Aggregator

早期手术去除玻璃体凝胶是否可以改善术后严重眼部感染的结局?

2 years 6 months ago
早期手术去除玻璃体凝胶是否可以改善术后严重眼部感染的结局? 什么是外源性眼内炎? 眼睛是一个相对独立的器官,由感光细胞排列组成视网膜。视网膜排列在眼球后部,中心充满一种透明凝胶,称为玻璃体。像所有器官一样,眼睛也会被感染。眼内感染(眼内炎)很少见,但会威胁视力。外源性眼内炎被定义为从周围环境进入眼睛的感染,通常发生在常规手术(例如白内障手术)之后,或由于外伤造成的开放性伤口。需要及时管理以保护视力。 如何治疗外源性眼内炎? 虽然眼内炎很少见,但感染后的后果可能很深远。及时和适当的治疗至关重要。目前,大多数眼内炎感染都对玻璃体凝胶进行诊断性活检,然后用抗生素治疗。活组织检查涉及“穿刺”,取出一小部分玻璃体凝胶样本,以确定感染的类型。然后患者会被注射抗生素到眼球内的液体中以治疗感染。如果这不起作用,之后可能需要进行眼科手术,去除眼球内受感染的胶质(称为“玻璃体切除术”手术)。玻璃体切除术涉及从眼内手术去除玻璃体凝胶。对于眼内炎患者,玻璃体切除术可能有助于消除感染,帮助眼睛更快恢复,并可能限制感染造成的损害。然而,玻璃体切除术对眼内炎治疗的影响仍不清楚。 我们想知道什么? 本Cochrane综述的目的是评估玻璃体切除术对治疗眼内炎的作用。 我们做了什么? 我们对手术后或眼部外伤后接受玻璃体切除术治疗眼内炎的患者的研究进行了系统综述。 我们发现了什么? 我们找到了一项随机对照试验(ran...

International Volunteer Day: messages of thanks to all Cochrane volunteers

2 years 6 months ago

On International Volunteer Day, 5 December, we would like to take the opportunity to say thank you to our incredible global community. Thank you to thousands of Cochrane Supporters and Members who volunteer in so many ways to help bring trusted health evidence to the people who need it, all over the world.

In 2023, nearly 4,000 people earnt Cochrane membership through volunteering have translated over 3 million words into different languages, screened over a million records in Cochrane Crowd and contributed in countless other ways.

Cochrane couldn’t have such a big impact without our volunteers. Volunteering is good for us – and good for our volunteers too! They can learn new skills and feel part of a global community working together to achieve better health for all. We value our volunteers and we are pleased to announce on International Volunteer Day our updated guidance on how you can look after the volunteers you work with.

Cochrane's Chief Executive, Catherine Spencer,  has expressed her heartfelt gratitude to our volunteers around the world: "On behalf of the Cochrane Collaboration, I would like to thank you. Your contribution is profoundly important and we couldn’t do this without you. I hope that you continue to volunteer with us, generously giving your time to help improve health evidence for everyone."

The ways in which people volunteer at Cochrane is vast. Our citizen science volunteers in Cochrane Crowd help to classify evidence. People with lived experience from our Consumer Network peer review our evidence and provide feedback. We have translation projects around the world that work with dedicated volunteers to translate our evidence into 15 languages. Our volunteer hub, Cochrane Engage, is the first stop for anyone who wishes to support our work by volunteering in any capacity.

There are many other volunteer roles in Cochrane and we are grateful to volunteers who make up our Board and Council, and anyone who helps promote Cochrane evidence  - whether they’re doing  by sharing on social media, blogging in Students4BestEvidence, updating Wikipedia articles, or creating Cochrane evidence podcasts.

Thank you again to our many Cochrane volunteers!  

 
Find out more about volunteering opportunities at Cochrane

Visit our volunteer platform, Cochrane Engage

Learn more about how Cochrane works with patients and carers


Watch this video in French

Learn more about the Cochrane Wiki project


Get social with Cochrane

Learn more about translating Cochrane evidence

Visit the Cochrane China website

Visit the Cochrane France website

Visit the Cochrane Japan website


Visit the Cochrane Malaysia website

Video also available in Portuguese

Watch this video in Russian

Video also available in Taiwanese Mandarin 

Video also available in Thai

 

Tuesday, December 5, 2023
Muriah Umoquit

Cochrane’s updated volunteer hub, Cochrane Engage

2 years 6 months ago

Cochrane is pleased to announce the launch of Cochrane Engage, Cochrane’s one-stop-shop for those who want to get involved and volunteer in Cochrane.

Formerly Cochrane TaskExchange, the platform had outgrown its name and look, and it is now being used for much more than review tasks. The new name was chosen through conversations with members of the Cochrane Community.

Cochrane Engage is a place where anyone working in evidence-based health research can come to find volunteers to support their work – we welcome tasks posted by Cochrane Groups and any other organisations or individuals in the wider health research community. People can also browse our network of volunteers to find people with the skills they are looking for.

Those who are getting started in health research can build their skills and experience by applying to volunteer on evidence-based health care tasks, such as translating studies and providing consumer peer review. They will also find opportunities to engage with Cochrane Groups and other organisations. Recently we’ve had opportunities such as mentoring programmes, virtual internships, and requests for people to join author teams.

As well as a new name and new look, we have made other improvements suggested by users. Opportunities are now listed with the most recent tasks at the top of the page so you can easily see what’s new. People who post tasks can filter their tasks to find what they need more quickly. We have plans to continue improving the platform; let us know your suggestions.

Catherine Spencer, Cochrane’s CEO, says of the launch, “Cochrane Engage represents what is best about Cochrane; working collaboratively to improve health evidence for all. We thank everyone who has volunteered with us so far. Patients, carers, early career professionals, translators, and researchers – there are a wide range of volunteers and a wide range of tasks for all. I invite you to check out the newly launch Cochrane Engage and join us in improving health decisions globally.”

Could you use a volunteer? Want to get involved in producing health evidence? It’s easy to use Cochrane Engage to engage with a global health evidence community!

Monday, November 28, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

Latest Cochrane Review finds high certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) in helping people quit smoking

2 years 6 months ago

A Cochrane review has found the strongest evidence yet that e-cigarettes, also known as ‘vapes’, help people to quit smoking better than traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and chewing gums.

New evidence published today in the Cochrane Library finds high certainty evidence that people are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using nicotine e-cigarettes, or ‘vapes’, than using nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gums. Evidence also suggested that nicotine e-cigarettes led to higher quit rates than e-cigarettes without nicotine, or no stop smoking intervention, but less data contributed to these analyses. The updated Cochrane review includes 78 studies in over 22,000 participants – an addition of 22 studies since the last update in 2021.

Smoking is a significant global health problem. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), in 2020, 22.3% of the global population used tobacco, despite it killing up to half of its users. Stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer, heart attacks and many other diseases. Though most people who smoke want to quit, many find it difficult to do so permanently. Nicotine patches and gum are safe, effective and widely used methods to help individuals quit.

E-cigarettes heat liquids with nicotine and flavourings, allowing users to ‘vape’ nicotine instead of smoking. Data from the review showed that if six in 100 people quit by using nicotine replacement therapy, eight to twelve would quit by using electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. This means an additional two to six people in 100 could potentially quit smoking with nicotine containing electronic cigarettes.

Dr Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, Editor of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, and an author of the new publication, said:

“Electronic cigarettes have generated a lot of misunderstanding in both the public health community and the popular press since their introduction over a decade ago. These misunderstandings discourage some people from using e-cigarettes as a stop smoking tool. Fortunately, more and more evidence is emerging and provides further clarity. With support from Cancer Research UK, we search for new evidence every month as part of a living systematic review. We identify and combine the strongest evidence from the most reliable scientific studies currently available.

For the first time, this has given us high-certainty evidence that e-cigarettes are even more effective at helping people to quit smoking than traditional nicotine replacement therapies, like patches or gums.”

In studies comparing nicotine e-cigarettes to nicotine replacement treatment, significant side effects were rare. In the short-to-medium term (up to two years), nicotine e-cigarettes most typically caused throat or mouth irritation, headache, cough, and feeling nauseous. However, these effects appeared to diminish over time.

