Unclear Allocation Concealment Research Articles

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to normal saline, to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. To evaluate the benefits and harms of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline in adults to prevent occlusion. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2021. We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus normal saline. We excluded studies on infants and children from this review. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were occlusion of CVCs and duration of catheter patency. Our secondary outcomes were CVC-related bloodstream infections and CVC-related colonisation, mortality, haemorrhage, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, CVC-related thrombosis, number of additional CVC insertions, abnormality of coagulation profile and allergic reactions to heparin. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified one new RCT with 30 participants for this update. We included a total of 12 RCTs with 2422 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all RCTs. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access). Five studies included ICU (intensive care unit) patients, two studies included oncology patients, and the remaining studies included miscellaneous patients (chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis, home care patients, etc.). Primary outcomes Overall, combined results may show fewer occlusions with heparin compared to normal saline but this is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; 10 studies; 1672 participants; low-certainty evidence). We pooled studies that used participant or catheter as the unit of analysis. We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis. No clear differences were detected after testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23). We found no clear evidence of a difference in the duration of catheter patency with heparin compared to normal saline (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; 6 studies; 1788 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following outcomes: CVC-related bloodstream infections (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.80; 3 studies; 1127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; 3 studies; 1100 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.74; 3 studies; 1197 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; 3 studies; 443 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes were unclear allocation concealment, suspicion of publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Given the low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer central venous catheter occlusions than intermittent locking with normal saline in adults. Low-certainty evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency duration. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (CVC-related bloodstream infections, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined studies were not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Further research conducted over longer periods would reduce the current uncertainties.

Fornix-based versus limbal-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma.

Glaucoma is one of the leading largely preventable causes of blindness in the world. It is usually addressed first medically with topical intraocular pressure-lowering drops or by laser trabeculoplasty. In cases where such treatment fails, glaucoma-filtering surgery such as trabeculectomy, is commonly considered. Surgeons can differ in their technique when performing trabeculectomy, for example, the choice of the type of the conjunctival flap (fornix- or limbal-based). In a fornix-based flap, the surgical wound is performed at the corneal limbus; while in a limbal-based flap, the incision is further away. Many studies in the literature compare fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy with respect to outcomes and complications. To assess the comparative effectiveness of fornix- versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy for adult glaucoma, with a specific focus on intraocular pressure (IOP) control and complication rates (adverse effects). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 March 2021. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication. We included RCTs comparing the benefits and complications of fornix- versus limbal-based trabeculectomy for glaucoma, irrespective of glaucoma type, publication status, and language. We excluded studies on children less than 18 years of age, since wound healing is different in this age group and the rate of bleb scarring postoperatively is high. We used standard methodological procedures as per Cochrane criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies for this review update. As presented in the originalreview, we included six trials with a total of 361 participants. Two studies were conducted in the USA and one each in Germany, Greece, India, and Saudi Arabia. The participants of four trials had open-angle glaucoma; one study included participants with primary open-angle or primary closed-angle glaucoma, and one study did not specify the type of glaucoma. Three studies used a combined procedure (phacotrabeculectomy). Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) was performed in four studies, and trabeculectomy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was performed in only one study. None of the included trials reported trabeculectomy failure at 24 months. Only one trial reported the failure rate of trabeculectomy as a late complication. Failure was higher among participants randomised to the limbal-based surgery: 1/50 eyes failed trabeculectomy in the fornix group compared with 3/50 in the limbal group (Peto odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.61)); therefore we are very uncertain as to the relative effect of the two procedures on failure rate. Four studies including 252 participants provided measures of mean IOP at 12 months. In the fornix-based surgeries, mean IOP ranged from 12.5 to 15.5 mmHg and similar results were noted in limbal-based surgeries with mean IOP ranging from 11.7 to 15.1 mmHg without significant difference. Mean difference was 0.44 mmHg (95% CI -0.45 to 1.33; 247 eyes) and 0.86 mmHg, (95% CI -0.52 to 2.24; 139 eyes) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Neither of these pooled analyses showed a statistically significant difference in IOP between groups (moderate certainty evidence). One trial reported number of anti-glaucoma medications at 24 months of follow-up with no difference noted between surgical groups. However, three trials reported the mean number of anti-glaucoma medications at 12 months of follow-up without significant difference in the mean number of postoperative IOP-lowering medications between the two surgical techniques. Mean difference was 0.02, (95% CI -0.15 to 0.19) at 12 months of follow-up (high certainty evidence). Because of the small numbers of events and total participants, the risk of many reported adverse events was uncertain and those that were found to be statistically significant may have been due to chance. For risk of bias assessment: although all six trials were randomised selection bias was mostly unclear, with unclear random sequence generation in four of the six studies and unclear allocation concealment in five of the six studies. Attrition bias was encountered in only one trial which also suffered from reporting bias. All other trials had an unclear risk of reporting bias as there was no access to study protocols. All included trials were judged to have high risk of detection bias due to lack of masking of the outcomes. Trabeculectomy is quite a standard procedure and unlikely to induce bias due to surgeon 'performance', hence performance bias was not evaluated. The main result of this review was that there was uncertainty as to the difference between fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy surgeries due to the small number of events and confidence intervals that cross the null. This also applied to postoperative complications, but without any impact on long-term failure rate between the two surgical techniques.

Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016. To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss. 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 the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time. We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).

Monitoring of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is necessary to detect as well as reducethe incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the optimal ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation IVFand ICSItreatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS. In this update conducted in March 2020, two review authorssearched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data. Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included. Two review authors (IK, AW) independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update in 2020. The evidence based on the six trials identified in 2014 remained unchanged. They included 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment. None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Two studies presented pregnancy rate per initiated cycle and per embryo transfer, respectively. Four studies reported pregnancy rate per woman with pooled data; we are uncertain of the effect ofmonitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring on clinical pregnancy rate per woman(odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests in women with a 36% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate using TVUS only would be between 31% and 46%. We are uncertain of any effectin the mean number of oocytes retrieved per woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence). We are uncertain whethermonitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring affectedthe incidence of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that in women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate monitored by TVUS only would be between 2% and 8%. The cycle cancellation rate was similar in both arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies. This review update found no new randomised trials. Evidence from the six studies previously identified did not suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology.The choice of one or the other method may depend upon the convenience of its use, and the associated costs.An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.

Background Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them. Objectives To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. Search methods We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias. Main results We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1). The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P Authors' conclusions The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) seems to play an important role in the process of embryo implantation and continuation of pregnancy. It has been used during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for subfertile women with chronically thin endometrium and those with previous multiple IVF failures. It is currently unknown whether G-CSF is effective in improving results following assisted reproductive technology (ART). To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in women undergoing ART. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in February 2019. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing G-CSF administration versus no treatment or placebo in subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live-birth rate and miscarriage rate following G-CSF administration. We have reported ongoing pregnancy rate in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, adverse events, ectopic pregnancy rate, small for gestational age at birth, abnormally adherent placenta, and congenital anomaly rate. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. We included 15 trials involving 622 women who received G-CSF and 631 women who received placebo or no additional treatment during IVF. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. We assessed only two of the 15 included trials as at a low risk of bias. None of the trials reported the primary effectiveness outcome of live-birth rate. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves ongoing pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.42; 2 RCTs; participants = 263; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 14% ongoing pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 12% and 35%. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration reduces miscarriage rate (Peto odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.83; 3 RCTs; participants = 391; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) compared to the control group in subfertile women undergoing ART. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves overall clinical pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01; 14 RCTs; participants = 1253; I² = 13%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 17% clinical pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 23% and 35%. In the unselected IVF population, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.60; 3 RCTs; participants = 404; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more previous IVF failures compared to the control group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.85; 7 RCTs; participants = 643; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In subfertile women with thin endometrium undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.63; 4 RCTs; participants = 206; I² = 30%; low-quality evidence). No study reported on multiple pregnancy rate. Only four trials reported adverse events as an outcome, and none of them reported any major adverse events following either G-CSF administration or placebo/no treatment. In subfertile women undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether the administration of G-CSF improves ongoing pregnancy or overall clinical pregnancy rates or reduces miscarriage rate compared to no treatment or placebo, whether in all women or those with thin endometrium, based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more IVF failures, but the included studies had unclear allocation concealment or were at high risk of performance bias.

Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes. To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF. We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria. We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI. At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults

Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% NaCl (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to 0.9% NaCl to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This work is an update of a review first published in 2014. To assess the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline (NS) in adults to prevent occlusion. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 11 June 2018) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 5). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases (11 June 2018). We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus NS. We applied no restriction on language. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to retrieve additional information, when necessary. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 and assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting assessed outcomes using GRADE. We carried out prespecified subgroup analysis. We identified five new studies for this update (six prior studies were included in the original review), bringing the number of eligible studies to 11, with a total of 2392 participants. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access).Combined results from these studies showed fewer occlusions with heparin than with NS (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 1672 participants; 1025 catheters from 10 studies; I² = 14%) and provided very low-quality evidence.We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis (testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23; I² = 30.3%). When the unit of analysis was the participant, results show no clear differences in all occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; P = 0.15; 1672 participants; seven studies). Subgroup analysis using the catheter as the unit of analysis shows fewer occlusions with heparin use (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95; P = 0.03; 1025 catheters; three studies). When the unit of analysis was line access, results show no clear differences in occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40; 770 line accesses; one study).We found no clear differences in the duration of catheter patency (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; P = 0.11; 1036 participants; 752 catheters; six studies; low-quality evidence).We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following: CVC-related sepsis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.03 to 19.54; P = 0.86; 1097 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; P = 0.33; 1100 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence); haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.07; P = 0.52; 1245 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; P = 0.31; 443 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence).The main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were unclear allocation concealment, imprecision, and suspicion of publication bias. Given the very low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer occlusions than intermittent locking with NS. Low-quality evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (sepsis, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined trials are not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia.

A META-EPIDEMIOLOGICAL REVIEW OF META-ANALYSIS ON ANTI-CARIES EFFECT OF ARGININE-CONTAINING FORMULATIONS

BackgroundSeveral significant issues on clinical trials reporting the effect of arginine-containing dental products have been addressed in systematic reviews and meta-analyses identifying the need for high-quality randomized clinical trials. A further methodological analysis of the given systematic reviews with meta-analysis on arginine products might provide information for future high-quality randomized clinical trials and current clinical practice. Objective(s)The objective was to perform a meta-epidemiological assessment of meta-analyses reporting the anticaries effect of arginine-containing formulations. MethodsThe data on risk-of-bias assessment, effect size measure, dispersion of estimated precision, and follow-up period were summarized for the meta-epidemiological review analysis. ResultsStudies with larger magnitude of effect sizes might present with unclear random sequence generation and unclear allocation concealment representing the selection bias. There was a significant strong negative correlation between the follow-up time and dispersion of precision estimates (rs = −0.79, P = .034). ConclusionResults show that clinical trials on arginine dental products have methodological shortcomings. Both the selection bias and follow-up period influence the effect size magnitude and subsequent precision dispersion during evidence synthesis in clinical trials on arginine-containing dental products.

Automated monitoring compared to standard care for the early detection of sepsis in critically ill patients.

Automated monitoring compared to standard care for the early detection of sepsis in critically ill patients.

Medical and dietary interventions for preventing recurrent urinary stones in children.

