The duration of undiagnosed or untreated bipolar disorder (DUBD) has become a focus of research interest. However, its relationship with clinical characteristics and outcomes remains poorly understood.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine DUBD and explore its relationships with clinical characteristics and outcomes in bipolar disorder.

We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify studies reporting on DUBD and its relationships with clinical characteristics and outcomes including frequency of relapse into mood episodes, severity and persistence of mood symptoms, functional and cognitive measures, suicidality, hospital admission rate, and comorbidities such as substance use disorders.

Thirty articles met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and 23 studies were included in the three different sets of meta-analyses. The pooled mean DUBD across all studies was 9.10 years. Early onset, depression as the polarity of the first mood episode, lifetime suicide attempts, comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorders, and family history of bipolar disorder were associated with significantly longer DUBD, whereas diagnosis of bipolar I disorder and lifetime psychotic symptoms were associated with shorter DUBD. Studies that investigated outcomes subsequent to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder yielded conflicting results.

DUBD may be associated with certain adverse outcomes. This association indicates the importance of adopting a more comprehensive approach to assessing mood disorders, with an emphasis on prioritising early screening for bipolar disorder. The significant heterogeneity among included studies suggests a need for improved methodological rigour in future research.

Interpersonal trauma is a pervasive issue with devastating consequences for women and girls of diverse identities. Research has shown that there are many potential physiological consequences for experiencing trauma, and as such, treatment for trauma should incorporate the body. Dance/Movement Therapy (DMT) has been emerging in the current literature as one body-oriented treatment approach effective in helping women and girls heal from interpersonal trauma. This review uses textual narrative evidence synthesis to examine how practitioners are currently using DMT for this population, what treatment outcomes have been observed, and what the racial/ethnic identities and international contexts are for survivors who have benefited from DMT. Inclusion criteria for the present review included peer-reviewed studies published in English between the years 2000 to 2022, reporting data on the use of dance or movement to help women and/or adolescent girls aged 12 and older heal from interpersonal trauma. Studies were identified through electronic databases, and 16 total studies met criteria. This review found that the characteristics and structure of DMT vary greatly between different practitioners, the participants of DMT are very diverse, and there are many commonly observed outcomes such as increased physical ability, increased emotional capacity, mind-body integration, safety, aid with trauma processing, empowerment, social support, and fun. This review also gives recommendations for practitioners who wish to utilize dance and movement in treatment: offer group interventions; use the body to create metaphor, imagery, and symbolism; give survivors choices in how they participate; use music purposefully; and don't forget to cultivate joy.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been found to be helpful for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, the relative efficacy of different rTMS protocols is unclear.

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of published literature to compare the relative efficacy of different rTMS protocols for decreasing Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Severity (Y-BOCS) scores in patients with OCD.

Relevant articles published between 1985 to September 2023 were searched from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and PsycInfo. Double or single-blinded randomized controlled studies conducted on patients with OCD comparing an active rTMS protocol with either another active or sham rTMS protocol were included. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a frequentist approach. Standardized mean difference (SMD) of change in Y-BOCS scores was calculated employing Hedge's g. Pairwise meta-analysis using random effects model was conducted which was extended to the NMA using restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were used to rank the interventions.

Excitatory rTMS of the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), inhibitory rTMS of right DLPFC, inhibitory as well as excitatory rTMS of bilateral medial prefrontal cortex/anterior cingulate cortex (mPFC/ACC) and inhibitory rTMS of bilateral supplementary motor area (SMA) were superior to sham stimulation. The DLPFC and mPFC/ACC protocols had a higher probability of being among the top-ranked interventions. The majority of studies had a modest sample size and at least some concerns in the risk of bias assessment.

rTMS targeting either the medial or lateral prefrontal cortices is a promising intervention for resistant OCD. There is a need to confirm these findings in large systematic studies.

The role of anatomical variability in safe clinical practice is underappreciated. A lack of familiarity of anatomical variations is at the center of a multitude of medical and surgical errors. The recent rise in litigation due to such errors suggests that patient care may be compromised. This makes the knowledge of anatomical variation essential to medical education. Empirical studies were identified by searching several databases and repositories, and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess study quality. Eight studies were eligible for this systematic review; three of which were conference abstracts. Thematic summary of these studies yielded six themes namely: (1) importance of anatomical variation in medical education; (2) the ideal time to introduce anatomical variation in medical education; (3) important anatomical variations to include in medical education; (4) approaches to teaching anatomical variation; (5) assessing knowledge on anatomical variation; (6) barriers to including anatomical variation in medical education. Including anatomical variations in medical education would improve clinical reasoning and surgical outcomes. Following the completion of this review, three recommendations were made: (1) increasing the emphasis of anatomical variation in medical education; (2) developing more resources for anatomical variation education; (3) investigating the implications of lack of knowledge of anatomical variation in medical education through further research.

The aim of this article is to understand the importance of internal audit departments todays-part of corporate governance and guardian of the organisation's culture and climate-, as well as the opportunities that new technologies offer to increase their effectiveness and efficiency.

To this end, based on an exhaustive review of the literature, the concepts of internal audit and data analytics are related, and a framework is proposed for the implementation of a technology of these characteristics in an internal audit department.

The results of the research show that those companies that invest resources in readapting their processes to technological change are likely to obtain better results than those organisations that keep their management procedures obsolete.

Based on these results, it is concluded that there is a need to consider technological change in internal audit departments, specifically data analytics, to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of audit processes.

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to answer the following focused research question: "Does the type of endodontic sealer affect the postoperative pain in patients who received endodontic treatment?" Different databases and grey literature were surveyed. Only one randomized controlled trial were included. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risk and intensity of postoperative pain. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Out of 11,601 studies, 15 remained for qualitative analyses and 12 for meta-analysis. Seven studies were classified at high risk of bias, and 8 studies raised some concerns. No significant differences between the endodontic materials were observed in the direct comparisons, both in risk and in intensity of postoperative pain (pairwise comparisons with 2 studies: I² = 0%; p > 0.05 and 8 studies: I² = 23%; p > 0.05, respectively). The certainty of the evidence was graded as low or moderate. There was no difference in the risk and intensity of postoperative pain after filling with different endodontic sealers. Further systematic reviews should be conducted.

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020215314.

