Efficacy of nonsurgical interventions for the management of adults with cervicogenic headache: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Interventions targeting improvement in mobility after hip fracture may cause clinically meaningful improvement in mobility and walking speed in hospital and post-hospital settings, compared with conventional care. Interventions that include training of gait, balance and functional tasks are particularly effective. There was little or no between-group difference in the number of adverse events reported. Future trials should include long-term follow-up and economic outcomes, determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and establish effectiveness in emerging economies.

We found that acupuncture may not play a more clinically meaningful role than sham in relieving pain immediately after treatment or in improving quality of life in the short term, and acupuncture possibly did not improve back function compared to sham in the immediate term. However, acupuncture was more effective than no treatment in improving pain and function in the immediate term. Trials with usual care as the control showed acupuncture may not reduce pain clinically, but the therapy may improve function immediately after sessions as well as physical but not mental quality of life in the short term. The evidence was downgraded to moderate to very low-certainty considering most of studies had high risk of bias, inconsistency, and small sample size introducing imprecision. The decision to use acupuncture to treat chronic low back pain might depend on the availability, cost and patient's preferences.

Efficacy of physiotherapy interventions for the management of adults with cervicogenic headache: A systematic review and meta-analyses.

Findings from a small body of evidence suggest that physical activity comprising of yoga, treadmill exercise or support to increase physical activity may improve symptoms but not quality of life or abdominal pain in people diagnosed with IBS but we have little confidence in these conclusions due to the very low certainty of evidence. The numbers of reported adverse events were low and the certainty of these findings was very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. Discussions with patients considering physical activity as part of symptom management should address the uncertainty in the evidence to ensure fully informed decisions. If deemed sufficiently important to patients and healthcare providers, higher quality research is needed to enable more certain conclusions.

Carnitine deficiency is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require dialysis. Several clinical studies have suggested that carnitine supplementation is beneficial for dialysis-related symptoms. However, the clinical effectiveness and potential adverse effects of carnitine supplementation in dialysis patients have not been determined. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carnitine supplementation for the treatment of dialysis-related complications in CKD patients requiring dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 16 August 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth, or other predictable methods) that compared carnitine supplements with placebo or standard care in people with CKD requiring dialysis. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed study quality. We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean differences (SMD) if different scales were used, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. We included 52 studies (47 parallel RCTs and five cross-over RCTs) (3398 randomised participants). All studies compared L-carnitine with a placebo, other treatment, or no treatment. Standard care was continued as co-interventions in each group. Most studies were judged to have an unclear or high risk of bias. L-carnitine may have little or no effect on the quality of life (QoL) SF-36 physical component score (PCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.57, 95% CI -0.15 to 1.28; I² = 73%; low certainty of evidence), and the total QoL score (Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL), VAS (general well-being), or PedsQL) (3 studies, 230 participants: SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.25; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve SF-36 mental component score (MCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.18; I² = 42%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may have little or no effect on fatigue score (2 studies, 353 participants: SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.23; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), adverse events (12 studies, 1041 participants: RR, 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.51; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), muscle cramps (2 studies, 102 participants: RR, 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.09; I² = 23%; low certainty of evidence), and intradialytic hypotension (3 studies, 128 participants: RR, 0.76, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.69; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve haemoglobin levels (26 studies, 1795 participants: MD 0.46 g/dL, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74; I² = 86%; low certainty of evidence) and haematocrit values (14 studies, 950 participants: MD 1.78%, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.18; I² = 84%; low certainty of evidence). The available evidence does not currently support the use of carnitine supplementation in the treatment of dialysis-related carnitine deficiency. Although carnitine supplementation may slightly improve anaemia-related markers, carnitine supplementation makes little or no difference to adverse events. However, these conclusions are based on limited data and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

The evidence that glucocorticoids reduce symptoms of croup at two hours, shorten hospital stays, and reduce the rate of return visits or (re)admissions has not changed in this update. A smaller dose of 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone may be as effective as the standard dose of 0.60 mg/kg. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence for effectiveness of low-dose dexamethasone at 0.15 mg/kg to treat croup.

