Search

One hundred years ago, an influenza pandemic swept across the globe that coincided with the development of a neurological condition, named "encephalitis lethargica" for the occurrence of its main symptom, the sudden onset of sleepiness that either developed into coma or gradually receded. Between 1917 and 1920, mortality of the flu was >20 million and of encephalitis lethargica approximately 1 million. For lessons to be learned from this pandemic, it makes sense to compare it with the COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred 100 years later. Biomedical progress had enabled testing, vaccinations, and drug therapies accompanied by public health measures such as social distancing, contact tracing, wearing face masks, and frequent hand washing. From todays' perspective, these public health measures are time honored but not sufficiently proven effective, especially when applied in the context of a vaccination strategy. Also, the protective effects of lockdowns of schools, universities, and other institutions and the restrictions on travel and personal visits to hospitals or old-age homes are not precisely known. Preparedness is still a demand for a future pandemic. Clinical trials should determine the comparative effectiveness of such public health measures, especially for their use as a combination strategy with vaccination and individual testing of asymptomatic individuals. It is important for neurologists to realize that during a pandemic the treatment possibilities for acute stroke and other neurological emergencies are reduced, which has previously led to an increase of mortality and suffering. To increase preparedness for a future pandemic, neurologists play an important role, as the case load of acute and chronic neurological patients will be higher as well as the needs for rehabilitation. Finally, new chronic forms of postviral disease will likely be added, as was the case for postencephalitic parkinsonism a century ago and now has occurred as long COVID., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment)., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background and Purpose: Early this century, the high risk strategy of primary stroke and cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention for individuals shifted away from identifying (and treating, as appropriate) all at-risk individuals towards identifying and treating individuals who exceed arbitrary thresholds of absolute CVD risk. The public health impact of this strategy is uncertain., Methods: In our systematic scoping review, the electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library) were searched to identify and appraise publications related to primary CVD/stroke prevention strategies and their effectiveness published in any language from January 1990 to August 2023., Results: No published randomized controlled trial was found on the effectiveness of the high CVD risk strategy for primary stroke/CVD prevention. Targeting high CVD risk individuals excludes a large proportion of the population from effective blood-pressure-lowering and lipid-lowering treatment and effective CVD prevention. There is also evidence that blood pressure lowering and lipid lowering are beneficial irrespective of blood pressure and cholesterol levels and irrespective of absolute CVD risk and that risk-stratified pharmacological management of blood pressure and lipids to only high CVD risk individuals leads to significant underuse of blood-pressure-lowering and lipid-lowering medications in individuals otherwise eligible for such treatment., Conclusions: Primary stroke and CVD prevention needs to be done in all individuals with increased risk of CVD/stroke. Pharmacological management of blood pressure and blood cholesterol should not be solely based on the high CVD risk treatment thresholds. International guidelines and global strategies for primary CVD/stroke prevention need to be revised., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy., Main Results: We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments., Objectives: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021., Selection Criteria: For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis., Main Results: We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE)., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months., Selection Criteria: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background and Purpose: The optimal management of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) remains controversial. These joint European Stroke Organisation (ESO) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in decision making regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis., Methods: Guidelines were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified relevant clinical questions, performed systematic reviews, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available to provide recommendations., Results: There was limited randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding single or multicomponent interventions to prevent post-stroke cognitive decline. Lifestyle interventions and treating vascular risk factors have many health benefits, but a cognitive effect is not proven. We found no evidence regarding routine cognitive screening following stroke, but recognize the importance of targeted cognitive assessment. We describe the accuracy of various cognitive screening tests, but found no clearly superior approach to testing. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine nootropics or cognitive rehabilitation. There was limited evidence on the use of prediction tools for post-stroke cognition. The association between PSCI and acute structural brain imaging features was unclear, although the presence of substantial white matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin on brain magnetic resonance imaging may help predict cognitive outcomes., Conclusions: These guidelines highlight fundamental areas where robust evidence is lacking. Further definitive RCTs are needed, and we suggest priority areas for future research., (© 2021 European Academy of Neurology and European Stroke Organisation.)