Diabetes is an established risk factor for endometrial cancer development but its impact on prognosis is unclear and epidemiological studies to date have produced inconsistent results. We aimed to conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases up to February 2022 for observational studies that investigated the association between pre-existing diabetes and cancer-specific survival in endometrial cancer patients. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and progression or recurrence-free survival. Quality assessment of included studies was undertaken using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a random-effects model was used to produce pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020196088).

In total, 31 studies were identified comprising 55,475 endometrial cancer patients. Pooled results suggested a worse cancer-specific survival in patients with compared to patients without diabetes (n = 17 studies, HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00-1.32, I2 = 62%). Similar results were observed for progression or recurrence-free survival (n = 6 studies, HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.47, I2 = 0%) and for overall survival (n = 24 studies, HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.31-1.54, I2 = 46%).

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we show that diabetes is associated with a worse cancer-specific and overall survival in endometrial cancer patients.

Primary prevention of suicidal behaviors in the general population is required to interrupt the trend of self-inflicted deaths worldwide. We reviewed the evidence of the efficacy of primary prevention of suicide among the adult population.

This is an overview of systematic reviews. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases to identify articles on suicide prevention strategies in non-clinical populations. For the purpose of overview, only systematic reviews were eligible. Primary outcomes: The outcomes of the present study were changes in the number of suicide death or suicide behaviors. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and the risk of bias of included studies.

From the initial 2,315 records, 32 articles met inclusion criteria. Evidence of reduction of suicide-related outcomes was detected, but of small magnitude. Most multicomponent prevention programs were delivered to specific populations, comprising strategies such as restriction to lethal means, educational programs, and gatekeeper training. Means restriction was the single intervention that showed some evidence of individual efficacy in reducing suicide. There is evidence that poor quality of media reporting is related with increasing suicide and better-quality reports could help suicide prevention. Most of the included SRs were of critically-low methodological quality.

Publication bias, reporting bias, study designs, outcome definition and article overlap across studies are the main concerns.

Multicomponent programs and means restriction have indicated a reduction of suicide rates, mainly in specific populations. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a widespread implementation of suicide primary prevention in the general population.

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

In newly diagnosed glioblastoma, radiation with concurrent and adjuvant (six cycles) temozolomide (TMZ) is the established standard of postsurgical care. However, the benefit of extending adjuvant TMZ therapy beyond six cycles has remained unknown.

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase up to October 1, 2021. The search keywords were "glioblastoma," "adjuvant chemotherapy," and their synonyms. The data of randomized clinical trials were extracted and included in this meta-analysis if they had reported patients' median overall survival (OS) or median progression-free survival (PFS). The standard and extended chemotherapy regimens were considered as adjuvant TMZ up to six cycles and beyond six cycles (up to a total of 12 cycles), respectively. The median OS and median PFS were pooled and compared.

Four studies consisting of 882 patients (461 patients for the standard chemotherapy group and 421 patients for the extended chemotherapy group) were included in this meta-analysis. The extended TMZ regimen was associated with a nonsignificant improvement in PFS [12.0 months (95% CI 9.0 to 15.0) vs. 10.0 months (95% CI 7.0 to 12.0), P = 0.27] without corresponding improvement in OS [23.0 months (95% CI 19.0 to 27.0) and 24.0 months (95% CI 20.0 to 28.0), P = 0.73].

In newly diagnosed glioblastoma, continuing adjuvant TMZ beyond six cycles did not shown an increase neither in PFS nor OS.

The objective of this review was to synthesize the best available research evidence regarding the effectiveness of tree nuts on glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

There has been an increase in the use of complementary therapy, particularly botanical products, for management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It has been reported that increasing mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids in diet effectively lowers the risk of development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hence, it was hypothesized that consumption of nuts, which are high in polyunsaturated fatty acids and mono-unsaturated fatty acids, may aid in preventing diabetes and reducing levels of blood glucose by reducing glycemic load by displacing dietary carbohydrates present in diet.

This systematic review included randomized controlled trials that compared the consumption of any type and form of tree nut with a placebo or any other intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trials were included if they measured fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and/or glycated hemoglobin. Trials that assessed triglyceride levels and weight postintervention were also considered for inclusion. Trials were restricted to the English language.

A three step search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Trip database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was done in July 2019. To find unpublished studies, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were searched. Studies from the search were reviewed against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers. The JBI critical appraisal checklist for randomized controlled trials was used to assess the potential studies for methodological quality. A meta-analysis and subgroup analysis was conducted among trials with the same type of intervention and outcome measures. Results are presented in a narrative format where statistical pooling was not possible.

Fifteen trials were included with a total sample size of 667. Consumption of pistachios demonstrated a significant reduction in triglyceride levels (mmol/L) at three month or earlier follow-up (mean difference [MD] -0.28; confidence interval -0.33, -0.23; P <0.00001). The meta-analysis including all tree nuts combined showed reduction in both fasting blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin (MD -0.26 mmol/L and -0.11% respectively) at three month or earlier follow-up. The subgroup analysis demonstrated MD of -0.45, -0.16, and -0.90 mmol/L in fasting blood glucose following ingestion of walnuts, almonds, and hazelnuts, respectively, and -0.17% in glycated hemoglobin following ingestion of walnuts at three month or earlier follow-up. Although not clinically significant, these figures give an indication that further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up may show encouraging results.

The authors found that pistachio consumption for three months or less significantly reduced triglyceride levels. Other tree nuts (walnuts, almonds, and hazelnuts) reduced fasting blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels by varying degrees. Further robust randomized controlled trials with power calculation-based sample size, comparing same type, dose, and method of nut intervention, will provide more evidence. For now, clinical decisions should be based on standard practice local guidelines.

PROSPERO CRD42019133558.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the labor market. The psychological pressure and uncertainty caused by the current changing workplace environment have led to negative consequences for workers. Considering the predictive relationship between employee engagement and wellbeing and in light of this unprecedented situation that affects workers of all the industries worldwide, this study aims to identify the key main drivers of employee engagement that can lead to employee wellbeing in the current context. Through a literature review, a theoretical model to strengthen engagement in times of COVID-19 is proposed. The main factors are conciliation, cultivation, confidence, compensation, and communication. Whereas prior to the pandemic, firms had already understood the need to achieve this, it is now considered a vital tool for staff health and wellbeing. This article makes two main contributions. First, it provides a model for boosting employee engagement, and therefore, wellbeing. Second, managerial suggestions are made to apply the theoretical model.

