Search

BackgroundElderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to treat or prevent illness, but also concern that elderberry might overstimulate the immune system and increase the risk of ‘cytokine storm’. We aimed to determine benefits and harms of elderberry for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections, and to assess the relationship between elderberry supplements and negative health impacts associated with overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and searched six databases, four research registers, and two preprint sites for studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools, and evaluated certainty of estimates using GRADE. Outcomes included new illnesses and the severity and duration of illness.ResultsWe screened 1187 records and included five randomized trials on elderberry for the treatment or prevention of viral respiratory illness. We did not find any studies linking elderberry to clinical inflammatory outcomes. However, we found three studies measuring production of cytokines ex vivo after ingestion of elderberry. Elderberry may not reduce the risk of developing the common cold; it may reduce the duration and severity of colds, but the evidence is uncertain. Elderberry may reduce the duration of influenza but the evidence is uncertain. Compared to oseltamivir, an elderberry-containing product may be associated with a lower risk of influenza complications and adverse events. We did not find evidence on elderberry and clinical outcomes related to inflammation. However, we found evidence that elderberry has some effect on inflammatory markers, although this effect may decline with ongoing supplementation. One small study compared elderberry to diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and provided some evidence that elderberry is as effective or less effective than diclofenac in cytokine reduction over time.ConclusionsElderberry may be a safe option for treating viral respiratory illness, and there is no evidence that it overstimulates the immune system. However, the evidence on both benefits and harms is uncertain and information from recent and ongoing studies is necessary to make firm conclusions.

Background Self-care refers to a range of activities and approaches undertaken by an individual to maintain health and manage ill-health which may include various complementary or alternative approaches. The purpose of this study was to identify the self-care approaches used by the general public for depression and anxiety, assess the usefulness of Cochrane reviews for informing decisions on self-care and highlight any gaps in the evidence. Methods Searches were carried out for surveys of self-care for anxiety and/or depression and for Cochrane reviews and protocols of interventions with potential for use in self-care. Data was extracted from each review and Plain Language Summaries assessed for content, consistency and readability. Interventions reported in surveys and in Cochrane reviews were compared and effectiveness of each assessed. Results Surveys from 10 countries reported a variety of self-care interventions, 17 of which appeared in 2 or more surveys and which included dietary supplements, herbal medicines, mind-body therapies and various forms of exercise. Twenty-two reviews and 5 protocols on potential self-care interventions were identified, the majority in depression. Twelve interventions were judged effective or promising, most with small effect sizes. Readability of summaries was highly variable: half were written at college/university level. Several commonly used approaches were not covered by Cochrane reviews. Conclusions This study has revealed the interventions currently used by the general public which are judged effective or promising based on Cochrane reviews. Some disparity is highlighted between interventions used in practice and the availability of reliable evidence, and in the presentation of effectiveness and safety. Being able to direct patients to reliable, accessible information is a positive step in ensuring effective patient-centered, evidence-informed care. Addressing gaps, ensuring consistency and increasing usability of evidence intended for the general public will support this goal.

Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions. Methods An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review. Results A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1–4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias. Conclusion The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. Systematic review registration https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of yoga for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, compared to other interventions or no intervention.

BackgroundThere has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.MethodsA protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.ResultsAfter screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n= 36) or low/critically low (n= 35) quality.ConclusionsResults from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

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.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of Ginkgo for the treatment of people with diagnoses of cognitive impairment or dementia.

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.

Background and Objective Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy–effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy–effectiveness continuum. Methods We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews. Results The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25–0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80. Conclusion RITES may help to characterize the efficacy–effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of acupuncture on chronic neck pain, with a focus on pain, disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect.

IntroductionAntioxidant dietary supplements are used by many patients with cancer to reduce the side effects of chemotherapy and improve prognosis. While some research indicates oral antioxidant supplementation reduces side effects and improves patient survival, other studies suggest the use of antioxidant dietary supplements may interfere with chemotherapy and reduce its curative effects. There is a need to clarify the evidence base on the impact of dietary antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy on both side effect and treatment efficacy outcomes. We will use a scoping review approach to identify what systematic review evidence exists regarding beneficial and harmful effects of dietary antioxidant supplements when used during cancer treatment.Methods and analysisWe will use Arksey & O’Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute methods for scoping reviews. We will systematically search PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Dissertations & Theses Global and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of oral dietary antioxidant supplements used by participants receiving curative chemotherapy, radiotherapy or other biological therapy for cancer will be eligible. Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts for inclusion and chart data on research questions from included reviews. Two reviewers will assess the overall confidence in systematic review results using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2), and summarised evidence will focus on reviews rated at high or moderate overall confidence. Tables will be used to map existing evidence and identify evidence gaps for safety and effectiveness outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review does not require ethical approval as it is a secondary assessment of available literature. The results will be presented at conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will also disseminate results to community and clinical stakeholders and involve them in developing subsequent research to address critical existing gaps in the evidence as identified by the scoping review.

