Search

Background: Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery on pain, pain medication, mental distress, mobility, and time to extubation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), Web of Science (all years to September 2013), and PsycINFO (all years to September 2013) for eligible studies. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We also checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We also searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database (all years to September 2013) and contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors (SK and JR) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model., Main Results: Nineteen trials were included (2164 participants).No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects in reducing pain intensity measured with continuous scales in the medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.12, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.33, 3 studies, 280 participants, low quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to remedication or on number of participants remedicated. Only one study provided data on postoperative analgesic use. Studies reporting data on mental distress in the medium-term interval revealed a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions (g 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, 12 studies, 1144 participants, low quality evidence). Likewise, a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions on mental distress was obtained in the long-term interval (g 0.28, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.51, 11 studies, 1320 participants, low quality evidence). There were no beneficial effects of psychological interventions on mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.29, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.71, 4 studies, 423 participants, low quality evidence). Only one study reported data on time to extubation., Authors' Conclusions: For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds) we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects on reducing postoperative pain intensity or enhancing mobility. There is low quality evidence that psychological interventions reduce postoperative mental distress. Due to limitations in methodological quality, a small number of studies, and large heterogeneity, we rated the quality of the body of evidence as low. Future trials should measure crucial outcomes (e.g. number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline) and should focus to enhance the quality of the body of evidence in general. Altogether, the current evidence does not clearly support the use of psychological interventions to reduce pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery.

Background: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective., Objectives: To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors., Selection Criteria: We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis., Main Results: We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.

Background: Osteoarthritis is a chronic joint disease that involves degeneration of articular cartilage. Pre-clinical data suggest that doxycycline might act as a disease-modifying agent for the treatment of osteoarthritis, with the potential to slow cartilage degeneration., Objectives: To examine the effects of doxycycline compared with placebo or no intervention on pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL ( The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 28 July 2008, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors., Selection Criteria: We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared doxycycline at any dosage and any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data in duplicate. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated differences in means at follow-up between experimental and control groups for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for binary outcomes., Main Results: We found one randomised controlled trial that compared doxycycline with placebo in 431 obese women. After 30 months of treatment, clinical outcomes were similar between the two treatment groups, with a mean difference of -0.20 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.77 to 0.37 cm) on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 10 cm for pain and -1.10 units (95% CI -3.86 to 1.66) for function on the WOMAC disability subscale, which ranges from 17 to 85. These differences correspond to clinically irrelevant effect sizes of -0.08 and -0.09 standard deviation units for pain and function, respectively. The difference in changes in minimum joint space narrowing was in favour of doxycycline (-0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02 mm), which corresponds to a small effect size of -0.23 standard deviation units. More patients withdrew from the doxycycline group compared with placebo due to adverse events (risk ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.75)., Authors' Conclusions: The symptomatic benefit of doxycycline is minimal to non-existent. The small benefit in terms of joint space narrowing is of questionable clinical relevance and outweighed by safety problems. Doxycycline should not be recommended for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

Background: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality., Objectives: Our objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials. Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups. The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint., Main Results: A total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall. ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (cHR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33, respectively). Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy. The cHR for on study mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.98-1.24) and 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=0.42)., Authors' Conclusions: ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded.

Background: Rituximab has been shown to improve response rates and progression free survival when added to chemotherapy in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphoma. However, the impact of R on overall survival (OS) when given in combination with chemotherapy (R-chemo) has remained unclear so far., Objectives: We thus performed a comprehensive systematic review in this group of patients to compare R-chemo with chemotherapy alone with respect to OS. Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), toxicity and disease control as assessed by measures such as time to treatment failure (TTF), event free-survival (EFS), progression free-survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP)., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceeding from 1990 to 2005., Selection Criteria: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing R-chemo with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed indolent lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data and assessed the study quality. Number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated to facilitate interpretation., Main Results: Seven randomised controlled trials involving 1943 patients with follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, or other indolent lymphomas were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies were published as full-text articles, and two were in abstract form. Patients treated with R-chemo had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] for mortality 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78), overall response (relative risk of tumour response 1.21; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27), and disease control (HR of disease event 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) than patients treated with chemotherapy alone. R-chemo improved overall survival in patients with follicular lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79) and in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (HR for mortality 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98). However, in the latter case, there was heterogeneity among the trials (P 0.07), making the survival benefit less reliable., Authors' Conclusions: The systematic review demonstrated improved OS for patients with indolent lymphoma, particularly in the subgroups of follicular and in mantle cell lymphoma when treated with R-chemo compared to chemotherapy alone.

Background: Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo), darbepoetin (Darbepo) and red blood cell transfusions., Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of Epo or Darbepo to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients., Search Strategy: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE and other data bases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review and 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients that compared the use of Epo/Darbepo (plus transfusion if needed) with observation until red blood cell transfusion was required., Data Collection and Analysis: Several reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: This update of the systematic review included a total of 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Of these, 27 trials with 3,287 adults were also included in the first Cochrane Review. Thirty trials with 6,066 patients were added during the update process. Use of Epo/Darbepo significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average participants in the Epo/Darbepo group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.05; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.78, 14 trials, n = 2,353). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving Epo/Darbepo (RR 3.43; 95% CI 3.07 to 3.84, 22 trials, n = 4,307). There was suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve Quality of Life (QoL). The relative risk for thrombo embolic complications was increased in patients receiving Epo/Darbepo compared to controls (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23, 13 trials, n = 2,833; random effects: RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26) or overall survival (unadjusted and adjusted data: HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167)., Authors' Conclusions: There is consistent evidence that administration of Epo/Darbepo reduces the relative risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL (mild anaemia) there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo improves haematological response. There is suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve QoL. However, there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo increases the relative risk for thrombo embolic complications. Whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response and overall survival remains uncertain.