To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analysis of trastuzumab-based therapy for breast cancer.

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library, international prospective register of systematic reviews, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wan Fang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP database for SRs or meta-analysis. The methodological quality of included literatures was appraised by risk of bias in systematic review (ROBIS) tool.

Twenty three eligible systematic reviews or meta-analysis were included. Only 2 systematic reviews provided protocol. The most frequently searched databases were PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane. The two-reviewers model described in the screening for eligible original articles, data extraction, and methodological quality evaluation had 30%, 61%, and 26%, respectively. In methodological quality assessment, 52% SRs or meta-analysis used the Jadad scoring or Cochrane reviewer' handbook. Research question were well matched to all SRs or meta-analysis in phase 1 and 35% of them evaluated "high" risk bias in study eligibility criteria. The "high" risk of bias in all non-Cochrane SRs or meta-analyses, which involve methods used to identify and/or select studies. And more than half SRs or meta-analysis had a high risk of bias in data collection and study appraisal. More than two-third of SRs or meta-analysis were accomplished with high risk of bias in the synthesis and findings.

The study indicated poor methodological and reporting quality of SRs/meta-analysis assessing trastuzumab-based therapy for breast cancer. Registration or publishing the protocol and the reporting followed the PRISMA checklist are recommended in future research.

For management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform than intercostal tube drainage. In this systematic review, we seek to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. This review was first published in 2007 and was updated in 2017.

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017); and Embase (1980 to January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials (January 2017). We checked the reference lists of included trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restrictions.

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults 18 years of age and older with primary spontaneous pneumothorax that compared simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage.

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We combined studies using the random-effects model.

Of 2332 publications obtained through the search strategy, seven studies met the inclusion criteria; one study was ongoing and six studies of 435 participants were eligible for inclusion in the updated review. Data show a significant difference in immediate success rates of procedures favouring tube drainage over simple aspiration for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 435 participants, 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Duration of hospitalization however was significantly less for patients treated by simple aspiration (mean difference (MD) -1.66, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.04; 387 participants, 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). A narrative synthesis of evidence revealed that simple aspiration led to fewer adverse events (245 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence), but data suggest no differences between groups in terms of one-year success rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 318 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), hospitalization rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 245 participants, 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and patient satisfaction (median between-group difference of 0.5 on a scale from 1 to 10; 48 participants, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No studies provided data on cost-effectiveness.

Available trials showed low to moderate-quality evidence that intercostal tube drainage produced higher rates of immediate success, while simple aspiration resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization. Although adverse events were reported more commonly for patients treated with tube drainage, the low quality of the evidence warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Similarly, although this review observed no differences between groups when early failure rate, one-year success rate, or hospital admission rate was evaluated, this too needs to be put into the perspective of the quality of evidence, specifically, for evidence of very low and low quality for hospitalization rate and patient satisfaction, respectively. Future adequately powered research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review.

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Patients with stable angina not controlled by monotherapy with nitrates, beta blockers, or calcium channel blockers are often treated with combinations of these drugs. There may be adverse effects from, or contraindications to, the use of combinations. In low risk groups, medical treatment appears to be as good an option as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in terms of averting myocardial infarction, death, or subsequent revascularization. Revascularization procedures are too costly or inaccessible for many patients in developing countries therefore effective and safe medical treatment is needed. Trimetazidine is a less well known anti-anginal drug that controls myocardial ischaemia through intracellular metabolic changes. Trimetazidine has been reported, in some studies, to be better tolerated than combined anti-anginal therapy; however it is not considered in published guidelines.

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of trimetazidine in patients with stable angina.

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and SCISEARCH, without language restriction, from inception to October 2003. Experts in the field were contacted to locate unpublished studies.

Randomised studies comparing trimetazidine with placebo, or other anti-angina drug in adults with stable angina.

Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data.

Twenty-three studies (1378 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There was a paucity of information about mortality, cardiovascular events and quality of life. Trimetazidine, compared with placebo, reduced the number of weekly angina attacks ( mean difference -1.44, 95% CI -2.10 to -0.79; P < 0.0001), reduced weekly nitroglycerin tablet consumption (95% CI -1.47 to -2.20, -0.73; P < 0.0001) and improved exercise time to 1 mm segment depression (P = 0.0002). Four small trials (263 patients) compared trimetazidine against other anti-anginal agents. One favoured trimetazidine over nitrates. Three tended to favour alternative regimens but with confidence intervals consistent with both major increases and decreases in frequency of angina episodes. In this subgroup, adverse events were considered in 5 trials (448 patients) and totals of 2 versus 12 drop outs due to adverse events were observed in the trimetazidine and alternative regimens respectively, but this was mostly driven by a single trial.

Trimetazidine is effective in the treatment of stable angina compared with placebo, alone or combined with conventional anti-anginal agents. Trimetazidine may result in fewer dropouts due to adverse events. Large, long term trials comparing trimetazidine with other anti-anginal drugs assessing clinically relevant important outcomes are required to establish its role in clinical management.

Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain.

On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia.

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.

We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm).Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis.No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence).One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence).Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence).Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence).Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%) we did not pool the results.All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading.

Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

Postoperative pain remains a significant issue with poor perioperative pain management associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained release.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain.

We identified randomised trials of liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2016), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process (14 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 13 January 2016), ISI Web of Science (1945 to 14 January 2016), and reference lists of retrieved articles. We sought unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials. The date of the most recent search was 15 January 2016.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of a single dose of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block in adults aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery at any surgical site. We included trials if they had at least two comparison groups for liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block compared with placebo or other types of analgesia.

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed analyses using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5. We planned to perform a meta-analysis, however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer; as such we have produced a 'Summary of findings' table in a narrative format, and where possible we assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

We identified seven studies that met inclusion criteria for this review. Three were recorded as completed (or terminated) but no results were published. Of the remaining four studies (299 participants): two investigated liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, one liposomal bupivacaine dorsal penile nerve block, and one ankle block. The study investigating liposomal bupivacaine ankle block was a Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trial presenting pooled data that we could not use in our analysis.The studies did not report our primary outcome, cumulative pain score between 0 and 72 hours, and secondary outcomes, mean pain score at 12, 24, 48, 72, or 96 hours. One study reported no difference in mean pain score during the first, second, and third postoperative 24-hour periods in participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine TAP block compared to no TAP block. Two studies, both in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery under TAP block, investigated cumulative postoperative opioid dose, reported opposing findings. One found a lower cumulative opioid consumption between 0 and 72 hours compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride TAP block and one found no difference during the first, second, and third postoperative 24-hour periods compared to no TAP block. No studies reported time to first postoperative opioid or percentage not requiring opioids over the initial 72 hours. No studies reported a health economic analysis or patient-reported outcome measures (outside of pain). The review authors sought data regarding adverse events but none were available, however there were no withdrawals reported to be due to adverse events.Using GRADE, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low with any estimate of effect very uncertain and further research very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect. All studies were at high risk of bias due to their small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per arm) leading to uncertainty around effect estimates. Additionally, inconsistency of results and sparseness of data resulted in further downgrading of the quality of the data.