Dr Nicola Lindson, University Research Lecturer at the University of Oxford, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group’s Managing Editor, and author of the publication said:

“E-cigarettes do not burn tobacco; and as such they do not expose users to the same complex mix of chemicals that cause diseases in people smoking conventional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are not risk free, and shouldn’t be used by people who don’t smoke or aren’t at risk of smoking. However, evidence shows that nicotine e-cigarettes carry only a small fraction of the risk of smoking. In our review, we did not find evidence of substantial harms caused by nicotine containing electronic cigarettes when used to quit smoking. However, due to the small number of studies and lack of data on long-term nicotine-containing electronic cigarette usage – usage over more than two years – questions remain about long-term effects.”

The researchers conclude that more evidence, particularly about the effects of newer e-cigarettes with better nicotine delivery than earlier ones, is needed to assist more people quit smoking. Longer-term data is also needed.

Michelle Mitchell, chief executive at Cancer Research UK, said:

“We welcome this report which adds to a growing body of evidence showing that e-cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation tool. We strongly discourage those who have never smoked from using e-cigarettes, especially young people. This is because they are a relatively new product and we don’t yet know the long term health effects.

While the long term effects of vaping are still unknown, the harmful effects of smoking are indisputable – smoking causes around 55,000 cancer deaths in the UK every year. Cancer Research UK supports balanced evidence-based regulation on e-cigarettes from UK governments which maximises their potential to help people stop smoking, whilst minimising the risk of uptake among others.”

 

 Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD010216. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7

This work was supported by Cancer Research UK [A ref. A29845]

To speak to a team member about this project please contact Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, jamie.hartmann-boyce@phc.ox.ac.uk or Dr. Lindson, nicola.lindson@phc.ox.ac.uk.

Thursday, November 17, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

电子烟能帮助人们戒烟吗?使用电子烟戒烟是否会产生不良反应?

2 years 6 months ago
电子烟能帮助人们戒烟吗?使用电子烟戒烟是否会产生不良反应? 什么是电子烟? 电子烟是一种手持设备,通过加热通常含有尼古丁和香料的液体来运作。电子烟可以让您以蒸汽而非烟雾的形式吸入尼古丁。由于电子烟不会燃烧烟草,因此不会让使用者接触同等程度的化学物质,这些会导致使用传统香烟的人患病。 使用电子烟的英语专有单词为“vaping”。许多人使用电子烟来帮助戒断烟草。在本系统综述中,我们主要关注含有尼古丁的电子烟。 我们为什么进行本Cochrane系统综述 戒烟可以降低患肺癌、心脏病和许多其他疾病的风险。但是许多人发现戒烟不是一件容易的事情。我们想弄清楚使用电子烟是否能帮助人们戒烟,并且以戒烟为目的的电子烟使用者是否会发生任何不良反应。 我们做了什么? 我们检索了关于使用电子烟帮助人们戒烟的研究。 我们检索了随机对照试验,在这些试验中,人们接受的治疗是随机决定的。这类研究通常会提供有关治疗效果的最可靠证据。我们也检索了所有受试者都接受电子烟治疗的研究。 我们关注: ·有多少人至少成功地停止吸烟半年以上;和 ·在使用至少一周后报告了多少人有不良反应。 检索日期:我们纳入了截至2022年7月1日发表的证据。 我们发现了什么? 我们检索到78项研究,涉及22052名吸烟的成年人。这些研究比较了电子烟与: · 尼古丁替代疗法,例如贴剂或尼古丁口香糖; · varenicline(一种帮助人们戒烟的...

Cochrane Library Editorial: Cochrane reviews role in directing researchers away from biased primary studies

2 years 6 months ago

A new Cochrane Library Editorial has been published about the role of Cochrane reviews in directing researchers away from potentially biased primary studies. 

The editorial discusses new evidence that risk of bias ratings disseminated in Cochrane reviews can influence the citations received by the appraised studies. Specifically, after a review is published, papers at ‘high risk of bias’ due to selective reporting attract fewer citations than a comparable group of ‘low risk of bias’ papers. Whilst the effect is modest, it is notable that systematic reviews can redirect researchers away from wayward science. 

The editorial calls for more research on how to turn the weak signal provided by risk of bias ratings into a stronger one, to increase the efficacy of systematic reviews in shaping follow-on science and to complement more traditional signals such as retractions, citations, and journal-level metrics.

Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor in Chief of Cochrane, says, "Cochrane is a strong advocate for transparency and integrity in research. These issues go to our core: without access to relevant, unconflicted and accurate data, our reviews will not be of the quality we want. This editorial highlights the potential for Cochrane reviews, and the rigorous assessments carried out as part of the review process, to further contribute to improving the overall quality of health research."