Background: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely integrated into cancer care in China. An overview in 2011 identified 2384 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs, non-RCTs) on TCM for cancer published in the Chinese literature. This article summarizes updated evidence of RCTs on TCM for cancer care. Methods: We searched 4 main Chinese databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, SinoMed, and Wanfang. RCTs on TCM used in cancer care were analyzed in this bibliometric study. Results: Of 5834 RCTs (477 157 cancer patients), only 62 RCTs were indexed in MEDLINE. The top 3 cancers treated were lung, stomach, and breast cancer. About 4752 RCTs (81.45%) tested TCM combined with conventional treatment, and 1082 RCTs (18.55%) used TCM alone for treating symptoms and side-effects. Herbal medicine was the most frequently used TCM modality (5087 RCTs; 87.20%). The most frequently reported outcome was symptom improvement (3712 RCTs; 63.63%) followed by quality of life (2725 RCTs; 46.71%), and biomarkers (2384 RCTs; 40.86%). The majority of RCTs (4051; 69.44%) concluded there were beneficial effects using either TCM alone or TCM plus conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment. Conclusion: Substantial randomized trials demonstrated different types/stages of cancer were treated by various TCM modalities, alone or in combination with conventional medicine. Further evaluation on the effects and safety of TCM modalities focusing on outcomes such as quality of life is required.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and functional limitation. Few hip OA treatments have been evaluated for safety and effectiveness. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medical therapy which aims to treat disease by inserting very thin needles at specific points on the body. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture in patients with hip OA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase all through March 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, another active treatment, or no specific treatment; and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an addition to another treatment. Major outcomes were pain and function at the short term (i.e. < 3 months after randomization) and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs with 413 participants were included. Four RCTs included only people with OA of the hip, and two included a mix of people with OA of the hip and knee. All RCTs included primarily older participants, with a mean age range from 61 to 67 years, and a mean duration of hip OA pain from two to eight years. Approximately two‐thirds of participants were women. Two RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture; the other four RCTs were not blinded. All results were evaluated at short term (i.e. four to nine weeks after randomization). In the two RCTs that compared acupuncture to sham acupuncture, the sham acupuncture control interventions were judged believable, but each sham acupuncture intervention was also judged to have a risk of weak acupuncture‐specific effects, due to placement of non‐penetrating needles at the correct acupuncture points in one RCT, and the use of penetrating needles not inserted at the correct points in the other RCT. For these two sham‐controlled RCTs, the risk of bias was low for all outcomes. The combined analysis of two sham‐controlled RCTs gave moderate quality evidence of little or no effect in reduction in pain for acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture. Due to the small sample sizes in the studies, the confidence interval includes both the possibility of moderate benefit and the possibility of no effect of acupuncture (120 participants; Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) ‐0.13, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) ‐0.49 to 0.22); 2.1 points greater improvement with acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture on 100 point scale (i.e., absolute percent change ‐2.1% (95% CI ‐7.9% to 3.6%)); relative percent change ‐4.1% (95% CI ‐15.6% to 7.0%)). Estimates of effect were similar for function (120 participants; SMD ‐0.15, (95% CI ‐0.51 to 0.21)). No pooled estimate, representative of the two sham‐controlled RCTs, could be calculated or reported for the quality of life outcome. The four other RCTs were unblinded comparative effectiveness RCTs, which compared (additional) acupuncture to four different active control treatments. There was low quality evidence that addition of acupuncture to the routine primary care that RCT participants were receiving from their physicians was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits, compared to the routine primary physician care alone, in pain (1 RCT; 137 participants; mean percent difference ‐22.9% (95% CI ‐29.2% to ‐16.6%); relative percent difference ‐46.5% (95% CI ‐59.3% to ‐33.7%)) and function (mean percent difference ‐19.0% (95% CI ‐24.41 to ‐13.59); relative percent difference ‐38.6% (95% CI ‐49.6% to ‐27.6%)). There was no statistically significant difference for mental quality of life and acupuncture showed a small, significant benefit for physical quality of life. The effects of acupuncture compared with either advice plus exercise or NSAIDs are uncertain. We are also uncertain whether acupuncture plus patient education improves pain, function, and quality of life, when compared to patient education alone. In general, the overall quality of the evidence for the four comparative effectiveness RCTs was low to very low, mainly due to the potential for biased reporting of patient‐assessed outcomes due to lack of blinding and sparse data. Information on safety was reported in four RCTs. Two RCTs reported minor side effects of acupuncture, which were primarily minor bruising, bleeding, or pain at needle insertion sites. Four RCTs reported on adverse events, and none reported any serious adverse events attributed to acupuncture. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture probably has little or no effect in reducing pain or improving function relative to sham acupuncture in people with hip osteoarthritis. Due to the small sample size in the studies, the confidence intervals include both the possibility of moderate benefits and the possibility of no effect of acupuncture. One unblinded trial found that acupuncture as an addition to routine primary physician care was associated with benefits on pain and function. However, these reported benefits are likely due at least partially to RCT participants' greater expectations of benefit from acupuncture. Possible side effects associated with acupuncture treatment were minor.