A lack of evidence has prevented an assessment of the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block. At present there is a lack of data to support or refute the use of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.

There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the risk and intensity of tooth sensitivity during in-office and at-home bleaching in adult patients. The efficacy of dental bleaching was also evaluated.

A comprehensive search was performed in the MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library, and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe without restrictions. The annual conference of the International Association for Dental Research abstracts (1990-2014) and unpublished and ongoing trials registry were also searched. Dissertations and theses were searched using the ProQuest Dissertations and Periódicos Capes Theses databases. Only randomized clinical trials that compared the prevalence or intensity of tooth sensitivity during in-office and at-home bleaching in adult patients were included and studies that evaluated the efficacy of these dental bleaching techniques, in terms of shade guide units (ΔSGU) and in terms of color difference measured with a spectrophotometer (ΔE*).

After the removal of duplicates, 1139 articles were identified. After title and abstract screening, 29 studies remained. Fifteen studies were further excluded, whereas 12 studies remained for qualitative analyses and 8 for the meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes. No significant difference in the risk/intensity of tooth sensitivity or in bleaching efficacy was observed in the present study.

In an overall comparison of at-home and in-office bleaching, no differences were detected, either regarding risk/intensity of tooth sensitivity or the effectiveness of the bleaching treatment. This comparison, however, does not take into consideration variations in the protocols (daily usage time, number of bleaching sessions, and product concentration) of the bleaching techniques in the studies included.

To investigate the posterior choroidal thickness in healthy subjects of three different ethnicities.

In this prospective cross-sectional study, the choroidal thickness of 88 individuals (176 eyes) was measured using enhanced depth imaging-spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Subfoveal choroidal thickness was measured between the retinal pigment epithelium-Bruch membrane complex and chorioscleral interface. Nasal, temporal, superior, and inferior choroidal thicknesses at 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 mm locations from the fovea were evaluated as well.

Males and females were perfectly matched by number in all groups. The mean age of the entire study population was 27.43 ± 1 years. Mean subfoveal choroidal thicknesses of whites, Africans, Asians, and entire study population were 403.62 ± 37.4 μm, 372.47 ± 31.4 μm, 383.64 ± 40 μm, 386.64 ± 10.5 μm, respectively. Mean spherical error of the entire study population was -1.2685 diopter. Whites had the longest eyes on average 24.17 mm > 24.08 mm (Africans) > 23.86 mm (Asians), with the statistical mean of 24.04 mm for the entire study population. Subfoveal choroidal thickness was not significantly correlated with ethnicity in either ethnic group (P > 0.05). Subfoveal choroid thinned by 2.51 μm per 1 year increase in age (P = 0.282). Subfoveal choroidal thickness and sex were not significantly correlated to (P = 0.402). Subfoveal choroidal thickness was in strong negative correlation only with refractive error (P = 0.01) and axial length (P = 0.008). The intereye difference in subfoveal choroidal thickness was not statistically significant (P = 0.845).

Enhanced depth imaging-spectral domain optical coherence tomography is a productive imaging method to study the choroidal thickness. Subfoveal choroidal thickness is not significantly correlated with ethnicity. The study reproduced previously found relations between thinner choroids and longer axial lengths, and increasing myopic refraction and showed no significant associations between subfoveal choroidal thickness and age and sex. Either the right or left eye can be used in future studies.

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain, and is recommended in European, UK, and USA guidelines.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of nortriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 7 January 2015, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing nortriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) and harmful outcome (NNH) using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

We included six studies treating 310 participants (mean or median age 49 to 64 years) with various neuropathic pain conditions. Five studies used a cross-over design, and one used a parallel-group design; 272 participants were randomised to treatment with nortriptyline, 145 to placebo, 94 to gabapentin, 56 to gabapentin plus nortriptyline, 55 to morphine, 55 to morphine plus nortriptyline, 39 to chlorimipramine, and 33 to amitriptyline. Treatment periods lasted from three to eight weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. Only one study reported our primary outcome of people with at least 50% reduction in pain. There was no indication that either nortriptyline or gabapentin was more effective in postherpetic neuralgia (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported the number of people with at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number who were satisfied with their pain relief and had tolerable adverse effects. We considered these outcomes to be equivalent to our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved.We could not pool data, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated similar efficacy to other active interventions (gabapentin, morphine, chlorimipramine, and amitriptyline), and to placebo in the conditions studied (very low quality evidence). Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. More participants reported adverse events with nortriptyline than with placebo, similar numbers with nortriptyline and other antidepressants (amitriptyline and chlorimipramine) and gabapentin, and slightly more with morphine (very low quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events or deaths.

We found little evidence to support the use of nortriptyline to treat the neuropathic pain conditions included in this review. There were no studies in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. The studies were methodologically flawed, largely due to small size, and potentially subject to major bias. The results of this review do not support the use of nortriptyline as a first line treatment. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available, such as duloxetine and pregabalin.

To test the hypothesis that the quality of reporting of orthodontic clinical trials is insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trial.

A retrospective observational study.

The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO).

Clinical trials published between 1989 and 1998.

A hand search was performed to identify all clinical trials. The concealment of allocation, whether the trial was randomized, double blind, and whether there was a description of withdrawals and dropouts was recorded.

One hundred and fifty-five trial reports were identified of which 4 (2.6%) were adequately concealed, 85 (54.8%) were described as being randomized, 10 (6.5%) as double-blind, and 44 (28.4%) gave a description of withdrawals and drop-outs from the trial. The type of randomization was considered appropriate in 78 (50.3%) reports and in 57 (36.8%) reports the level of blinding was considered appropriate. When assessed for the risk of bias in the reported trials,(1) one trial (0.6%) had a low risk of bias, 17 (11%) a moderate risk, and 137 (88.4%) a high risk.

