Search

Objective: To summarise the effects of herbal medications for the prevention of anxiety, depression, pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological or cardiovascular surgical procedures., Methods: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS up until January 2018 were performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs or quasi-RCTs evaluating any herbal medication among adults undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological or cardiovascular surgeries. The primary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain and PONV. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome., Results: Eleven trials including 693 patients were eligible. Results from three RCTs suggested a statistically significant reduction in vomiting (relative risk/risk ratio (RR) 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86) and nausea (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) with the use of Zingiber officinale (ginger) compared with placebo in both laparoscopic and obstetrical/gynaecological surgeries. Results suggested a non-statistically significantly reduction in the need for rescue medication for pain (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.13) with Rosa damascena (damask rose) and ginger compared with placebo in laparoscopic and obstetrical/gynaecological surgery. None of the included studies reported on adverse events (AEs)., Conclusions: There is very low-certainty evidence regarding the efficacy of both Zingiber officinale and Rosa damascena in reducing vomiting (200 fewer cases per 1000; 288 fewer to 205 fewer), nausea (207 fewer cases per 1000; 333 fewer to 27 fewer) and the need for rescue medication for pain (666 fewer cases per 1000; 580 fewer to 752 more) in patients undergoing either laparoscopic or obstetrical/gynaecological surgeries. Among our eligible studies, there was no reported evidence on AEs., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016042838., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate women's values and preferences regarding antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation., Setting: Primary studies reporting patient-reported outcomes relevant to decision-making regarding ART in any clinical and geographical setting., Participants: Women living with HIV who are pregnant, postpartum or considering pregnancy., Outcome Measures: Quantitative measurements and qualitative descriptions of values and preferences in relation to ART during pregnancy. We also included studies on women's reported barriers and facilitators to adherence. We excluded studies correlating objective measures (eg, CD4 count) with adherence, or reporting only outcomes which are not expected to differ between ART alternatives (eg, access to services, knowledge about ART)., Results: We included 15 qualitative studies reporting values and preferences about ART in the peripartum period; no study directly studied choice of ART therapy during pregnancy. Six themes emerged: a desire to reduce vertical transmission (nine studies), desire for child to be healthy (five studies), concern about side effects to the child (eight studies), desire for oneself to be healthy (five studies), distress about side effect to oneself (10 studies) and pill burden (two studies). None of the studies weighed the relative importance of these outcomes directly, but pill burden/medication complexity appears to be a lower priority for most women compared with other factors. Overall, the body of evidence was at low risk of bias, with minor limitations., Conclusions: Women who are or may become pregnant and who are considering ART appear to place a high value on both their own and their children's health. Evidence on the relative importance between these values when choosing between ART regimens is uncertain. There is variability in individual values and preferences among women. This highlights the importance of an individualised women-centred approach, such as shared decision-making when choosing between ART alternatives., Trial Registration Number: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews:CRD42017057157., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affect approximately 80% of surgical patients and is associated with increased length of hospital stay and systemic costs. Preoperative and postoperative pain, anxiety and depression are also commonly reported. Recent evidence regarding their safety and effectiveness has not been synthesised. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medications for the treatment and prevention of anxiety, depression, pain and PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgical procedures., Methods and Analysis: The following electronic databases will be searched up to 1 October 2016 without language or publication status restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS. Randomised clinical trials enrolling adult surgical patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgeries and managed with herbal medication versus a control group (placebo, no intervention or active control) prophylactically or therapeutically will be considered eligible. Outcomes of interest will include the following: anxiety, depression, pain, nausea and vomiting. A team of reviewers will complete title and abstract screening and full-text screening for identified hits independently and in duplicate. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments and evaluation of the overall quality of evidence for each relevant outcome reported will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation classification system. Dichotomous data will be summarised as risk ratios; continuous data will be summarised as standard average differences with 95% CIs., Ethics and Dissemination: This is one of the first efforts to systematically summarise existing evidence evaluating the use of herbal medications in laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgical patients. The findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016042838., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) versus no smoking cessation aid, or alternative smoking cessation aids, in cigarette smokers on long-term tobacco use., Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science up to December 2015., Study Selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies., Data Extraction: Three pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles, extracted data from included studies on populations, interventions and outcomes and assessed their risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence by outcome., Data Synthesis: Three randomised trials including 1007 participants and nine cohorts including 13 115 participants proved eligible. Results provided by only two RCTs suggest a possible increase in tobacco smoking cessation with ENDS in comparison with ENNDS (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.38; p=0.07; I 2 =0%, risk difference (RD) 64/1000 over 6 to 12 months, low-certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies suggested a possible reduction in quit rates with use of ENDS compared with no use of ENDS (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; p=0.051; I 2 =56%, very low certainty)., Conclusions: There is very limited evidence regarding the impact of ENDS or ENNDS on tobacco smoking cessation, reduction or adverse effects: data from RCTs are of low certainty and observational studies of very low certainty. The limitations of the cohort studies led us to a rating of very low-certainty evidence from which no credible inferences can be drawn. Lack of usefulness with regard to address the question of e-cigarettes' efficacy on smoking reduction and cessation was largely due to poor reporting. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials measuring biochemically validated outcomes and adverse effects., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)