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

Background Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines state that exercise therapy may be beneficial. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain. Objectives To assess the effects of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, compared to no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, with a focus on pain, function, and adverse events. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and four trials registers to 11 March 2016 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials of yoga treatment in people with chronic non-specific low back pain. We included studies comparing yoga to any other intervention or to no intervention. We also included studies comparing yoga as an adjunct to other therapies, versus those other therapies alone. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 12 trials (1080 participants) carried out in the USA (seven trials), India (three trials), and the UK (two trials). Studies were unfunded (one trial), funded by a yoga institution (one trial), funded by non-profit or government sources (seven trials), or did not report on funding (three trials). Most trials used Iyengar, Hatha, or Viniyoga forms of yoga. The trials compared yoga to no intervention or a non-exercise intervention such as education (seven trials), an exercise intervention (three trials), or both exercise and non-exercise interventions (two trials). All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment assignment, and outcomes were self-assessed. Therefore, we downgraded all outcomes to 'moderate' certainty evidence because of risk of bias, and when there was additional serious risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity between studies, or the analyses were imprecise, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence further. For yoga compared to non-exercise controls (9 trials; 810 participants), there was low-certainty evidence that yoga produced small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three to four months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.14; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of mean difference (MD) -2.18, 95% -3.60 to -0.76), moderate-certainty evidence for small to moderate improvements at six months (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.22; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -2.15, 95% -3.23 to -1.08), and low-certainty evidence for small improvements at 12 months (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -1.36, 95% -2.41 to -0.26). On a 0-100 scale there was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga was slightly better for pain at three to four months (MD -4.55, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.06), six months (MD -7.81, 95% CI -13.37 to -2.25), and 12 months (MD -5.40, 95% CI -14.50 to -3.70), however we pre-defined clinically significant changes in pain as 15 points or greater and this threshold was not met. Based on information from six trials, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, was higher in yoga than in non-exercise controls (risk difference (RD) 5%, 95% CI 2% to 8%). For yoga compared to non-yoga exercise controls (4 trials; 394 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference in back-related function at three months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.20; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.99, 95% -2.87 to 0.90) and six months (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.19; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.90, 95% -2.61 to 0.81), and no information on back-related function after six months. There was very low-certainty evidence for lower pain on a 0-100 scale at seven months (MD -20.40, 95% CI -25.48 to -15.32), and no information on pain at three months or after seven months. Based on information from three trials, there was low-certainty evidence for no difference in the risk of adverse events between yoga and non-yoga exercise controls (RD 1%, 95% CI -4% to 6%). For yoga added to exercise compared to exercise alone (1 trial; 24 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference at 10 weeks in back-related function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.42 to 0.22; corresponding to a change in the Oswestry Disability Index of MD -17.05, 95% -22.96 to 11.14) or pain on a 0-100 scale (MD -3.20, 95% CI -13.76 to 7.36). There was no information on outcomes at other time points. There was no information on adverse events. Studies provided limited evidence on risk of clinical improvement, measures of quality of life, and depression. There was no evidence on work-related disability. Authors' conclusions There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to non-exercise controls results in small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three and six months. Yoga may also be slightly more effective for pain at three and six months, however the effect size did not meet predefined levels of minimum clinical importance. It is uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for back-related function or pain, or whether yoga added to exercise is more effective than exercise alone. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than non-exercise controls, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other back-focused exercise. Yoga is not associated with serious adverse events. There is a need for additional high-quality research to improve confidence in estimates of effect, to evaluate long-term outcomes, and to provide additional information on comparisons between yoga and other exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Background Delirium is an acute change in mental status characterized by sudden onset, fluctuating course, inattention, disorganized thinking, and abnormal level of consciousness. The objective of the randomized controlled trial “A STrategy to Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients” (STRIDE) is to assess the effectiveness of light versus heavy sedation on delirium and other outcomes in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture repair surgery. Our goal is to describe the design considerations and lessons learned in planning and implementing the STRIDE trial. Methods Discussed are challenges encountered including (1) how to ensure that we quickly identify, assess the eligibility of, and randomize traumatic hip fracture patients; (2) how to implement interventions that involve continuous monitoring and adjustment during the surgery; and (3) how to measure and ascertain the primary outcome, delirium. Results To address the first challenge, we monitored the operating room schedule more actively than anticipated. We constructed and organized eligibility assessment data collection forms by purpose and by source of information needed to complete them. We decided that randomization needs to take place in the operating room. To address the second challenge, we designed and implemented a treatment protocol and covered the bispectral index monitor to prevent the Anesthesiologist/Anesthetist from being influenced by the bispectral index reading while administering the intervention. Finally, clinical assessment of delirium consisted of standardized interviews of the patient using validated instruments, interviews of those caring for the patient, and review of the medical record. A consensus panel made the final determination of a delirium diagnosis. We note that STRIDE is a single-center trial. The decisions we took may have different implications for multi-center trials. Conclusions Lessons learned are likely to provide useful information to others designing trials in emergency and surgical setting and for those who are interested in unbiased assessment of delirium.

Objective Acupuncture systematic reviewers have increasingly searched Chinese databases and journals to identify eligible randomised clinical trials (RCTs). However, reviewers have infrequently searched for eligible RCTs in Korean databases and journals. This study aimed to identify difficult to locate acupuncture RCTs in Korean databases and journals and to assess the characteristics and quality of the identified RCTs. Methods Eleven electronic databases and seven journals were searched up to December 2012. All RCTs using needle acupuncture were considered for inclusion. Key study characteristics were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results One hundred and forty-three publications met our inclusion criteria. Acupuncture RCTs in the Korean literature emerged in the mid-1990s and increased in the mid-2000s. Diverse methods of acupuncture were used, including some methods unique to Korea (eg, Saam acupuncture). The largest proportion of trials evaluated acupuncture for musculoskeletal conditions (27.3%). The mean sample size was 44.3±25.3 per trial. Random sequence generation methods were reported in 44.8% of the RCTs, whereas only 11.9% reported methods of allocation concealment. A low proportion of trials reported participant blinding (32.9%) and outcome assessment blinding (18.9%). Conclusions Korean acupuncture trials, many of which evaluate acupuncture styles unique to Korea, are typically omitted from systematic reviews of acupuncture, resulting in the potential for language bias. The development of this database of difficult to locate Korean trials, which includes English language translations of abstracts, will enable these trials of varying quality to be assessed for inclusion in future acupuncture systematic reviews.

Review authors in the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a review of the effects of providing long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) supplements to breastfeeding mothers for improving child growth and development. After searching for all relevant studies, they found 8 studies which provided LCPUFA to women during pregnancy and breastfeeding or solely during breastfeeding. This summary presents the review findings of the effects of LCPUFA supplementation versus placebo on child growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes after 24 months. LCPUFA and Child Growth and Development Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) such as arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are important nutrients for the development of the infant nervous system, including the brain and retina. LCPUFA are known as ‘essential’ fatty acids because they are not efficiently produced by the body and are more easily obtained from the diet. LCPUFA may be provided to infants who breastfeed by supplementing the diet of the lactating mother. There has been some research into whether giving LCPUFA supplements to breastfeeding mothers improves the growth, neurodevelopment, and visual ability of children during infancy and early childhood. This review was carried out to summarize the evidence.

Background: Two large randomized trials of regular salmeterol monotherapy in adults with asthma found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality for salmeterol versus placebo or regular salbutamol. There are no similar large trials in children, and the safety of monotherapy with salmeterol or other long-acting beta2-agonists in children with asthma is unclear. Current guidelines recommend that regular long-acting beta2-agonist therapy should be given only in combination with regular inhaled corticosteroids. However, the safety of combination therapy in children with asthma is also unclear. Objectives: We used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular long-acting beta2-agonist therapy, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, in children with asthma. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in May 2012 for Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol, and ran updated searches for trials for each of the Cochrane reviews. We used odds ratios (ORs) to summarize the direct randomized evidence on safety from trials comparing regular formoterol or regular salmeterol as monotherapy versus placebo and then as combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We indirectly compared the safety of monotherapy and combination therapy by testing for differences between the pooled ORs for monotherapy and for combination therapy. We used ORs to summarize the direct randomized evidence on safety from trials comparing regular formoterol with regular salmeterol. We also compared the safety of regular formoterol and regular salmeterol indirectly by calculating an OR for the pooled results of trials assessing formoterol and the pooled results of trials assessing salmeterol, and then combined the direct and indirect evidence by calculating an overall OR for this comparison. Results: We identified four Cochrane reviews examining the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol as either monotherapy or combination therapy. The reviews included 19 trials in children and we found two additional studies on salmeterol combination therapy, for a total of 21 trials in 7318 children. We identified two Cochrane reviews comparing the safety of formoterol with salmeterol, which included a single trial in 156 children. We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a nonfatal serious adverse event in children on formoterol monotherapy [OR = 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.27–4.83, I2 = 0%, five trials, N = 1335] and smaller nonsignificant increases in odds for salmeterol monotherapy (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 0.82–2.05, I2 = 17%, five trials, N = 1333), formoterol combination therapy (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 0.80–3.28, I2 = 32%, seven trials, N = 2788) and salmeterol combination therapy (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.37–2.91, I2 = 0%, five trials, N = 1862). There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of a serious adverse event on monotherapy (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.10–2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination therapy (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 0.82–2.75, 12 trials, N = 4650). However, there was an absolute increase of 21 children (95% CI = 4–45) suffering a severe adverse event of any cause for every thousand children treated over six months on monotherapy, compared with an absolute increase of three (95% CI = 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 children over three months on combination therapy. The evidence comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol was limited, and even when direct and indirect evidence were combined, the CI around the effect on serious adverse events was too wide to tell whether there was a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.37–4.32). Only one child died across all the trials, so the impact on mortality could not be assessed. Authors' conclusions: Although regular combination therapy is likely to be safer than monotherapy in children with asthma, the safety of regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children remains uncertain, particularly in terms of mortality. The relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol is also unclear. There are currently large ongoing surveillance studies that may clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration

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 Cochrane Collaboration, an international not-for-profit organization that prepares and maintains systematic reviews of randomized trials of health care therapies, has produced reviews summarizing much of the evidence on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Our objective was to review the evidence base according to Cochrane systematic reviews.In order to detect reviews focusing on TCM, we searched the titles and abstracts of all reviews in Issue 4, 2008 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each review, we extracted data on the number of trials included and the total number of participants. We provided an indication of the strength of the review findings by assessing the reviewers' abstract conclusions statement. We supplemented our assessment of the abstract conclusions statements with a listing of the comparisons and outcomes showing statistically significant meta-analyses results.We identified 70 Cochrane systematic reviews of TCM, primarily acupuncture (n = 26) and Chinese herbal medicine (n = 42), and 1 each of moxibustion and t'ai chi. Nineteen (19) of 26 acupuncture reviews and 22/42 herbal medicine reviews concluded that there was not enough good quality trial evidence to make any conclusion about the efficacy of the evaluated treatment, while the remaining 7 acupuncture and 20 herbal medicine reviews and each of the moxibustion and t'ai chi reviews indicated a suggestion of benefit, which was qualified by a caveat about the poor quality and quantity of studies. Most reviews included many distinct interventions, controls, outcomes, and populations, and a large number of different comparisons were made, each with a distinct forest plot.Most Cochrane systematic reviews of TCM are inconclusive, due specifically to the poor methodology and heterogeneity of the studies reviewed. Some systematic reviews provide preliminary evidence of Chinese medicine's benefits to certain patient populations, underscoring the importance and appropriateness of further research. These preliminary findings should be considered tentative and need to be confirmed with rigorous randomized controlled trials.

The Cochrane Collaboration has established a centralized database of controlled trials and other studies of health care interventions (called CENTRAL) that serves as the best available resource for all those preparing and maintaining systematic reviews or otherwise searching for trials. CENTRAL is available on The Cochrane Library. This article describes the history and methods of CENTRAL’s development and the results of an analysis of the current composition of CENTRAL. As of September 2000, CENTRAL contained almost 300,000 citations to reports of trials, contributed mainly by Cochrane Groups and Centers around the world. Development of CENTRAL has been an ambitious, scholarly undertaking and has resulted in a valuable resource: CENTRAL includes citations to controlled trials that may not be indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, or other bibliographic databases; citations published internationally in many languages; and citations that are available only in conference proceedings or other hard-to-access sources.

Little information exists about alcohol use within health facilities. We sought to determine alcohol use and control in acute-care hospitals by mailing a questionnaire to a convenience sample of Pharmacy Directors of 24 hospitals in two regions. Of 23 responders, in-patient alcohol was dispensed by 21 (91%) within the last 5 years. Of these 21, both beverage and intravenous alcohol were dispensed by 13 (62%), only beverage alcohol by seven (33%), and only intravenous alcohol by one (5%). No institutional policies regarding alcohol dispensing existed in 16 (70%) hospitals. Alcohol was frequently used as a patient courtesy (14/20, 70%), and to prevent withdrawal (7/20, 35%). All pharmacies procured intravenous alcohol in a formal process, but 60% (12/20) obtained beverage alcohol informally. Alcohol is widely dispensed with few guidelines in this sample of acute-care hospitals. Additional research on therapeutic efficacy, consequences, and institutional oversight of alcohol in hospitals is needed.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compressive neuropathic disorder at the level of the wrist. Acupuncture and other methods that stimulate acupuncture points, such as electroacupuncture, auricular acupuncture, laser acupuncture, moxibustion, and acupressure, are used in treating CTS. Acupuncture has been recommended as a potentially useful treatment for CTS, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. We used Cochrane methodology to assess the evidence from randomised and quasi‐randomised trials of acupuncture for symptoms in people with CTS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture and acupuncture‐related interventions compared to sham or active treatments for the management of pain and other symptoms of CTS in adults. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 November 2017, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED. In addition, we searched six Korean medical databases, and three Chinese medical databases from inception to 30 April 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi‐randomised trials examining the effects of acupuncture and related interventions on the symptoms of CTS in adults. Eligible studies specified diagnostic criteria for CTS. We included outcomes measured at least three weeks after randomisation. The included studies compared acupuncture and related interventions to placebo/sham treatments, or to active interventions, such as steroid nerve blocks, oral steroid, splints, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), surgery and physical therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies with 869 participants. Ten studies reported the primary outcome of overall clinical improvement at short‐term follow‐up (3 months or less) after randomisation. Most studies could not be combined in a meta‐analysis due to heterogeneity, and all had an unclear or high overall risk of bias. Seven studies provided information on adverse events. Non‐serious adverse events included skin bruising with electroacupuncture and local pain after needle insertion. No serious adverse events were reported. One study (N = 41) comparing acupuncture to sham/placebo reported change on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) at three months after treatment (mean difference (MD) ‐0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.79 to 0.33) and the BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (MD ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐0.69 to 0.63), with no clear difference between interventions; the evidence was of low certainty. The only dropout was due to painful acupuncture. Another study of acupuncture versus placebo/sham acupuncture (N = 111) provided no usable data. Two studies assessed laser acupuncture versus sham laser acupuncture. One study (N = 60), which was at low risk of bias, provided low‐certainty evidence of a better Global Symptom Scale (GSS) score with active treatment at four weeks after treatment (MD 7.46, 95% CI 4.71 to 10.22; range of possible GSS scores is 0 to 50) and a higher response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. The other study (N = 25) did not assess overall symptom improvement. One trial (N = 77) of conventional acupuncture versus oral corticosteroids provided very low‐certainty evidence of greater improvement in GSS score (scale 0 to 50) at 13 months after treatment with acupuncture (MD 8.25, 95% CI 4.12 to 12.38) and a higher responder rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.45). Change in GSS at two weeks or four weeks after treatment showed no clear difference between groups. Adverse events occurred in 18% of the oral corticosteroid group and 5% of the acupuncture group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.32). One study comparing electroacupuncture and oral corticosteroids reported a clinically insignificant difference in change in BCTQ score at four weeks after treatment (MD ‐0.30, 95% CI ‐0.71 to 0.10; N = 52). Combined data from two studies comparing the responder rate with acupuncture versus vitamin B(12,) produced a RR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; N = 100, very low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group. One study of conventional acupuncture versus ibuprofen in which all participants wore night splints found very low‐certainty evidence of a lower symptom score on the SSS of the BCTQ with acupuncture (MD ‐5.80, 95% CI ‐7.95 to ‐3.65; N = 50) at one month after treatment. Five people had adverse events with ibuprofen and none with acupuncture. One study of electroacupuncture versus night splints found no clear difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ (MD 0.14, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.43; N = 60; very low‐certainty evidence). Six people had adverse events with electroacupuncture and none with splints. One study of electroacupuncture plus night splints versus night splints alone presented no difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ at 17 weeks (MD ‐0.16, 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.04; N = 181, low‐certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group. One study comparing acupuncture plus NSAIDs and vitamins versus NSAIDs and vitamins alone showed no clear difference on the BCTQ SSS at four weeks (MD ‐0.20, 95% CI ‐0.86 to 0.46; very low‐certainty evidence). There was no reporting on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture and laser acupuncture may have little or no effect in the short term on symptoms of CTS in comparison with placebo or sham acupuncture. It is uncertain whether acupuncture and related interventions are more or less effective in relieving symptoms of CTS than corticosteroid nerve blocks, oral corticosteroids, vitamin B(12), ibuprofen, splints, or when added to NSAIDs plus vitamins, as the certainty of any conclusions from the evidence is low or very low and most evidence is short term. The included studies covered diverse interventions, had diverse designs, limited ethnic diversity, and clinical heterogeneity. High‐quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to rigorously assess the effects of acupuncture and related interventions upon symptoms of CTS. Based on moderate to very‐low certainty evidence, acupuncture was associated with no serious adverse events, or reported discomfort, pain, local paraesthesia and temporary skin bruises, but not all studies provided adverse event data.