In general the quality of reporting orthodontic clinical trials was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. Reporting of clinical trials could be improved by orthodontic journals adopting the CONSORT statement(2,)(3) to ensure that all relevant information is provided.

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Desipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used for treating neuropathic pain.

To assess the analgesic efficacy of desipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 April 2014, and the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own hand searched database to identify older studies, and two clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks duration comparing desipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 years and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

Two review authors independently extracted the efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts, at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants and considered very likely to be biased or that used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

Five studies treated 177 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (104) or postherpetic neuralgia (73). The mean or median ages in the studies were 55 to 72 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 145 participants were randomised to receive desipramine 12.5 mg to 250 mg daily, with most taking 100 mg to 150 mg daily following titration. Comparators were placebo in three studies (an 'active placebo' in two studies), fluoxetine, clomipramine (one study each), and amitriptyline (two studies), and treatment was for two to six weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain, but data were available from three studies for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief that was 'complete' or 'a lot'. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with desipramine compared with placebo, although this was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses in small, short duration studies where major bias was possible. There were too few participants in comparisons of desipramine with another active treatment to draw any conclusions.All studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented. Participants taking desipramine experienced more adverse events, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo (very low quality evidence).

This review found little evidence to support the use of desipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit and harm, but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available. There may be a role for desipramine in patients who have not obtained pain relief from other treatments.

Lidocaine is a local anaesthetic that is sometimes used on the skin to treat neuropathic pain.

To assess the analgesic efficacy of topical lidocaine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 1 July 2014, together with the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal to identify additional published or unpublished data.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing any formulation of topical lidocaine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

We included 12 studies (508 participants) in comparisons with placebo or an active control. Six studies enrolled participants with moderate or severe postherpetic neuralgia, and the remaining studies enrolled different, or mixed, neuropathic pain conditions, including trigeminal neuralgia and postsurgical or post-traumatic neuralgia. Four different formulations were used: 5% medicated patch, 5% cream, 5% gel, and 8% spray. Most studies used a cross-over design, and two used a parallel-group design. Two studies used enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal. Seven studies used multiple doses, with one to four-week treatment periods, and five used single applications. We judged all of the studies at high risk of bias because of small size or incomplete outcome assessment, or both.There was no first or second tier evidence, and no pooling of data was possible for efficacy outcomes. Only one multiple-dose study reported our primary outcome of participants with ≥ 50% or ≥ 30% pain intensity reduction. Three single-dose studies reported participants who were pain-free at a particular time point, or had a 2-point (of 10) reduction in pain intensity. The two enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal studies reported time to loss of efficacy. In all but one study, third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated that lidocaine was better than placebo for some measure of pain relief. Pooling multiple-dose studies across conditions demonstrated no clear evidence of an effect of lidocaine on the incidence of adverse events or withdrawals, but there were few events and the withdrawal phase of enriched enrolment designs is not suitable to assess the true impact of adverse events (very low quality evidence).

This review found no evidence from good quality randomised controlled studies to support the use of topical lidocaine to treat neuropathic pain, although individual studies indicated that it was effective for relief of pain. Clinical experience also supports efficacy in some patients. Several large ongoing studies, of adequate duration, with clinically useful outcomes should provide more robust conclusions about both efficacy and harm.

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of levetiracetam for relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of levetiracetam in chronic neuropathic pain conditions in adults.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6) (via the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 3 July 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing levetiracetam with placebo or another active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain conditions. Studies had to have a minimum of 10 participants per treatments arm.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction; intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison; 8 to 12 weeks duration; parallel design); second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with at least 200 participants in the comparison; and third tier evidence from data involving fewer than 200 participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

We included six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain.None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or 'complete' or 'good' responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7).We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18)).

The amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. These conditions are estimated to affect 3 to 10% of adults, and are difficult to treat. Although they probably have different aetiologies, neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia can respond to the same therapies. There have been substantial changes in the standards of evidence considered necessary for assessment of interventions to treat chronic pain, to provide data that are more robust and clinically relevant. Oxycodone is a strong opioid agonist widely used to manage severe pain; this review assesses evidence for oxycodone using current standards of evidence designed to reduce bias.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

On 6 November 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We reviewed the bibliographies of all included studies and of reviews, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with double-blind assessment of participant outcomes following two weeks of treatment or longer (although the emphasis of the review was on studies of eight weeks or longer) that used a placebo or active comparator.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

We included three studies with 254 participants; 204 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 postherpetic neuralgia. Study size ranged from 45 to 159 participants. Two studies used a cross-over design and one a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Controlled release oxycodone (oxycodone CR) was used in all three studies, with doses titrated up to a maximum of between 60 and 120 mg daily; mean doses achieved ranged between 37 and 45 mg daily. All studies used a placebo comparator, although in one study, an active placebo (benztropine) was used. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved, while one reported the proportion with at least 30% pain relief, two reported at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number of participants who considered treatment to be moderately effective. No study provided first or second tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. Third tier evidence indicated greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone than with placebo in all three studies, but such evidence was derived mainly from group mean data, with last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation or completer analysis, in small studies lasting less than eight weeks (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were more common with oxycodone CR than with placebo. At least one adverse event was experienced by 86% of participants taking oxycodone CR and 63% taking placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNH) was 4.3. The effect of oxycodone on serious adverse events reported was uncertain in comparison with placebo (oxycodone 3.4% versus placebo: 7.0%; RR 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.23; very low quality evidence); one death was reported with oxycodone CR, but was not attributed to treatment. Adverse event withdrawals did not differ significantly between groups, occurring in 11% of participants with oxycodone CR and 6.4% with placebo (RR 1.69 (0.83 to 3.43); very low quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone CR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with an NNT to prevent one withdrawal of 10 (RR 0.12 (0.03 to 0.45); very low quality evidence).We found no relevant studies in chronic neuropathic pain conditions other than painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, or in fibromyalgia.

No convincing, unbiased evidence suggests that oxycodone (as oxycodone CR) is of value in treating people with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There is no evidence at all for other neuropathic pain conditions, or for fibromyalgia. Adverse events typical of opioids appear to be common.

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. Zolmitriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. These medicines work in a different way to analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen.