Nephrolithiasis, or urinary stone disease, in children causes significant morbidity, and is increasing in prevalence in the North American population. Therefore, medical and dietary interventions (MDI) for recurrent urinary stones in children are poised to gain increasing importance in the clinical armamentarium. To assess the effects of medical and dietary interventions (MDI) for the prevention of idiopathic urinary stones in children aged from one to 18 years. We searched multiple databases using search terms relevant to this review, including studies identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE OvidSP (1946 to 14 February 2017), Embase OvidSP (1980 to 14 February 2017), International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we handsearched renal-related journals and the proceedings of major renal conferences, and reviewed weekly current awareness alerts for selected renal journals. The date of the last search was 14 February 2017. There were no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials of at least one year of MDI versus control for prevention of recurrent idiopathic (non-syndromic) nephrolithiasis in children. We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. Titles and abstracts were identified by search criteria and then screened for relevance, and then data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. The search identified one study of 125 children (72 boys and 53 girls) with calcium-containing idiopathic nephrolithiasis and normal renal morphology following initial treatment with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Patients were randomized to oral potassium citrate 1 mEq/kg per day for 12 months versus no specific medication or preventive measure with results reported for a total of 96 patients (48 per group). This included children who were stone-free (n = 52) or had residual stone fragments (n = 44) following SWL. Primary outcomes:Medical therapy may lower rates of stone recurrence with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.60; low quality evidence). This corresponds to 270 fewer stone recurrences per 1000 (133 fewer to 313 fewer) children. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels for very serious study limitations related to unclear allocation concealment (selection bias) and a high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. While the data for adverse events were incomplete, they reported that six of 48 (12.5%) children receiving potassium citrate left the trial because of adverse effects. This corresponds to a RR of 13.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 224.53; very low quality evidence); an absolute effect size estimate could not be generated. We downgraded the quality of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.We found no information on retreatment rates. We found no evidence on serum electrolytes, 24-hour urine collection parameters or time to new stone formation.We were unable to perform any preplanned secondary analyses. Oral potassium citrate supplementation may reduce recurrent calcium urinary stone formation in children following SWL; however, our confidence in this finding is limited. A substantial number of children stopped the medication due to adverse events. There is no trial evidence on retreatment rates. There is a critical need for additional well-designed trials in children with nephrolithiasis.

Label-invariant models for the analysis of meta-epidemiological data.

Rich meta‐epidemiological data sets have been collected to explore associations between intervention effect estimates and study‐level characteristics. Welton et al proposed models for the analysis of meta‐epidemiological data, but these models are restrictive because they force heterogeneity among studies with a particular characteristic to be at least as large as that among studies without the characteristic. In this paper we present alternative models that are invariant to the labels defining the 2 categories of studies. To exemplify the methods, we use a collection of meta‐analyses in which the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool has been implemented. We first investigate the influence of small trial sample sizes (less than 100 participants), before investigating the influence of multiple methodological flaws (inadequate or unclear sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding). We fit both the Welton et al model and our proposed label‐invariant model and compare the results. Estimates of mean bias associated with the trial characteristics and of between‐trial variances are not very sensitive to the choice of model. Results from fitting a univariable model show that heterogeneity variance is, on average, 88% greater among trials with less than 100 participants. On the basis of a multivariable model, heterogeneity variance is, on average, 25% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear sequence generation, 51% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear blinding, and 23% lower among trials with inadequate/unclear allocation concealment, although the 95% intervals for these ratios are very wide. Our proposed label‐invariant models for meta‐epidemiological data analysis facilitate investigations of between‐study heterogeneity attributable to certain study characteristics.

Oral antifungal medication for toenail onychomycosis.

Oral antifungal medication for toenail onychomycosis.

Antipsychotic combinations for schizophrenia.

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with their initial antipsychotic drug treatment. Sometimes a second antipsychotic, in combination with the first, is used in these situations. To examine whether:1. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is effective for schizophrenia; and2. treatment with antipsychotic combinations is safe for the same illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We ran searches in September 2010, August 2012 and January 2016. We checked for additional trials in the reference lists of included trials. We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic combinations with antipsychotic monotherapy for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses. We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CIs. For the meta-analysis we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for included studies. Sixty-two studies are included in the review, 31 of these compared clozapine monotherapy with clozapine combination. We considered the risk of bias in the included studies to be moderate to high. The majority of trials had unclear allocation concealment, method of randomisation and blinding, and were not free of selective reporting.There is some limited evidence that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in improving clinical response (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; participants = 2364; studies = 29, very low-quality evidence), although subgroup analyses show that the positive result was due to the studies with clozapine in both the monotherapy and combination groups (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83; participants = 1127; studies = 17). Few studies reported on rate of relapse, most likely due to the short length of the studies. Overall, a combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in preventing relapse (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; participants = 512; studies = 3, very low-quality evidence), but the pooled data showed high heterogeneity (I² = 82%). A combination of antipsychotics was not superior or inferior to antipsychotic monotherapy in reducing the number of participants discontinuing treatment early (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 3103; studies = 43, low-quality evidence). No difference was found between treatment groups in the number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.55; participants = 202; studies = 3, low-quality evidence) . We did not find evidence of a difference between treatment groups in serious adverse events or those requiring discontinuation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.69; participants = 2398; studies = 30, very low-quality evidence). There is as lack of evidence on clinically important change in quality of life, with only four studies reporting average endpoint or change data for this outcome on three different scales, none of which showed a difference between treatment groups. Currently, most evidence regarding the use of antipsychotic combinations comes from short-term trials, limiting the assessment of long-term efficacy and safety. We found very low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics may improve the clinical response. We also found low-quality evidence that a combination of antipsychotics is may make no difference at preventing participants from leaving the study early, preventing relapse and/or causing more serious adverse events than monotherapy.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve naming ability in post-stroke aphasia: A critical review.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation tool that can be used to influence cortical brain activity to induce measurable behavioral changes. Although there is growing evidence that tDCS combined with behavioural language therapy could boost language recovery in patients with post-stroke aphasia, there is great variability in patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and outcome measures in these studies that poses challenges for analyzing the evidence. The purpose of this study is to critically analyze the methodological rigor of the evidence regarding the use of tDCS for post-stroke anomia. This critical review was conducted by searching four databases (MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Nineteen studies fully met the inclusion criteria. Three critical appraisal tools and Robey and Schultz's (1998) five- phase model for conducting clinical outcome research were adopted to evaluate and analyze the current level of evidence. Methodological issues of the studies were also identified. The current level of evidence for using tDCS for anomia is at the pre-efficacy level with emerging evidence at the efficacy level. Lack of proper evaluation of carry-over effects in cross-over studies, lack of or unclear randomization, allocation concealment, and incomplete data handling were the main methodological issues that could threaten the validity of the tDCS for anomia studies. Several methodological issues have been identified in pre-efficacy studies that pose challenges in determining whether tDCS is a beneficial adjunct to behavioral aphasia therapy. Future studies need to improve the quality of the methods used to investigate the effect of tDCS for anomia.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Management of Premature Ejaculation: A Systematic Review.

IntroductionPremature ejaculation (PE) is defined as ejaculation within 1 minute (lifelong PE) or 3 minutes (acquired PE), inability to delay ejaculation, and negative personal consequences. Management includes behavioral and pharmacologic approaches.AimTo systematically review effectiveness, safety, and robustness of evidence for complementary and alternative medicine in managing PE.MethodsNine databases including Medline were searched through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials evaluating complementary and alternative medicine for PE were included.Main Outcome MeasuresStudies were included if they reported on intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) and/or another validated PE measurement. Adverse effects were summarized.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials were included. Two assessed acupuncture, five assessed Chinese herbal medicine, one assessed Ayurvedic herbal medicine, and two assessed topical “severance secret” cream. Risk of bias was unclear in all studies because of unclear allocation concealment or blinding, and only five studies reported stopwatch-measured IELT. Acupuncture slightly increased IELT over placebo in one study (mean difference [MD] = 0.55 minute, P = .001). In another study, Ayurvedic herbal medicine slightly increased IELT over placebo (MD = 0.80 minute, P = .001). Topical severance secret cream increased IELT over placebo in two studies (MD = 8.60 minutes, P < .001), although inclusion criteria were broad (IELT < 3 minutes). Three studies comparing Chinese herbal medicine with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) favored SSRIs (MD = 1.01 minutes, P = .02). However, combination treatment with Chinese medicine plus SSRIs improved IELT over SSRIs alone (two studies; MD = 1.92 minutes, P < .00001) and over Chinese medicine alone (two studies; MD = 2.52 minutes, P < .00001). Adverse effects were not consistently assessed but where reported were generally mild.ConclusionThere is preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, Ayurvedic herbal medicine, and topical severance secret cream in improving IELT and other outcomes. However, results are based on clinically heterogeneous studies of unclear quality. There are sparse data on adverse effects or potential for drug interactions. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials would be valuable.

Educational interventions for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults.

Educational interventions for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults.

Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Techniques Did Not Differ in Terms of Clinical Outcomes at 2 or 5 Years.