Objective. This study aimed to identify all of the features of complementary and alternative (CAM) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Korean literature and then introduce English-speaking researchers to the bibliometric and risk of bias characteristics of this literature.Methods. Eleven electronic databases and sixteen Korean journals were searched to August 2013 for RCTs of CAM therapies. Key study characteristics were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias.Results. Three hundred and sixty publications met our inclusion criteria. Complementary and traditional medicine RCTs in the Korean literature emerged in the mid-1990s and increased in the mid-2000s. The most common CAM interventions include acupuncture (59.4%) and herbal medicine (8.3%). The largest proportion of trials evaluated CAM for musculoskeletal conditions (20.7%). Adequate methods of randomization were reported in 41.7% of the RCTs, whereas only 8.3% reported adequate allocation concealment. A low proportion of trials reported participant blinding (34.2%) and outcome assessor blinding (22.5%).Conclusions. Korean CAM RCTs are typically omitted from systematic reviews resulting in the potential for language bias. This study will enable these trials of diverse quality to be identified and assessed for inclusion in future systematic reviews on CAM interventions.

Objective To describe the sources of internal company documents used in public health and healthcare research. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for articles using internal company documents to address a research question about a health-related topic. Our primary interest was where authors obtained internal company documents for their research. We also extracted information on type of company, type of research question, type of internal documents, and funding source. Results Our searches identified 9,305 citations of which 357 were eligible. Scanning of reference lists and consultation with colleagues identified 4 additional articles, resulting in 361 included articles. Most articles examined internal tobacco company documents (325/361; 90%). Articles using documents from pharmaceutical companies (20/361; 6%) were the next most common. Tobacco articles used documents from repositories; pharmaceutical documents were from a range of sources. Most included articles relied upon internal company documents obtained through litigation (350/361; 97%). The research questions posed were primarily about company strategies to promote or position the company and its products (326/361; 90%). Most articles (346/361; 96%) used information from miscellaneous documents such as memos or letters, or from unspecified types of documents. When explicit information about study funding was provided (290/361 articles), the most common source was the US-based National Cancer Institute. We developed an alternative and more sensitive search targeted at identifying additional research articles using internal pharmaceutical company documents, but the search retrieved an impractical number of citations for review. Conclusions Internal company documents provide an excellent source of information on health topics (e.g., corporate behavior, study data) exemplified by articles based on tobacco industry documents. Pharmaceutical and other industry documents appear to have been less used for research, indicating a need for funding for this type of research and well-indexed and curated repositories to provide researchers with ready access to the documents.