Thursday, November 24, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

银杏叶草本补剂治疗耳鸣

2 years 6 months ago
银杏叶草本补剂治疗耳鸣 什么是耳鸣? 耳鸣是指人们在未接收外来音源的情况下,能够感知到声音的症状。它通常被描述为一种铃声、嘶嘶声、嗡嗡声或嗖嗖声。这种症状很常见,影响总人口的5%至43%,且其患病率随着年龄增长而增加。对有些人来说,耳鸣是一种持续存在且令人烦恼的状态,并且可能会导致睡眠问题(失眠)、注意力难以集中、沟通和社交困难以及焦虑和抑郁。针对耳鸣的管理可包括教育和建议、放松疗法、耳鸣再训练疗法(tinnitus retraining therapy, TRT)、认知行为疗法(cognitive behavioural therapy, CBT)、佩戴声音播放器或助听器以及药物疗法。银杏叶草本补剂也曾被使用。 我们想知道什么? 我们想知道银杏叶是否能减轻耳鸣的严重程度,以及是否有任何不良或有害的影响。 我们做了什么? 我们检索了将银杏叶与安慰剂(“虚拟”治疗)、无治疗或仅提供教育或信息用于治疗成人和儿童耳鸣并进行比较的研究。我们对各项研究结局进行比较及总结,并根据试验如何进行、多少人参与等因素来评价我们对该证据的信心。 我们发现了什么? 我们发现了12项研究 (共1915名受试者)。十一项研究比较了银杏叶与安慰剂的作用效果。一项研究比较了银杏叶联合佩戴助听器及单独佩戴助听器的效果。 主要结局 当我们将两项测量耳鸣严重程度的研究结果结合起来时,我们发现与安慰剂相比,银杏叶可能几...

Yoga may have health benefits for people with chronic non-specific lower back pain

2 years 6 months ago

An updated Cochrane Review, published in the Cochrane Library, suggests that yoga may lead to a small reduction in pain in people with chronic non-specific lower back pain over the short term, and that improvements in back function may be similar to those seen with other types of back-focused exercise. However, researchers advise that more studies are needed to provide information on long-term effects.

What is non-specific low back pain?

Low back pain is a common health problem. In many cases, there is no known cause for the pain and it is termed 'non-specific' back pain. For some people, the pain may last for three months or more and at this point it is termed 'chronic.' Non-specific low back pain is usually treated with over-the-counter pain medicines and exercise and does not require surgery or other invasive procedures. Yoga is sometimes used to help treat or manage low back pain.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if yoga improves function (for example, ability to walk, do jobs around the house, getting dressed), pain and quality of life associated with low back pain.

What did we do?

We searched medical databases for clinical trials comparing yoga practices using physical postures (often called 'hatha yoga') to any other treatment, sham (pretend) yoga, or to no treatment in adults (aged 18 years or older). We also included trials comparing yoga added to other treatments, versus those other treatments alone. 

What did we find?

We included 21 trials with 2223 participants. Ten trials were carried out in the USA, five in India, two in the UK, and one each in Croatia, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. Most participants were women in their 40s or 50s.

Key results

  • For people with long-lasting low back pain without a known cause (chronic non-specific low back pain), after three months of doing yoga or not doing yoga, yoga is probably better than not doing exercise for improving pain and back-related function, although the improvements are small.
  • There is probably little or no difference between yoga and other types of back-focused exercise in improving back-related function, but we are uncertain about differences between yoga and other exercise for improving pain.
  • Back pain was the most common harm reported in yoga trials. Risk of harms was higher with yoga than with no yoga, but similar for yoga and other exercise. There was no suggestion that yoga was associated with a risk of serious harms.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Because we did not find any trials comparing yoga to sham yoga, we cannot say how yoga would affect low back pain if people did not know they were doing yoga. Participants in all the trials were aware of whether they were practicing yoga or not, and this may have influenced their interpretation of whether their back pain had changed. In addition, some trials were very small, there were few trials in some comparisons, and the trials in some comparisons had inconsistent results. Therefore, we downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate, low, or very low.