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with three online databases (www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and apps.who.int/trialsearch) for studies to 12 March 2014. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using zolmitriptan to treat a migraine headache episode.

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

Twenty-five studies (20,162 participants) compared zolmitriptan with placebo or an active comparator. The evidence from placebo-controlled studies was of high quality for all outcomes except 24 hour outcomes and serious adverse events where only limited data were available. The majority of included studies were at a low risk of performance, detection and attrition biases, but did not adequately describe methods of randomisation and concealment.Most of the data were for the 2.5 mg and 5 mg doses compared with placebo, for treatment of moderate to severe pain. For all efficacy outcomes, zolmitriptan surpassed placebo. For oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg versus placebo, the NNTs were 5.0, 3.2, 7.7, and 4.1 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, sustained pain-free during the 24 hours postdose, and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, respectively. Results for the oral 5 mg dose were similar to the 2.5 mg dose, while zolmitriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than 5 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours. For headache relief at one and two hours and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose, but not pain-free at two hours, zolmitriptan 5 mg nasal spray was significantly more effective than the 5 mg oral tablet.For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with zolmitriptan than placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (1 mg to 10 mg).High quality evidence from two studies showed that oral zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg provided headache relief at two hours to the same proportion of people as oral sumatriptan 50 mg (66%, 67%, and 68% respectively), although not necessarily the same individuals. There was no significant difference in numbers experiencing adverse events. Single studies reported on other active treatment comparisons but are not described further because of the small amount of data.

Zolmitriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks for some people, but is associated with increased adverse events compared to placebo. Zolmitriptan 2.5 mg and 5 mg benefited the same proportion of people as sumatriptan 50 mg, although not necessarily the same individuals, for headache relief at two hours.

Antidepressants are widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage), usually in doses below those at which they exert antidepressant effects. An earlier review that included all antidepressants for neuropathic pain is being replaced by new reviews of individual drugs examining individual neuropathic pain conditions.Imipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant that is occasionally used to treat neuropathic pain.

To assess the analgesic efficacy of imipramine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and to assess the associated adverse events.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on 18 November 2013, as well as the reference lists of retrieved papers and other reviews. We also used our own handsearched database for older studies, and two clinical trials databases.

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing imipramine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only articles with full journal publication and extended trial abstracts and summaries.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants which was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

Five studies treated 168 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy or polyneuropathy. The mean age in individual studies was between 47 and 56 years. Four studies used a cross-over, and one a parallel group design; 126 participants were randomised to receive imipramine 25 mg to 350 mg daily (most took 100 mg to 150 mg daily). Comparators were placebo (an active placebo in one study), paroxetine, mianserin, venlafaxine, and amitriptyline, and treatment was given for 2 to 12 weeks. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study provided first or second tier evidence for any outcome. No data were available on the proportion of people with at least 50% or 30% reduction in pain or equivalent, and data were available from only one study for our other primary outcome of Patient Global Impression of Change, reported as patient evaluation of pain relief of complete or good. No pooling of data was possible, but third tier evidence in individual studies indicated some improvement in pain relief with imipramine compared with placebo, although this is was very low quality evidence, derived mainly from group mean data and completer analyses, in small, short duration studies where major bias is possible.Four studies reported some information about adverse events, but reporting was inconsistent and fragmented, and the quality of evidence was very low. Participants taking imipramine generally experienced more adverse events, notably dry mouth, and a higher rate of withdrawal due to adverse events, than did participants taking placebo.

This review found little evidence to support the use of imipramine to treat neuropathic pain. There was very low quality evidence of benefit but this came from studies that were methodologically flawed and potentially subject to major bias. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.

Recent evidence has shown that anti-HCV-positive serologic status is significantly linked to lower patient and graft survival after renal transplant, but conflicting results have been given on this point. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the published medical literature concerning the impact of HCV infection on all-cause mortality and graft loss after RT. The relative risk of all-cause mortality and graft loss was regarded as the most reliable outcome end-point. Study-specific relative risks were weighted by the inverse of their variance to obtain fixed- and random-effect pooled estimates for mortality and graft loss with HCV across the published studies. We identified eighteen observational studies involving 133 530 unique renal transplant recipients. The summary estimate for adjusted relative risk (aRR) of all-cause mortality was 1.85 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.49; 2.31 (P < 0.0001); heterogeneity statistics, Ri = 0.87 (P-value by Q-test = 0.001). The overall estimate for adjusted RR of all-cause graft loss was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.46; 2.11) (P < 0.0001), heterogeneity statistics, Ri = 0.65 (P-value by Q-test = 0.001). Stratified analysis did not change meaningfully these results. Meta-regression showed that living donor rate had a favourable influence on patient (P = 0.031) and graft survival (P = 0.01), whilst diabetes mellitus having a detrimental role on patient survival (P = 0.001). This meta-analysis of observational studies supports the notion that HCV-positive patients after RT have an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. Further studies are in progress to understand better the mechanisms underlying the relationship between HCV and mortality or graft dysfunction after renal transplant.

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

This is an update of a Cochrane review entitled 'Carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain in adults' published in Issue 1, 2011. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review considers the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia only, and adds no new studies. The update uses higher standards of evidence than the earlier review, which results in the exclusion of five studies that were previously included.

To assess the analgesic efficacy of carbamazepine in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to evaluate adverse events reported in the studies.

We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to February 2014. Additional studies were sought from clinical trials databases, and the reference list of retrieved articles and reviews.

Randomised, double blind, active or placebo controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of carbamazepine (any dose, by any route, and for at least two weeks' duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

Two study authors independently extracted data on efficacy, adverse events, and withdrawals, and examined issues of study quality. Numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNT) or harmful effect (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from dichotomous data.We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts, at least 200 participants in the comparison, at least 8 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.

Ten included studies (11 publications) enrolled 480 participants with trigeminal neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, and post stroke pain. Nine studies used a cross-over design, and one a parallel group design. Most of the studies were of short duration, lasting four weeks or less.No study provided first or second tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. Using third tier evidence, carbamazepine generally provided better pain relief than placebo in the three conditions studied, with some indication of pain improvement over mainly the short term, but with poorly defined outcomes, incomplete reporting, and in small numbers of participants. There were too few data in studies comparing carbamazepine with active comparators to draw any conclusions.In four studies 65% (113/173) of participants experienced at least one adverse event with carbamazepine, and 27% (47/173) with placebo; for every five participants treated, two experienced an adverse event who would not have done so with placebo. In eight studies 3% (8/268) of participants withdrew due to adverse events with carbamazepine, and none (0/255) with placebo. Serious adverse events were not reported consistently; rashes were associated with carbamazepine. Four deaths occurred in patients on carbamazepine, with no obvious drug association.