Background: The identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register. Methods: Between 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was 'frozen' for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition. Results: The CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%). Conclusions: The availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared. Methods MEDLINE® was searched to identify non-Cochrane SRs indexed from January 2010 to May 2011. Control SRs were retrieved and a search filter was used to identify CAM SRs. Citations were screened and publications that met a pre-specified definition of a SR were included. Pre-designed, standardized data extraction forms were developed to capture reporting and methodological characteristics of the included reviews. Where appropriate, samples were compared descriptively. Results A total of 349 SRs were identified, of which 174 were CAM-related SRs and 175 were conventional SRs. We compared 131 CAM-related non-Cochrane SRs to the 175 conventional non-Cochrane reviews. Fifty-seven percent (75/131) of CAM SRs specified a primary outcome compared to 21% (37/175) of conventional sample reviews. Reporting of publication bias occurred in less than 5% (6/131) of the CAM sample versus 46% (80/175) of the conventional sample of SRs. Source of funding was frequently and consistently under-reported. Less than 5% (11/306) of all SRs reported public availability of a review protocol. Conclusion The two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. In some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports. We advise authors to utilise the PRISMA Statement or other SR guidance when reporting SRs.

Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I(2) = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I(2) = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta(2)-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the number of obese or overweight individuals worldwide will increase to 1.5 billion by 2015. Chronic diseases associated with overweight or obesity include diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interactive computer-based interventions for weight loss or weight maintenance in overweight or obese people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PsycINFO, through 25 May 2011. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify studies. We scanned reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated interactive computer-based weight loss or weight maintenance programs in adults with overweight or obesity. We excluded trials if the duration of the intervention was less than four weeks or the loss to follow-up was greater than 20% overall. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Where interventions, control conditions, outcomes and time frames were similar between studies, we combined study data using meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 weight loss studies with a total of 2537 participants, and four weight maintenance studies with a total of 1603 participants. Treatment duration was between four weeks and 30 months. At six months, computer-based interventions led to greater weight loss than minimal interventions (mean difference (MD) -1.5 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1 to -0.9; two trials) but less weight loss than in-person treatment (MD 2.1 kg; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.4; one trial). At six months, computer-based interventions were superior to a minimal control intervention in limiting weight regain (MD -0.7 kg; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2; two trials), but not superior to infrequent in-person treatment (MD 0.5 kg; 95% -0.5 to 1.6; two trials). We did not observe consistent differences in dietary or physical activity behaviors between intervention and control groups in either weight loss or weight maintenance trials. Three weight loss studies estimated the costs of computer-based interventions compared to usual care, however two of the studies were 11 and 28 years old, and recent advances in technology render these estimates unlikely to be applicable to current or future interventions, while the third study was conducted in active duty military personnel, and it is unclear whether the costs are relevant to other settings. One weight loss study reported the cost-effectiveness ratio for a weekly in-person weight loss intervention relative to a computer-based intervention as USD 7177 (EUR 5678) per life year gained (80% CI USD 3055 to USD 60,291 (EUR 2417 to EUR 47,702)). It is unclear whether this could be extrapolated to other studies. No data were identified on adverse events, morbidity, complications or health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no intervention or minimal interventions (pamphlets, usual care), interactive computer-based interventions are an effective intervention for weight loss and weight maintenance. Compared to in-person interventions, interactive computer-based interventions result in smaller weight losses and lower levels of weight maintenance. The amount of additional weight loss, however, is relatively small and of brief duration, making the clinical significance of these differences unclear.

Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide evidence-based guidance on the effects of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous, and methodologically unsound trials. We conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of acupuncture for treating IBS.MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Eligible RCTs compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment. Our outcomes were overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. Dichotomous data were pooled to provide a relative risk (RR) of substantial improvement after treatment, and continuous data were pooled to provide a standardized mean difference (SMD) in post-treatment scores between groups.A total of 17 RCTs (N=1,806) were included. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture on symptom severity (SMD=-0.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs) or quality of life (SMD=-0.03, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs). Because of the homogeneity of the results of the sham-controlled trials, results were unaffected by restriction to the four sham-controlled RCTs that used adequate randomization, blinding, and had few withdrawals/dropouts. Among RCTs that did not use a placebo control, acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy (RR of symptom improvement=1.28, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45; 5 RCTs) and no (specific) treatment (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.79; 2 RCTs). There was no difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.27; 2 RCTs) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.26; 1 RCT). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was statistically significantly better than the other treatment alone, in trials with a high risk of bias (RR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.33; 4 RCTs).Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control on IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from pharmacological therapies. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or patients' greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drugs.