Lead Cochrane author Susan Wieland from Cochrane Complementary Medicine at the Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Maryland, commented,

“Our findings suggest that yoga exercise may lead to improving back-related function and reducing back pain by a small amount. Our findings also suggest that there may be little or no difference between yoga and other back-focused exercise when looking at improvements in back-related function at three and six months. At the moment we have very limited information on comparisons between yoga and other back-focused exercise with respect to improving back pain and for longer term effects beyond six months. Readers should remember that in each of the studies we reviewed, the yoga exercises were developed to treat low back pain and the yoga classes were led by experienced practitioners. The findings of this Cochrane Review will help people make more informed choices about their future treatment options.”


Full citation: Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, Harbin S, Vempati R, Berman BM. Yoga for chronic non‐specific low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD010671. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub3. 

About Cochrane
Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers, and people interested in health. Cochrane produces reviews which study all of the best available evidence generated through research and make it easier to inform decisions about health. These are called systematic reviews. Cochrane is a not-for profit organization with collaborators from more than 130 countries working together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest. Our work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. https://www.cochrane.org/

About Wiley
Wiley, a global company, helps people and organizations develop the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Our online scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, combined with our digital learning, assessment and certification solutions help universities, learned societies, businesses, governments and individuals increase the academic and professional impact of their work. For more than 200 years, we have delivered consistent performance to our stakeholders. www.wiley.com.

If you are a journalist or member of the press and wish to receive news alerts before their online publication or if you wish to arrange an interview with an author, please contact the Cochrane press office: pressoffice@cochrane.org

Friday, November 18, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane seeks Commissioning Editor

2 years 6 months ago

Specifications:  Fixed Term Contract Fulltime (Part time will be considered at minimum 0.6FTE)
Salary: £47,000 per annum
Location: UK
Application Closing Date:  27 November 2022

The Evidence Production and Methods Directorate in Cochrane is made up of three departments that are responsible for the efficient and timely production of high-quality Cochrane Reviews addressing research questions that are most important to decision makers.

The Commissioning Editor will be responsible for ensuring that work on high-quality, relevant  reviews is initiated, and for monitoring progress. Overall, this role will contribute to producing trusted evidence by:

  1. Working closely with the Head of Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development to identify priority Cochrane Reviews
  2. Working with Cochrane Review Groups and Thematic Groups/Evidence Synthesis Units to coordinate support for reviews in process
  3. Working with Cochrane’s Development Directorate in exploring funding opportunities for suites of related reviews and for individual reviews as necessary
  4. Overseeing initiation and completion of new and updated Cochrane Reviews against agreed priority areas that meet Cochrane’s mission

Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by identifying, appraising and synthesizing individual research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed.

How to apply

  • For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here
  • The deadline to receive your application is by 27 November 2022. 
  • The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.
  • Please indicate the FTE you would like to be considered for in your application. Note that we will assess applications as they are received.
  • Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement
Tuesday, November 15, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane seeks Evidence Synthesis Development Editor

2 years 6 months ago

Specifications: 0.8 FTE, Permanent
Salary: £45,000 per annum full time equivalent (Pro-rated to part time)
Location: UK
Application Closing Date:  27 November 2022

The Evidence Production and Methods Directorate in Cochrane is made up of three departments that are responsible for the efficient and timely production of high-quality Cochrane Reviews addressing research questions that are most important to decision makers.

As Evidence Synthesis Development Editor in the Methods and Evidence Synthesis Development team, you will be working on new and updated Cochrane Reviews prior to their completion and submission for editorial process. The role-holder will need to ensure that protocols and new or updated reviews will meet Cochrane’s quality standards.

The role-holder will need to be able to recognise when to refer methodological questions to colleagues with specialist methods expertise in the Methods Support Unit or Cochrane Methods Groups for further advice, especially around the assessment of bias and statistical methods.

Cochrane is a global independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making the vast amounts of evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by identifying, appraising and synthesizing individual research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed.

How to apply

  • For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here
  • The deadline to receive your application is by 27 November 2022. 
  • The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples. Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
  • Read our Recruitment Privacy Statement
Tuesday, November 15, 2022 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

在标准药物的基础上服用免疫刺激剂对患有慢性阻塞性肺病、慢性支气管炎或二者均有的患者是否有益?