Carbamazepine is probably effective in some people with chronic neuropathic pain, but with caveats. No trial was longer than four weeks, had good reporting quality, nor used outcomes equivalent to substantial clinical benefit. In these circumstances, caution is needed in interpretation, and meaningful comparison with other interventions is not possible.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- vs long-duration antibiotic regimens for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short (7-8 days) with long (10-15 days) regimens were identified. Primary outcomes included mortality, antibiotic-free days, and clinical and microbiologic relapses. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of ICU stay.

All RCTs included mortality data, whereas data on relapse and antibiotic-free days were provided in three and two out of four RCTs, respectively. No difference in mortality was found between the compared arms (fixed effect model [FEM]: OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.84-1.72; P = .32). There was an increase in antibiotic-free days in favor of the short-course treatment with a pooled weighted mean difference of 3.40 days (random effects model: 95% CI, 1.43-5.37; P &lt; .001). There was no difference in relapses between the compared arms, although a strong trend to lower relapses in the long-course treatment was observed (FEM: OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 0.99-2.83; P = .06). No difference was found between the two arms regarding the remaining outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.

Short-course treatment of VAP was associated with more antibiotic-free days. No difference was found regarding mortality and relapses; however, a strong trend for fewer relapses was observed in favor of the long-course treatment, being mostly driven by one study in which the observed relapses were probably more microbiologic than clinical. Additional research is required to elucidate the issue.

This is an update of the original Cochrane review entitled Lamotrigine for acute and chronic pain published in Issue 2, 2007, and updated in Issue 2, 2011. Some antiepileptic medicines have a place in the treatment of neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This updated review adds no new additional studies looking at evidence for lamotrigine as an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. The update uses higher standards of evidence than previously.

To assess the analgesic efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to evaluate adverse effects reported in the studies.

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lamotrigine for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (including cancer pain) from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We ran searches for the original review in 2006, in 2011 for the first update, and subsequent searches in August 2013 for this update. We sought additional studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers. The original review and first update included acute pain, but no acute pain studies were identified.

RCTs investigating the use of lamotrigine (any dose, by any route, and for any study duration) for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Assessment of pain intensity or pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles.

Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. The first tier used data where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain reduction from baseline, lasted at least eight weeks, had a parallel group design, included 200 or more participants in the comparison, and reported an intention-to-treat analysis. First-tier studies did not use last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputational methods for dropouts. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and second-tier results were therefore subject to potential bias.

Twelve included studies in 11 publications (1511 participants), all with chronic neuropathic pain: central post-stroke pain (1), chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (1), diabetic neuropathy (4), HIV-related neuropathy (2), mixed neuropathic pain (2), spinal cord injury-related pain (1), and trigeminal neuralgia (1). We did not identify any additional studies. Participants were aged between 26 and 77 years. Study duration was two weeks in one study and at least six weeks in the remainder; eight were of eight-week duration or longer.No study provided first-tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. There was no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of 200 mg to 400 mg daily. Almost 10% of participants taking lamotrigine reported a skin rash.

Large, high-quality, long-duration studies reporting clinically useful levels of pain relief for individual participants provided no convincing evidence that lamotrigine is effective in treating neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia at doses of about 200 to 400 mg daily. Given the availability of more effective treatments including antiepileptics and antidepressant medicines, lamotrigine does not have a significant place in therapy based on the available evidence. The adverse effect profile of lamotrigine is also of concern.

There are several treatment options for managing acute asthma exacerbations (sustained worsening of symptoms that do not subside with regular treatment and require a change in management). Guidelines advocate the use of inhaled short acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) in children experiencing an asthma exacerbation. Anticholinergic agents, such as ipratropium bromide and atropine sulfate, have a slower onset of action and weaker bronchodilating effect, but may specifically relieve cholinergic bronchomotor tone and decrease mucosal edema and secretions. Therefore, the combination of inhaled anticholinergics with SABAs may yield enhanced and prolonged bronchodilation.

To determine whether the addition of inhaled anticholinergics to SABAs provides clinical improvement and affects the incidence of adverse effects in children with acute asthma exacerbations.

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to April 2000), EMBASE (1980 to April 2000), CINAHL (1982 to April 2000) and reference lists of studies of previous versions of this review. We also contacted drug manufacturers and trialists. For the 2012 review update, we undertook an 'all years' search of the Cochrane Airways Group's register on the 18 April 2012.

Randomized parallel trials comparing the combination of inhaled anticholinergics and SABAs with SABAs alone in children (aged 18 months to 18 years) with an acute asthma exacerbation.

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used the GRADE rating system to assess the quality of evidence for our primary outcome (hospital admission).

Twenty trials met the review eligibility criteria, generated 24 study comparisons and comprised 2697 randomised children aged one to 18 years, presenting predominantly with moderate or severe exacerbations. Most studies involved both preschool-aged children and school-aged children; three studies also included a small proportion of infants less than 18 months of age. Nine trials (45%) were at a low risk of bias. Most trials used a fixed-dose protocol of three doses of 250 mcg or two doses of 500 mcg of nebulized ipratropium bromide in combination with a SABA over 30 to 90 minutes while three trials used a single dose and two used a flexible-dose protocol according to the need for SABA.The addition of an anticholinergic to a SABA significantly reduced the risk of hospital admission (risk ratio (RR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.85; 15 studies, 2497 children, high-quality evidence). In the group receiving only SABAs, 23 out of 100 children with acute asthma were admitted to hospital compared with 17 (95% CI 15 to 20) out of 100 children treated with SABAs plus anticholinergics. This represents an overall number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 16 (95% CI 12 to 29).Trends towards a greater effect with increased treatment intensity and with increased asthma severity were observed, but did not reach statistical significance. There was no effect modification due to concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and the effect of age could not be explored. However, exclusion of the one trial that included infants (< 18 months) and contributed data to the main outcome, did not affect the results. Statistically significant group differences favoring anticholinergic use were observed for lung function, clinical score at 120 minutes, oxygen saturation at 60 minutes, and the need for repeat use of bronchodilators prior to discharge from the emergency department. No significant group difference was seen in relapse rates.Fewer children treated with anticholinergics plus SABA reported nausea and tremor compared with SABA alone; no significant group difference was observed for vomiting.