Analysis 2.24. Comparison 2: Cognitive rehabilitation versus inactive control at medium-term follow-up, Outcome 24: Burden (care partner self-report).

Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.

BACKGROUND: Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until April 4th 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included days of sickness absence or being off work as an outcome. We also analysed the effects on depression and work functioning. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to pool study results in studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we added 23 new studies. In total, we included 45 studies with 88 study arms, involving 12,109 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. Risk of bias The most common types of bias risk were detection bias (27 studies) and attrition bias (22 studies), both for the outcome of sickness absence. Work-directed interventions Work-directed interventions combined with clinical interventions A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces days of sickness absence within the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This translates back to 0.5 fewer (95% CI -0.7 to -0.2) sick leave days in the past two weeks or 25 fewer days during one year (95% CI -37.5 to -11.8). The intervention does not lead to fewer persons being off work beyond one year follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; 2 studies, high-certainty evidence). The intervention may reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 8 studies, low-certainty evidence) and probably has a small effect on work functioning (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.06; 5 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up. Stand alone work-directed interventions A specific work-directed intervention alone may increase the number of sickness absence days compared with work-directed care as usual (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence) but probably does not lead to more people being off work within the first year of follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence) or beyond (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.10, 95% -0.30 CI to 0.10; 4 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up and there may be no effect on depressive symptoms beyond that time (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.49; 1 study, low-certainty evidence). The intervention may also not lead to better work functioning (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 1 study, low-certainty evidence) within the first year of follow-up. Psychological interventions A psychological intervention, either face-to-face, or an E-mental health intervention, with or without professional guidance, may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.03; 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). It may also reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.15, 8 studies, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether these psychological interventions improve work ability (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.46 to 0.57; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Psychological intervention combined with antidepressant medication Two studies compared the effect of a psychological intervention combined with antidepressants to antidepressants alone. One study combined psychodynamic therapy with tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) medication and another combined telephone-administered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). We are uncertain if this intervention reduces the number of sickness absence days (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.24; 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence) but found that there may be no effect on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.12; 2 studies, low-certainty evidence). Antidepressant medication only Three studies compared the effectiveness of SSRI to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Improved care Overall, interventions to improve care did not lead to fewer days of sickness absence, compared to care as usual (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). However, in studies with a low risk of bias, the intervention probably leads to fewer days of sickness absence in the first year of follow-up (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.05; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Improved care probably leads to fewer depressive symptoms (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.07; 7 studies, moderate-certainty evidence) but may possibly lead to a decrease in work-functioning (SMD 0.5, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise Supervised strength exercise may reduce sickness absence, compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54; one study, low-certainty evidence). However, aerobic exercise probably is not more effective than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 2 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Both studies found no differences between the two conditions in depressive symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A combination of a work-directed intervention and a clinical intervention probably reduces the number of sickness absence days, but at the end of one year or longer follow-up, this does not lead to more people in the intervention group being at work. The intervention may also reduce depressive symptoms and probably increases work functioning more than care as usual. Specific work-directed interventions may not be more effective than usual work-directed care alone. Psychological interventions may reduce the number of sickness absence days, compared with care as usual. Interventions to improve clinical care probably lead to lower sickness absence and lower levels of depression, compared with care as usual. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. Further research is needed to assess which combination of work-directed and clinical interventions works best.

CBT with and without exercise interventions probably reduces FoF in older people living in the community immediately after the intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). The improvements may be sustained during the period up to six months after intervention (low-certainty evidence), and probably are sustained beyond six months (moderate-certainty evidence). Further studies are needed to improve the certainty of evidence for sustainability of FoF effects up to six months. Of the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether CBT interventions for FoF reduce the occurrence of falls (very low-certainty evidence). However, CBT interventions for reducing FoF may reduce the level of activity avoidance, and may reduce depression (low-certainty evidence). No studies reported adverse effects. Future studies could investigate different populations (e.g. nursing home residents or people with comorbidities), intervention characteristics (e.g. duration), or comparisons (e.g. CBT versus exercise), investigate adverse effects of the interventions, and add outcomes (e.g. gait analysis). Future systematic reviews could search specifically for secondary outcomes.