2 years 6 months ago
在标准药物的基础上服用免疫刺激剂对患有慢性阻塞性肺病、慢性支气管炎或二者均有的患者是否有益? 关键信息 1.对于慢性支气管炎或慢性阻塞性肺病患者来说,免疫刺激剂可能会降低患者病情加重的可能性,以及病情加重时需要使用抗生素的可能性。 2.我们不确定免疫刺激剂对降低死亡风险、改善生活质量或减少疾病发作或住院时间方面的效果。 3.免疫刺激剂与副作用的风险增加没有关系。 什么是慢性阻塞性肺病和慢性支气管炎? 慢性阻塞性肺病(Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , COPD)和慢性支气管炎是永久性影响肺部气道的常见疾病。它们主要是由接触香烟烟雾或其他空气污染物引起的。患有慢性阻塞性肺病或慢性支气管炎的人可能会出现持续的呼吸困难、咳嗽和产生痰液的症状,并且容易出现这些症状的发作(病情加重)。急剧发作可能会使人虚弱,随着时间的推移,肺功能会恶化,并导致病情进一步加重。有几种标准的治疗方法可以帮助预防病情发作,几乎所有被诊断为慢性阻塞性肺病的人都被推荐使用这些方法。这些主要包括戒烟、参加锻炼计划、接种疫苗以预防感染,以及通过吸入器使用特定药物。 什么是免疫刺激剂? 免疫刺激剂是一类药物,目前没有被广泛用于慢性阻塞性肺病或慢性支气管炎患者的长期治疗。一些科学家和医生认为,在标准治疗中加入免疫刺激剂,通过提高免疫系统对病情加重的诱因(如病毒或细菌感染)的反应,...

边缘性人格障碍患者从药物治疗中有哪些益处和风险?

2 years 6 months ago
边缘性人格障碍患者从药物治疗中有哪些益处和风险? 关键信息 本综述是对2010年发表的同一主题综述的更新。尽管本综述纳入另外18项研究,但结论仍然相同:边缘型人格障碍(borderline personality disorder, BDP)的药物治疗可能没有益处和风险,但证据尚不清楚。 需要更好和更大规模的研究来比较药物与安慰剂的效果。此类研究应侧重于男性、青少年和那些还有其他精神病诊断的人群。 什么是边缘性人格障碍? BPD会影响一个人如何与他人互动以及如何了解自己。虽然其确切原因尚不清楚,但认为是遗传和环境因素(例如,成长过程中的压力或创伤性生活事件)共同作用的结果。大约2%的成年人和3%的青少年受到边缘性人格障碍的影响。 BPD的症状可分为四类。 情绪不稳定:BPD患者可能会经历快速变化且难以控制的强烈情绪。他们也可能在很多时候感到空虚和被遗弃。 认知扭曲(思维模式紊乱):BPD患者通常会有令人沮丧的想法(例如,他们可能认为自己是一个糟糕的人)。他们可能会有短暂的奇怪经历(例如偏执的想法或压力引起的解离经历(即感觉与周围的世界分离))。 冲动行为:BPD患者可能会冲动行事并做出可能伤害自己的事情(例如,当悲伤和沮丧时,他们可能出现自伤或有自杀倾向)。他们也可能做出鲁莽行为(例如滥用药物)。 强烈但不稳定的关系:BPD患者可能会发现很难保持稳定的关系(例如,他们可能会非常担...

面罩与鼻导管对早产儿持续气道正压通气的比较

2 years 6 months ago
面罩与鼻导管对早产儿持续气道正压通气的比较 关键信息 面罩相对于鼻导管可以降低持续气道正压通气(continuous positive airway pressure, CPAP)治疗失败和鼻损伤的风险,但对与早产相关的死亡风险或其他并发症的影响可能很小或没有影响。 什么是持续气道正压通气? 经鼻CPAP是一种比机械通气(将呼吸管放入婴儿的气管中)侵入性更小的呼吸支持形式。经鼻CPAP通过鼻导管或覆盖鼻子的柔软面罩为婴儿输送氧气。该方法可以在婴儿脱离呼吸机(拔管)后使用,或帮助需要解决肺部问题但不需要通气的婴儿。 我们想知道什么? 我们评估了是否有证据支持面罩在降低CPAP治疗失败率(即婴儿病情恶化或婴儿需要机械通气)以及减少并发症和伤害方面优于鼻导管。 我们做了什么? 我们检索了医学数据库中截至2021年10月的临床试验。 我们发现了什么? 我们纳入了在1604名比预产期早三周以上出生的婴儿中比较了使用面罩与使用鼻导管进行CPAP的12项试验。试验大多规模很小,有些设计缺陷可能会使他们的研究结果产生偏倚。 主要研究结果 分析表明,相比于鼻导管,使用面罩可能会降低CPAP治疗失败和鼻损伤的风险,但对与早产相关的死亡风险或其他并发症的影响可能很小或没有影响。没有一项研究评估了对残疾或发育结局的影响。 证据的局限性是什么? 考虑到所纳入试验中使用的方法可能会引入偏倚,并且试验数据有限...

吸入抗生素治疗囊性纤维化患者的肺部感染

2 years 6 months ago
吸入抗生素治疗囊性纤维化患者的肺部感染 系统综述问题 吸入抗生素是否有助于防止囊性纤维化(cystic fibrosis, CF)患者持续感染铜绿假单胞菌? 关键信息 随着CF患者年龄的增长,他们更有可能长期感染铜绿假单胞菌。这是CF患者患慢性肺部感染的最常见原因。 我们想知道针对铜绿假单胞菌的抗生素在吸入肺部时是否会减少感染的影响。我们想知道这种治疗是否会改善肺功能、生活质量和生存。我们还研究任何有害影响。 什么是CF? 囊性纤维化是一种遗传性疾病,会导致身体多个部位的粘液出现异常,主要影响容易受到某些细菌感染的肺部。感染引起炎症,从而导致肺部渐进性损伤。 我们发现了什么? 本系统综述纳入18项研究,涉及3042名年龄在5岁至45岁之间的CF患者。试验持续时间从3个月到33个月。其中十一项试验的研究者比较了吸入抗生素与安慰剂(一种不含药物的吸入物质),并且随机选择受试者去接受一种治疗或另一种治疗。八项试验将一种吸入抗生素与另一种不同的吸入抗生素或同一吸入抗生素的不同给药方案进行了比较。其中一项试验将抗生素和安慰剂进行比较,也和不同的抗生素进行了比较,因此将其分为两组。 主要结果 四项试验的结果表明,吸入抗生素与安慰剂相比较时可能改善肺部功能并减少CF患者症状恶化的次数。吸入抗生素也可能意味着不上学或不工作的天数的减少(评价生活质量的一个指标)。它们似乎对生存没有影响。我们不确定...

对未成熟蚊子的水环境进行哪些永久性和临时性改变可以更好地减少人类的疟疾?

2 years 6 months ago
对未成熟蚊子的水环境进行哪些永久性和临时性改变可以更好地减少人类的疟疾? 为什么减少人类的疟疾很重要? 疟疾对民众的健康影响非常大,主要是非洲和亚洲的人们。多年来,人们一直在研究减少疟疾的策略。大多数策略侧重于减少未成熟蚊子(幼虫和蛹)的数量,以防止它们变成成年蚊子,因为成年雌性蚊子可以通过叮咬人传播疟疾。 对未成熟蚊子的环境的永久和临时变化是什么? 可以使用永久(改造)和临时(干预)改变来扰乱未成熟蚊子生活的水环境。永久性改变的例子包括修建排水渠、平整土地和填充沟渠。临时改变的例子包括改变溪流的水流、排水渠、割草、使用植物遮蔽水面。这些干预措施可以单独使用,也可以与其他标准处理措施一起使用,例如定期向水体喷洒杀虫剂(杀幼虫剂)。 我们想从中发现什么? 我们想找出对未成熟蚊子环境的哪些永久性和临时性改变可以减少人类的疟疾(临床结局),以及未成熟和成年蚊子的数量(昆虫学结局)。 我们做了什么? 我们检索了关于与无干预或不同的永久或临时变化相比,对未成熟蚊子环境进行永久和临时改变的研究。我们比较并总结了研究结果,还根据诸如研究方法等因素来评定证据的可信度。 我们发现了什么? 综述包括16项研究,这些研究使用了一系列不同的随机和非随机研究设计。11项研究在非洲进行,5项在亚洲进行。只有少数研究报告了临床结局,其中大部分关注未成熟蚊子或成年蚊子或两者的数量(昆虫学结局)。我们发现有一些证...