Children with an asthma exacerbation experience a lower risk of admission to hospital if they are treated with the combination of inhaled SABAs plus anticholinergic versus SABA alone. They also experience a greater improvement in lung function and less risk of nausea and tremor. Within this group, the findings suggested, but did not prove, the possibility of an effect modification, where intensity of anticholinergic treatment and asthma severity, could be associated with greater benefit.Further research is required to identify the characteristics of children that may benefit from anticholinergic use (e.g. age and asthma severity including mild exacerbation and impending respiratory failure) and the treatment modalities (dose, intensity, and duration) associated with most benefit from anticholinergic use better.

Current drug therapy for acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) consists mainly of diuretics supplemented by vasodilators or inotropes. Nitrates have been used as vasodilators in AHFS for many years and have been shown to improve some aspects of AHFS in some small studies. The aim of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of nitrate vasodilators in AHFS.

To quantify the effect of different nitrate preparations (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) and the effect of route of administration of nitrates on clinical outcome, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of nitrates in the management of AHFS.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to July week 2 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to week 28 2011). We searched the Current Controlled Trials MetaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (July 2011). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction.

Randomised controlled trials comparing nitrates (isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin) with alternative interventions (frusemide and morphine, frusemide alone, hydralazine, prenalterol, intravenous nesiritide and placebo) in the management of AHFS in adults aged 18 and over.

Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

Four studies (634 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two of the included studies included only patients with AHFS following acute myocardial infarction (AMI); one study excluded patients with overt AMI; and one study included participants with AHFS with and without acute coronary syndromes.Based on a single study, there was no significant difference in the rapidity of symptom relief between intravenous nitroglycerin/N-acetylcysteine and intravenous frusemide/morphine after 30 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05), 60 minutes (fixed-effect MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.25), three hours (fixed-effect MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67) and 24 hours (fixed-effect MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31). There is no evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following outcome measures: requirement for mechanical ventilation, systolic blood pressure (SBP) change after three hours and 24 hours, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) change after 30, 60 and 90 minutes, heart rate change at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, three hours and 24 hours, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) change after three hours and 18 hours, cardiac output (CO) change at 90 minutes and three hours and progression to myocardial infarction. There is a significantly higher incidence of adverse events after three hours with nitroglycerin compared with placebo (odds ratio 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.16) based on a single study. There was no consistent evidence to support a difference in AHFS patients receiving intravenous nitrate vasodilator therapy or alternative interventions with regard to the following secondary outcome measures: SBP change after 30 and 60 minutes, heart rate change after 90 minutes, and PAOP change after 90 minutes. None of the included studies reported healthcare costs as an outcome measure. There were no data reported by any of the studies relating to the acceptability of the treatment to the patients (patient satisfaction scores).Overall there was a paucity of relevant quality data in the included studies. Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as three of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias.

There appears to be no significant difference between nitrate vasodilator therapy and alternative interventions in the treatment of AHFS, with regard to symptom relief and haemodynamic variables. Nitrates may be associated with a lower incidence of adverse effects after three hours compared with placebo. However, there is a lack of data to draw any firm conclusions concerning the use of nitrates in AHFS because current evidence is based on few low-quality studies.

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the best available evidence describing the differences in clinical outcome associated with the different methods of total knee replacement (TKR) fixation. Randomized trials published between 1980 and January 2011 comparing differences in clinical outcome scores between groups allocated to either cemented or uncemented fixation for TKR were included. Nine of the 11 studies included in the review reported no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups with either cemented or uncemented prosthesis components. Critical appraisal of methodological bias revealed consistent shortcomings in study design and execution. It is apparent that more rigorous studies with longer follow-up periods are required to verify which method of fixation may be preferable in enhancing clinical outcomes.

The objective of the conducted meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of the treatment of bovine endometritis with PGF(2α) by statistical means. Postpartum uterine infections have a high prevalence and a very negative effect on reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Because of a wide discordance between research results, a meta-analysis of the efficacy of the treatment of bovine endometritis with PGF(2α) was conducted. A comprehensive literature search was performed using online databases to reveal a total of 2,307 references. In addition, 5 articles were retrieved by reviewing citations. After applying specific exclusion criteria and evaluating specific evidence parameters, 5 publications, comprising 6 trials, were eligible for being analyzed by means of meta-analysis. Data for each trial were extracted and analyzed using meta-analysis software Review Manager (version 5.1; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Estimated effect sizes of PGF(2α) were calculated on calving to first service and calving to conception interval. Prostaglandin F(2α) treatment of cows with chronic endometritis had a negative effect on both reproductive performance parameters. Heterogeneity was substantial for calving to first service and calving to conception interval [I(2) (measure of variation beyond chance)=100 and 87%, respectively]; therefore, random-effects models were used. Sensitivity analysis as well as subgroup analysis showed that the performance of randomization was influential in modifying effect size of PGF(2α) treatment. The funnel plot illustrated a publication bias toward smaller studies that reported a prolonged calving to conception interval after a PGF(2α) treatment. We conclude that the investigation of this subject by means of meta-analysis did not reveal an improvement of reproductive performance of cows with endometritis after treatment with PGF(2α). Furthermore, there is a shortage of comparable high quality studies investigating reproductive performance after PGF(2α) treatment of cows with chronic endometritis.

Alcohol use among adolescents has become a major public health problem in the past decade and has large short- and long-term consequences on their health. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of longitudinal cohort studies that have analyzed the association between the parent-child relationship (PCR) and change in alcohol use during adolescence.

A search of the literature from 1985 to July 2011 was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, and EMBASE in order to identify longitudinal, general population studies regarding the influence of the PCR on alcohol use during adolescence. The studies were screened, and the quality of the relevant studies was assessed. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results.

Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified. Five studies found that a negative PCR was associated with higher levels of alcohol use. Another seven papers only found this association for certain subgroups such as boys or girls, or a specific age group. The remaining sixteen studies did not find any association.

We found weak evidence for a prospective association between the PCR and adolescent alcohol use. Further research to the association of the PCR with several types of alcohol use (e.g., initiation or abuse) and to the potential reversed causality of the PCR and alcohol use is required.