Objective To explore why reports that seem to describe randomised controlled trials are sometimes not indexed (“tagged”) with RCT (randomised controlled trial) [pt] (publication type) in Medline. Design Cross sectional study. Setting The Cochrane Collaboration and US National Library of Medicine worked together to identify and retag records of randomised controlled trials with RCT [pt], 1994 to 2006. Data source Published reports entered into Medline in 2005. Main outcome measures Type of trial information presented (for example, main results, design, and methods), trial design, and other Medline indexing terms applied. Results 572/591 (97%) untagged records and 578/594 (97%) tagged records contained information from randomised controlled trials. Type of trial information and design differed between untagged and tagged reports. Fewer than half (234/572, 41%, 95% confidence interval 37% to 45%) of untagged reports but most tagged reports (526/578, 91%, 89% to 93%) described the main results of the trial. Untagged reports were more likely than tagged reports to contain information on design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary analyses. Untagged reports of main results were more likely than tagged reports to be from trials using a crossover design (36% v 10%, difference 25%, 95% confidence interval 19% to 32%). The Medical Subject Heading “Randomized Controlled Trials” was the most common clinical trial term applied to untagged reports, although more than half of untagged reports had no indexing related to trials. Conclusion Based on the results for 2005, at least 3000 records describing randomised controlled trials but not indexed using RCT [pt] may have been entered into Medline between 2006 and 2011. Researchers and healthcare decision makers relying on using RCT [pt] may be missing important evidence in their searches, particularly for design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary data analyses.

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.

Background Adequate reporting of safety in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a pre-requisite for accurate and comprehensive profile evaluation of conventional as well as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Clear and concise information on the definition, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs) is necessary for assessing the benefit-harm ratio of any intervention. The objectives of this study are to assess the quality of safety reporting in CAM RCTs; to explore the influence of different trial characteristics on the quality of safety reporting. Methods Survey of safety reporting in RCTs published in 2009 across 15 widely used CAM interventions identified from the Cochrane Collaboration's CAM Field specialized register of trials. Primary outcome measures, the adequacy of reporting of AEs; was defined and categorized according to the CONSORT for harms extension; the percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the entire report and in the results section. Results Two-hundred and five trials were included in the review. Of these, 15% (31/205) reported that no harms were observed during the trial period. Of the remaining 174 trials reporting any safety information, only 21% (36/174) had adequate safety reporting. For all trials, the median percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the results section was 2.6. Moreover, 69% (n = 141) of all trials devoted a lesser or equal percentage of words to safety compared to author affiliations. Of the predictor variables used in regression analysis, multicenter trials had more words devoted to safety in the results section than single centre trials (P = 0.045). Conclusions An evaluation of safety reporting in the reports of CAM RCTs across 15 different CAM interventions demonstrated that the reporting of harms was largely inadequate. The quality of reporting safety information in primary reports of CAM randomized trials requires improvement.

Background This study investigated the relationship between continuity of care (having one's own doctor and a regular site of care), and receipt of preventive services in a population of adult fee-for-service Medicaid enrollees with physical disabilities. Methods A random sample of 555 physically disabled Rhode Island Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years were surveyed by telephone. Respondents were asked about receipt of six preventive services in the previous year. They were also asked whether they had their own doctor and whether they had a regular site of care. Regression analyses with propensity score corrections for selection bias were used to test the associations between care continuity measures and the number of preventive services received, as well as the receipt of each individual service. Results After adjustment for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, respondents with their own doctor received 0.73 more preventive services than peers without their own doctor, and respondents who had a usual site of care received 0.85 more services than peers who received care at the emergency department or who had no regular site. The influences of having a regular doctor and a usual site of care varied according to type of preventive service, and these influences appear to be largely complementary rather than overlapping. Conclusions Study findings suggest that care models for adults with physical disabilities should include mechanisms to ensure both physician and site continuity. A strong primary care component that links individual patients with a personal doctor, as well as care protocols that ensure receipt of preventive services, appear to be optimal for medically needy populations.

Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, costly, and difficult to treat disorder that impairs health-related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide guidance on the effects of acupuncture for IBS because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous and methodologically unsound trials. Objectives The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating IBS. Search methods MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment, in adults with IBS were included. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We extracted data for the outcomes overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. For dichotomous data (e.g. the IBS Adequate Relief Question), we calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for substantial improvement in symptom severity after treatment. For continuous data (e.g. the IBS Severity Scoring System), we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI in post-treatment scores between groups. Main results Seventeen RCTs (1806 participants) were included. Five RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture. The risk of bias in these studies was low. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham (placebo) acupuncture for symptom severity (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs; 281 patients) or quality of life (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs; 253 patients). Sensitivity analyses based on study quality did not change the results. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes in the sham controlled trials was moderate due to sparse data. The risk of bias in the four Chinese language comparative effectiveness trials that compared acupuncture with drug treatment was high due to lack of blinding. The risk of bias in the other studies that did not use a sham control was high due to lack of blinding or inadequate methods used for randomization and allocation concealment or both. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than pharmacological therapy and no specific treatment. Eighty-four per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 63% of patients in the pharmacological treatment group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 5 studies, 449 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to a high risk of bias (no blinding) and sparse data. Sixty-three per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 34% of patients in the no specific therapy group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.79; 2 studies, 181 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies; 181 patients) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 1 study; 100 patients). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was significantly better than the other treatment alone. Ninety-three per cent of patients in the adjuvant acupuncture group improved compared to 79% of patients who received Chinese medicine alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33; 4 studies; 466 patients). There was one adverse event (i.e. acupuncture syncope) associated with acupuncture in the 9 trials that reported this outcome, although relatively small sample sizes limit the usefulness of these safety data. Authors' conclusions Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control for IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from two antispasmodic drugs (pinaverium bromide and trimebutine maleate), both of which have been shown to provide a modest benefit for IBS. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drug therapy.