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. This review update found many planned and ongoing studies, which is encouraging since further work is required to establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Some CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.

Sleep disorders are commonly experienced by people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Several approaches for improving sleep quality are used in clinical practice including relaxation techniques, exercise, acupressure, and medication. To assess the effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to improve sleep quality among adults and children with CKD including people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 8 October 2018 with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised RCTs of any intervention in which investigators reported effects on sleep quality. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified records. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for included studies. The primary outcomes were sleep quality, sleep onset latency, sleep duration, sleep interruption, and sleep efficiency. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. We calculated treatment estimates as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes to account for heterogeneity in measures of sleep quality. Sixty-seven studies involving 3427 participants met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-six studies involving 2239 participants were included in meta-analyses. Follow-up for clinical outcomes ranged between 0.3 and 52.8 weeks (median 5 weeks). Interventions included relaxation techniques, exercise, acupressure, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), educational interventions, benzodiazepine treatment, dopaminergic agonists, telephone support, melatonin, reflexology, light therapy, different forms of peritoneal dialysis, music, aromatherapy, and massage. Incomplete reporting of key methodological details resulted in uncertain risk of bias in many studies.In very low certainty evidence relaxation techniques had uncertain effects on sleep quality and duration, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, anxiety, and fatigue. Studies were not designed to evaluate the effects of relaxation on sleep latency or hospitalisation. Exercise had uncertain effects on sleep quality (SMD -1.10, 95% CI -2.26 to 0.05; I2 = 90%; 5 studies, 165 participants; very low certainty evidence). Exercise probably decreased depression (MD -9.05, 95% CI -13.72 to -4.39; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 46 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and fatigue (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.29; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Compared with no acupressure, acupressure had uncertain effects on sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scale 0 - 21) (MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.40; I2 = 89%; 6 studies, 367 participants: very low certainty evidence). Acupressure probably slightly improved sleep latency (scale 0 - 3) (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 173 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and sleep time (scale 0 - 3) (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.09; I2 = 68%; 3 studies, 173 participants; moderate certainty evidence), although effects on sleep disturbance were uncertain as the evidence certainty was very low (scale 0 - 3) (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.19; I2 = 97%). In moderate certainty evidence, acupressure probably decrease fatigue (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.48; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 137 participants). Acupressure had uncertain effects on depression (MD -3.65, 95% CI -7.63 to 0.33; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 137 participants; very low certainty evidence) while studies were not designed to evaluate the effect of acupressure on HRQoL, anxiety, or hospitalisation. It was uncertain whether acupressure compared with sham acupressure improved sleep quality (PSQI scale 0 to 21) because the certainty of the evidence was very low (MD -2.25, 95% CI -6.33 to 1.82; I2 = 96%; 2 studies, 129 participants), but total sleep time may have been improved (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low certainty evidence). 2 =2 =There were no studies designed to directly examine and/or correlate efficacy of any interventions aimed at improving sleep that may have been attempted for the spectrum of sleep disordered breathing. No studies reported treatment effects for children. Adverse effects of therapies were very uncertain. The evidence base for improving sleep quality and related outcomes for adults and children with CKD is sparse. Relaxation techniques and exercise had uncertain effects on sleep outcomes. Acupressure may improve sleep latency and duration, although these findings are based on few studies. The effects of acupressure were not confirmed in studies in which sham acupressure was used as the control. Given the very low certainly evidence, future research will very likely change the evidence base. Based on the importance of symptom management to patients, caregivers and clinicians, future studies of sleep interventions among people with CKD should be a priority.