Sasaki S, Tsuda E, Hiraga Y, Yamamoto Y, Maeda S, Sasaki E, Ishibashi Y. Prospective randomized study of objective and subjective clinical results between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Apr;44(4):855-64. ### Question: What is the relative effectiveness of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft (DB-HT) and rectangular-tunnel single-bundle ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon graft (RTSB-PT) at 2 years? ### Design: Randomized (unclear allocation concealment), unblinded, controlled trial with a mean of 3.2 years of follow-up. ### Setting: 1 clinical center at Hirosaki University, Hirosaki, Japan. ### Patients: 150 patients (mean age, 26 years; 58% women) who needed ACL reconstruction. Exclusion criteria were skeletal immaturity with an open physis of the femur or tibia, bilateral ACL injury or multiple knee ligament injury, revision ACL surgery, knee osteoarthritis, knee surgery with high tibial osteotomy or medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction, or failure to complete the study questionnaire. 91% of patients completed follow-up. ### Intervention: DB-HT (n = 76) or RTSB-PT (n = 74). For the DB-HT technique, the semitendinosus tendon was used in 94% of patients. The graft was split and used for the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB). The femoral and tibial tunnel positions were created according to accepted anatomical guidelines. The femoral tunnel for the AMB was made with use of either a transtibial or outside-in technique. Fixation on the femur and tibia was done with a cortical-button suspension technique. For the RTSB-PT technique, the bone blocks of the bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts …

A systematic review of low-level light therapy for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a significant international health concern affecting more than 387 million individuals. A diabetic person has a 25% lifetime risk of developing a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), leading to limb amputation in up to one in six DFU patients. Low-level light therapy (LLLT) uses low-power lasers or light-emitting diodes to alter cellular function and molecular pathways, and may be a promising treatment for DFU. The goal of this systematic review is to examine whether the clinical use of LLLT is effective in the healing of DFU at 12 and 20 weeks in comparison with the standard of care, and to provide evidence-based recommendation and future clinical guidelines for the treatment of DFU using LLLT. On September 30, 2015, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases using the following terms: "diabetic foot" AND "low level light therapy," OR "light emitting diode," OR "phototherapy," OR "laser." The relevant articles that met the following criteria were selected for inclusion: randomized control trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of LLLT for treatment of DFU. Four RCTs involving 131 participants were suitable for inclusion based upon our criteria. The clinical trials used sham irriadiation, low dose, or nontherapeutic LLLT as placebo or control in comparison to LLLT. The endpoints included ulcer size and time to complete healing with follow-up ranging from 2 to 16 weeks. Each article was assigned a level of evidence (LOE) and graded according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence Grades of Recommendation criteria. Limitations of reviewed RCTs include a small sample size (N < 100), unclear allocation concealment, lack of screening phase to exclude rapid healers, unclear inclusion/exclusion criteria, short (<30 days) follow-up period, and unclear treatment settings (wavelength and treatment time). However, all reviewed RCTs demonstrated therapeutic outcomes with no adverse events using LLLT for treatment of DFU. This systematic review reports that LLLT has significant potential to become a portable, minimally invasive, easy-to-use, and cost effective modality for treatment of DFU. To enthusiastically recommend LLLT for treatment of DFU, additional studies with comparable laser parameters, screening period to exclude rapid healers, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required. We envision future stringent RCTs may validate LLLT for treatment of DFU. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42015029825.

Surgical Repair Did Not Improve Functional Outcomes More Than Conservative Treatment for Degenerative Rotator Cuff Tears.

Lambers Heerspink FO, van Raay JJ, Koorevaar RC, van Eerden PJ, Westerbeek RE, van’t Riet E, van den Akker-Scheek I, Diercks RL. Comparing surgical repair with conservative treatment for degenerative rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Aug;24(8):1274-81. ### Question: In patients with degenerative rotator cuff tears, how does surgical repair compare with conservative treatment with respect to functional outcomes? ### Design: Randomized (unclear allocation concealment), unblinded, controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. ### Setting: A university hospital and 2 regional hospitals in the Netherlands. ### Patients: 56 patients (mean age, 61 years; 63% men) with degenerative, nontraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included trauma associated with the onset of complaints, previous shoulder surgery, frozen shoulder, osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral or acromioclavicular joint, diabetes, cognitive disorders, and neurologic diseases affecting the upper extremities. 45 patients (80%) were included in the analysis. ### Intervention: Patients were allocated to surgery (n = 25) or conservative treatment (n = …