful for women with urinary incontinence. Additional, well-conducted trials with larger sample sizes are needed

Addressing resistance to antibiotics in systematic reviews of antibiotic interventions

Antibiotics are among the most important interventions in healthcare. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of treatment. Systematic reviews of antibiotic treatments often do not address resistance to antibiotics even when data are available in the original studies. This omission creates a skewed view, which emphasizes short-term efficacy and ignores the long-term consequences to the patient and other people. We offer a framework for addressing antibiotic resistance in systematic reviews. We suggest that the data on background resistance in the original trials should be reported and taken into account when interpreting results. Data on emergence of resistance (whether in the body reservoirs or in the bacteria causing infection) are important outcomes. Emergence of resistance should be taken into account when interpreting the evidence on antibiotic treatment in randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews

Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy. Findings: We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1. Interpretation: Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19. Funding: The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government

Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations concept 7: issues and insights linking guideline recommendations to trustworthy essential medicine lists

Objectives: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. Study Design and Setting: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. Results: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. Conclusion: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries

Training of patient and consumer representatives in the basic competencies of evidence-based medicine: a feasibility study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become standard approach in medicine. Patients and health authorities increasingly claim active patient roles in decision making. Education to cope with these roles might be useful. We investigated the feasibility, acceptability and possible impact of EBM training courses for patient and consumer representatives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We designed a generic one-week EBM course based on previous experience with EBM courses for non-medical health professionals. A course specific competence test has been developed and validated to measure EBM skills. Formative and summative evaluation of the course comprised: 1) EBM skills; 2) individual learning goals; 3) self-reported implementation after six months using semi-structured interviews; 4) group-based feedback by content analysis. EBM skills' achievement was compared to results gathered by a group of undergraduate University students of Health Sciences and Education who had attended a comparable EBM seminar.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fourteen EBM courses were conducted including 161 participants without previous EBM training (n = 54 self-help group representatives, n = 64 professional counsellors, n = 36 patient advocates, n = 7 others); 71% had a higher education degree; all but five finished the course. Most participants stated personal learning goals explicitly related to practicing EBM such as acquisition of critical appraisal skills (n = 130) or research competencies (n = 67). They rated the respective relevance of the course on average with 80% (SD 4) on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100%.</p> <p>Participants passed the competence test with a mean score of 14.7 (SD 3.0, n = 123) out of 19.5 points. The comparison group of students achieved a mean score of 14.4 (SD 3.3, n = 43). Group-based feedback revealed increases of self confidence, empowerment through EBM methodology and statistical literacy, and acquisition of new concepts of patient information and counselling. Implementation of EBM skills was reported by 84 of the 129 (65%) participants available for follow-up interviews. Barriers included lack of further support, limited possibilities to exchange experiences, and feeling discouraged by negative reactions of health professionals.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Training in basic EBM competencies for selected patient and consumer representatives is feasible and accepted and may affect counselling and advocacy activities. Implementation of EBM skills needs support beyond the training course.</p

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity