Search

Cochrane is an international non-profit organization established in 1993 to produce and disseminate high quality and unbiased systematic reviews of evidence on health care interventions. At the forefront of systematic review methodology, Cochrane is generally accepted to be among the most carefully prepared and rigorous sources of systematic review evidence. There are numerous Cochrane reviews on nonpharmacologic interventions for pain and multiple Cochrane reviews evaluating acupuncture therapy in pain conditions. But how complete and up to date are those reviews relative to other rigorous systematic reviews with meta-analyses of acupuncture therapy for pain published in the literature? In this ‘snapshot’ overview, we found 22 relevant Cochrane reviews, some concluding that acupuncture therapy is probably useful for treating specific pain conditions. However, many of the conditions for which acupuncture is most commonly used are either not represented in Cochrane reviews or the existing Cochrane reviews are seriously outdated and do not reflect current evidence. This creates confusion with the risks of adverse effects and addiction liability associated with pain medications, the prevalence of chronic pain, the ongoing opioid epidemic and the need for evidence-based options for pain as part of comprehensive pain care. Clinicians and patients want clarification on safe and effective options to treat pain. Issues involving reviewed trials’ inadequate use of sham comparators, of acupuncture as a complex intervention with interactive components and a shift in research focus from efficacy trials to real-world pragmatic trials are discussed in relation to updating Cochrane reviews of acupuncture therapy for pain.

Systematic reviews on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are constantly increasing. However, if these reviews are to be of practical value, the evidence needs to be relevant, valid, and adequately reported. Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) are considered as high-quality systematic reviews that can inform health care decision making. Our aim was to provide an overview of the scope, findings, quality and impact of CSRs on the benefits and harms associated with TCM interventions for the treatment and prevention of disease to provide new information for clinical practice and future research.The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched up to May 2021, and descriptive characteristics were extracted. The correspondence between the questions asked in the CSRs and the available evidence, conclusions and certainty of findings (according to GRADE assessment), methodological quality (AMSTAR 2), and impact (Altmetric Attention Score [AAS], total citations by guideline, and total citations in Web of Science [WoS]) of CSRs were extracted. Tabular and graphical summaries of these descriptive characteristics were constructed.Of 104 CSRs on TCM identified, 70 diseases belonged to 16 disease systems and contained 1642 primary studies with 157,943 participants. Interventions included Chinese herbal medicine (n = 70), acupuncture (n = 28), TCM exercises (n = 4), and moxibustion (n = 2). Among 1642 primary studies, 662 studies included an intervention group treated with at least one TCM therapy and 980 studies included a combination of therapies. Promising outcomes from the 104 CSRs were divided into endpoint outcomes (34 diseases), doctor- or patient-reported outcomes (27 diseases), and surrogate outcomes (37 diseases). Despite the presence of promising outcomes, only 5/104 CSRs drew overall positive conclusions, 42 CSRs concluded the evidence was insufficient, and 54 failed to draw firm conclusions. GRADE assessments were reported in 41.3% of the CSRs, and the ratings were mostly low or very low. Comparing the questions asked and results obtained, there was frequently a lack of information about specific outcomes. Only 16 CSRs obtained results for all outcomes listed in the methods section. According to AMSTAR 2, 51 CSRs (49.0%) were of low quality. The total number of citations in the WoS was 2135 (mean ± SD: 20.8 ± 21.2), and 38.5% of the CSRs had been cited in guidelines 95 times.Although TCM is commonly used, evidence of its effectiveness remains largely inconclusive. Rigorous high-quality trials are needed to support the performance of high-quality reviews and to increase the evidence base. It is critical to emphasize quality over quantity in future TCM research.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster‐RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID‐19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low‐certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low‐certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate‐certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID‐19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low‐certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID‐19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID‐19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated. There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

IntroductionTraditional East Asian medicine (TEAM) is widely used in Asia and increasingly in the West. Systematic reviews (SRs) are the best summaries of the potential benefits or harms of interventions, and Cochrane is a leading international SR organization. Cochrane perspectives on the barriers to the initiation and completion of Cochrane SRs of TEAM therapies were solicited.MethodsCochrane Review Groups (CRGs) were identified from the online listing of CRGs at cochrane.org and a link to an online survey was e-mailed to the primary contact for each CRG.ResultsForty-eight responses were received on behalf of 49/53 (92%) CRGs. Most CRGs had experience producing TEAM reviews, primarily in acupuncture or herbal medicine. The main barriers to taking on a new TEAM review were difficulty in understanding and assessing the intervention, and the low priority of TEAM topics. Problems with the quality and accessibility of randomized trials in TEAM were cited as a major concern. CRGs suggested that the quality and accessibility of randomized trials should be improved, that the methodological and language expertise of authors should be enhanced, and that further peer review expertise should be made available to CRGs.ConclusionsTEAM topics are covered in Cochrane reviews but are often considered low-priority. This survey highlights Cochrane concerns about the quality of the underlying evidence base and the training of the author teams as barriers to successful SR completion. Specific approaches are proposed to increase the number of TEAM reviews and address the limitations of TEAM research processes within Cochrane.

Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota are associated with a number of gastrointestinal (GI) conditions, including diarrhea, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and liver diseases. Probiotics, live microorganisms that may confer a health benefit to the host when consumed, are commonly used as a therapy for treating these GI conditions by means of modifying the composition or activity of the microbiota. The purpose of this overview is to summarize the evidence on probiotics and GI conditions available from Cochrane, a non-profit organization that produces rigorous and high-quality systematic reviews of health interventions. Findings from this overview will help provide more precise guidance for clinical use of probiotics and to identify gaps in probiotic research related to GI conditions.

The effects of d-amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg orally) on regional cerebral glucose utilization were measured with positron emission tomography (PET) in 17 schizophrenics (along with a placebo-control group of an additional six schizophrenic patients). The acute d-amphetamine challenge tended to decrease glucose utilization throughout much of the brain, with a regional effect that was statistically significant in the left temporal cortex. There was no apparent relationship between the effects of amphetamine-induced changes in regional cerebral metabolism and psychotic symptom exacerbation. An exploratory analysis suggested that features characteristic of Crow's type II syndrome were significant predictors of cerebral hyporesponsivity to stimulant challenge, however.