1,721,011 research outputs found
The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research
Get PDFTopical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis
No full textBackgroundTinea infections are fungal infections of the skin caused by dermatophytes. It is estimated that 10% to 20% of the world population is affected by fungal skin infections. Sites of infection vary according to geographical location, the organism involved, and environmental and cultural differences. Both tinea corporis, also referred to as 'ringworm' and tinea cruris or 'jock itch' are conditions frequently seen by primary care doctors and dermatologists. The diagnosis can be made on clinical appearance and can be confirmed by microscopy or culture. A wide range of topical antifungal drugs are used to treat these superficial dermatomycoses, but it is unclear which are the most effective.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of topical antifungal treatments in tinea cruris and tinea corporis.Search methodsWe searched the following databases up to 13th August 2013: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We handsearched the journal Mycoses from 1957 to 1990.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials in people with proven dermatophyte infection of the body (tinea corporis) or groin (tinea cruris).Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and analyses.Main resultsOf the 364 records identified, 129 studies with 18,086 participants met the inclusion criteria. Half of the studies were judged at high risk of bias with the remainder judged at unclear risk. A wide range of different comparisons were evaluated across the 129 studies, 92 in total, with azoles accounting for the majority of the interventions. Treatment duration varied from one week to two months, but in most studies this was two to four weeks. The length of follow-up varied from one week to six months. Sixty-three studies contained no usable or retrievable data mainly due to the lack of separate data for different tinea infections. Mycological and clinical cure were assessed in the majority of studies, along with adverse effects. Less than half of the studies assessed disease relapse, and hardly any of them assessed duration until clinical cure, or participant-judged cure. The quality of the body of evidence was rated as low to very low for the different outcomes.Data for several outcomes for two individual treatments were pooled. Across five studies, significantly higher clinical cure rates were seen in participants treated with terbinafine compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 4.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.10 to 6.56, number needed to treat (NNT) 3, 95% CI 2 to 4). The quality of evidence for this outcome was rated as low. Data for mycological cure for terbinafine could not be pooled due to substantial heterogeneity.Mycological cure rates favoured naftifine 1% compared to placebo across three studies (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.14, NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 4) with the quality of evidence rated as low. In one study, naftifine 1% was more effective than placebo in achieving clinical cure (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.16, NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 5) with the quality of evidence rated as low.Across two studies, mycological cure rates favoured clotrimazole 1% compared to placebo (RR 2.87, 95% CI 2.28 to 3.62, NNT 2, 95% CI 2 to 3).Data for several outcomes were pooled for three comparisons between different classes of treatment. There was no difference in mycological cure between azoles and benzylamines (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07). The quality of the evidence was rated as low for this comparison. Substantial heterogeneity precluded the pooling of data for mycological and clinical cure when comparing azoles and allylamines. Azoles were slightly less effective in achieving clinical cure compared to azole and steroid combination creams immediately at the end of treatment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84, NNT 6, 95% CI 5 to 13), but there was no difference in mycological cure rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05). The quality of evidence for these two outcomes was rated as low for mycological cure and very low for clinical cure.All of the treatments that were examined appeared to be effective, but most comparisons were evaluated in single studies. There was no evidence for a difference in cure rates between tinea cruris and tinea corporis. Adverse effects were minimal - mainly irritation and burning; results were generally imprecise between active interventions and placebo, and between different classes of treatment.Authors' conclusionsThe pooled data suggest that the individual treatments terbinafine and naftifine are effective. Adverse effects were generally mild and reported infrequently. A substantial number of the studies were more than 20 years old and of unclear or high risk of bias; there is however, some evidence that other topical antifungal treatments also provide similar clinical and mycological cure rates, particularly azoles although most were evaluated in single studies.There is insufficient evidence to determine if Whitfield’s ointment, a widely used agent is effective.Although combinations of topical steroids and antifungals are not currently recommended in any clinical guidelines, relevant studies included in this review reported higher clinical cure rates with similar mycological cure rates at the end of treatment, but the quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated very low due to imprecision, indirectness and risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to confidently assess relapse rates in the individual or combination treatments.Although there was little difference between different classes of treatment in achieving cure, some interventions may be more appealing as they require fewer applications and a shorter duration of treatment. Further, high quality, adequately powered trials focusing on patient-centred outcomes, such as patient satisfaction with treatment should be considered
Evidence based healthcare. What are the limitations of its application and implementation in dentistry?
No full textThe literature does not provide a clear definition of Evidence based Healthcare(EBHC) and there is some uncertainty between authors as to whether the concepts ofEBHC and Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) arecomparable and the terminology is interchangeable. However the most frequently useddefinition of EBHC is: Evidence-based medicine (EBM
Evidence based healthcare. What are the limitations of its application and implementation in dentistry?
No full textNao informado
Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
Get PDFThe aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR
Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures
No full textBACKGROUND
Fractures of the mandible (lower jaw) are a common occurrence and usually related to interpersonal violence or road traffic accidents. Mandibular fractures may be treated using open (surgical) and closed (non-surgical) techniques. Fracture sites are immobilized with intermaxillary fixation (IMF) or other external or internal devices (i.e. plates and screws) to allow bone healing. Various techniques have been used, however uncertainty exists with respect to the specific indications for each approach.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence of the effects of any interventions either open (surgical) or closed (non-surgical) that can be used in the management of mandibular fractures, excluding the condyles, in adult patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 February 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 February 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 7 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 7 April 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 7 April 2013). The reference lists of all trials identified were checked for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. Any studies that compared different treatment approaches were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated to include both clinical and methodological factors.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies, assessed as high (six) and unclear (six) risk of bias, comprising 689 participants (830 fractures), were included. Interventions examined different plate materials and morphology; use of one or two lag screws; microplate versus miniplate; early and delayed mobilization; eyelet wires versus Rapid IMF™ and the management of angle fractures with intraoral access alone or combined with a transbuccal approach. Patient-oriented outcomes were largely ignored and post-operative pain scores were inadequately reported. Unfortunately, only one or two trials with small sample sizes were conducted for each comparison and outcome. Our results and conclusions should therefore be interpreted with caution. We were able to pool the results for two comparisons assessing one outcome. Pooled data from two studies comparing two miniplates versus one miniplate revealed no significant difference in the risk of post-operative infection of surgical site (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.41 to 4.22, P = 0.64, I(2) = 0%). Similarly, no difference in post-operative infection between the use of two 3-dimensional (3D) and standard (2D) miniplates was determined (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.13, P = 0.81, I(2) = 27%). The included studies involved a small number of participants with a low number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review illustrates that there is currently inadequate evidence to support the effectiveness of a single approach in the management of mandibular fractures without condylar involvement. The lack of high quality evidence may be explained by clinical diversity, variability in assessment tools used and difficulty in grading outcomes with existing measurement tools. Until high level evidence is available, treatment decisions should continue to be based on the clinician's prior experience and the individual circumstances
Letter to the editor: efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis - a systematic review
No full textA PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics
No full textAbstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n = 109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- …