Existing evidence has uncovered the potential health benefits of cinnamon intake; however, its effect on liver function is unclear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of cinnamon supplementation on liver enzymes. Relevant articles were identified through a systematic search in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase up to September 2020. All trials assessing the effect of oral cinnamon supplementation on serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in adults were included. The pooled effect sizes were obtained using the random-effects model and expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of seven original trials (nine treatment arms) involving a total of 256 subjects were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that cinnamon supplementation had no significant effect on serum levels of ALT, AST, and ALP. However, there was a significant reduction in ALT levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (MD: -4.01 U/L; 95% CI: -6.86, -1.15) and in trials with low-dose supplementation (<1,500 mg/d), follow-up duration longer than 12 weeks, and in the elderly patients (aged>50 years). The beneficial effects of cinnamon intake were also shown in AST levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and trials with long-term follow-up (>12 weeks). Longer-term, oral cinnamon supplementation may improve serum levels of liver enzymes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further high-quality studies are needed, especially in populations with abnormal liver enzyme levels, to firmly establish the clinical efficacy of cinnamon on liver function., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems., Search Methods: We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life., Data Collection and Analysis: Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I 2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I 2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I 2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison., Authors' Conclusions: Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy., Search Methods: This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment., Main Results: In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

A wide variety of antioxidant properties are attributed to ginger (Zingiber officinale) and several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effect of ginger intake on major oxidative stress (OS) parameters. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of using ginger to improve OS levels. Medline, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched up until March 2020 to gather RCTs that evaluated the impact of ginger intake on the levels and activity of OS parameters in adult subjects. Means and standard deviations for relevant OS variables were extracted and evaluated to assess the quality of the trials based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The gathered data were pooled and expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI). Twelve trials were included in this review. Ginger intake was shown to significantly increase glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activity (SMD: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.43, 2.85; I 2  = 86.8%) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (SMD: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.73; I 2  = 42.8%) and significantly decrease malondialdehyde (MDA) levels (SMD: -0.69; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.12; I 2  = 85.8%) compared to control groups. Ginger supplementation also non-significantly associated with an increase in CAT activity (SMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.07, 2.25; I 2  = 87.6%). This systematic review and meta-analysis presents convincing evidence supporting the efficacy of ginger supplementation on improving OS levels. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In health sciences, OS, due to its pivotal role in the pathophysiology of several chronic diseases, is a subject with a long history. Recent research strives for a safe, ideal, and effective antioxidant. Ginger is herbal medicine, which has been widely used in traditional and complementary medicine. Proving the antioxidant effect and potential benefit of ginger has positive clinical implications for the application of this practical herb., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review., Objectives: To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels., Search Methods: In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi-RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non-beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II): MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight-year follow-up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low-certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low-certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks., Objectives: To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission., Search Methods: An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020., Selection Criteria: Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs., Main Results: We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS)., Authors' Conclusions: The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease., Objectives: We conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19., Search Methods: An information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020., Selection Criteria: Trials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown., Data Collection and Analysis: After pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy. Effectiveness of screening We included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening. Screening test accuracy All 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement. We assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples. For single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR. Given the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Overweight and obesity are increasing worldwide and are considered to be a major public health issue of the 21st century. Introducing taxation of the fat content in foods is considered a potentially powerful policy tool to reduce consumption of foods high in fat or saturated fat, or both., Objectives: To assess the effects of taxation of the fat content in food on consumption of total fat and saturated fat, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and 15 other databases and trial registers on 12 September 2019. We handsearched the reference lists of all records of included studies, searched websites of international organizations and institutions (14 October 2019), and contacted review advisory group members to identify planned, ongoing, or unpublished studies (26 February 2020)., Selection Criteria: In line with Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria, we included the following study types: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series studies. We included studies that evaluated the effects of taxes on the fat content in foods. Such a tax could be expressed as sales, excise, or special value added tax (VAT) on the final product or an intermediary product. Eligible interventions were taxation at any level, with no restriction on the duration or the implementation level (i.e. local, regional, national, or multinational). Eligible study populations were children (zero to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) from any country and setting. We excluded studies that focused on specific subgroups only (e.g. people receiving pharmaceutical intervention; people undergoing a surgical intervention; ill people who are overweight or obese as a side effect, such as those with thyroiditis and depression; and people with chronic illness). Primary outcomes were total fat consumption, consumption of saturated fat, energy intake through fat, energy intake through saturated fat, total energy intake, and incidence/prevalence of overweight or obesity. We did not exclude studies based on country, setting, comparison, or population., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods for all phases of the review. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the criteria of Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and the EPOC Group's guidance. Results of the review are summarized narratively and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. These steps were done by two review authors, independently., Main Results: We identified 23,281 records from searching electronic databases and 1173 records from other sources, leading to a total of 24,454 records. Two studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Both included studies investigated the effect the Danish tax on saturated fat contained in selected food items between 2011 and 2012. Both studies used an interrupted time series design. Neither included study had a parallel control group from another geographic area. The included studies investigated an unbalanced panel of approximately 2000 households in Denmark and the sales data from a specific Danish supermarket chain (1293 stores). Therefore, the included studies did not address individual participants, and no restriction regarding age, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics were defined. We judged the overall risk of bias of the two included studies as unclear. For the outcome total consumption of fat, a reduction of 41.8 grams per week per person in a household (P < 0.001) was estimated. For the consumption of saturated fat, one study reported a reduction of 4.2% from minced beef sales, a reduction of 5.8% from cream sales, and an increase of 0.5% to sour cream sales (no measures of statistical precision were reported for these estimates). These estimates are based on a restricted number of food types and derived from sales data; they do not measure individual intake. Moreover, these estimates do not account for other relevant sources of fat intake (e.g. packaged or processed food) or other food outlets (e.g. restaurants or cafeterias); hence, we judged the evidence on the effect of taxation on total fat consumption or saturated fat consumption to be very uncertain. We did not identify evidence on the effect of the intervention on energy intake or the incidence or prevalence of overweight or obesity., Authors' Conclusions: Given the very low quality of the evidence currently available, we are unable to reliably establish whether a tax on total fat or saturated fat is effective or ineffective in reducing consumption of total fat or saturated fat. There is currently no evidence on the effect of a tax on total fat or saturated fat on total energy intake or energy intake through saturated fat or total fat, or preventing the incidence or reducing the prevalence of overweight or obesity., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objectives: Interpersonal problems were examined as moderators of depression outcomes between mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) and cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP) in patients with chronic depression., Methods: Patients received treatment-as-usual and, in addition, were randomized to 8-weeks of MBCT (n = 34) or 8-weeks of CBASP (n = 34). MBCT and CBASP were given in a group format. The Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D) was the primary and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) the secondary outcome. The subscales of the Inventory of interpersonal problems (IIP-32) were moderators. Multilevel models were performed., Results: Higher scores on the "vindictive/self-centered" subscale were associated with a better outcome in MBCT than in CBASP (HAM-D: p < .01; BDI-II: p < .01). Higher scores on the "nonassertive" subscale were associated with a better outcome in CBASP than in MBCT (HAM-D: p < .01; BDI-II: p < .01)., Conclusions: If these results can be replicated in larger trials, MBCT should be preferred to CBASP in chronically depressed patients being vindictive/self-centered, whereas CBASP should be preferred to MBCT in chronically depressed patients being nonassertive., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Psychology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Handwashing is important to reduce the spread and transmission of infectious disease. Ash, the residue from stoves and fires, is a material used for cleaning hands in settings where soap is not widely available., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of hand cleaning with ash compared with hand cleaning using soap or other materials for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections., Search Methods: On 26 March 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform., Selection Criteria: We included all types of studies, in any population, that examined hand cleaning with ash compared to hand cleaning with any other material., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and full texts, and one review author extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias, which another review author double-checked. We used the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies, we used RoB 2.0 for three interventional studies, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We planned to synthesise data with random-effects meta-analyses. Our prespecified outcome measures were overall mortality, number of cases of infections (as defined in the individual studies), severity of infectious disease, harms (as reported in the individual studies), and adherence., Main Results: We included 14 studies described in 19 records using eight different study designs, but only one randomised trial. The studies were primarily conducted in rural settings in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Six studies reported outcome data relevant to our review. A retrospective case-control study and a cohort study assessed diarrhoea in children under the age of five years and self-reported reproductive tract symptoms in women, respectively. It was very uncertain whether the rate of hospital contacts for moderate-to-severe diarrhoea in children differed between households that cleaned hands using ash compared with households cleaning hands using soap (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, it was very uncertain whether the rate of women experiencing symptoms of reproductive tract infection differed between women cleaning hands with ash compared with cleaning hands using soap (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) or when compared with handwashing with water only or not washing hands (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.96; very low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported on bacteriological counts after hand wash. We rated all four studies at high risk of bias, and we did not synthesise data due to methodological heterogeneity and unclear outcome reporting., Authors' Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, the benefits and harms of hand cleaning with ash compared with soap or other materials for reducing the spread of viral or bacterial infections are uncertain., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Global prevalence of overweight and obesity are alarming. For tackling this public health problem, preventive public health and policy actions are urgently needed. Some countries implemented food taxes in the past and some were subsequently abolished. Some countries, such as Norway, Hungary, Denmark, Bermuda, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Navajo Nation (USA), specifically implemented taxes on unprocessed sugar and sugar-added foods. These taxes on unprocessed sugar and sugar-added foods are fiscal policy interventions, implemented to decrease their consumption and in turn reduce adverse health-related, economic and social effects associated with these food products., Objectives: To assess the effects of taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods in the general population on the consumption of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods, the prevalence and incidence of overweight and obesity, and the prevalence and incidence of other diet-related health outcomes., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase and 15 other databases and trials registers on 12 September 2019. We handsearched the reference list of all records of included studies, searched websites of international organisations and institutions, and contacted review advisory group members to identify planned, ongoing or unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: We included studies with the following populations: children (0 to 17 years) and adults (18 years or older) from any country and setting. Exclusion applied to studies with specific subgroups, such as people with any disease who were overweight or obese as a side-effect of the disease. The review included studies with taxes on or artificial increases of selling prices for unprocessed sugar or food products that contain added sugar (e.g. sweets, ice cream, confectionery, and bakery products), or both, as intervention, regardless of the taxation level or price increase. In line with Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included controlled studies with more than one intervention or control site and ITS studies with a clearly defined intervention time and at least three data points before and three after the intervention. Our primary outcomes were consumption of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods, energy intake, overweight, and obesity. Our secondary outcomes were substitution and diet, expenditure, demand, and other health outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened all eligible records for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias, and performed data extraction.Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We retrieved a total of 24,454 records. After deduplicating records, 18,767 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of 11 potentially relevant studies, we included one ITS study with 40,210 household-level observations from the Hungarian Household Budget and Living Conditions Survey. The baseline ranged from January 2008 to August 2011, the intervention was implemented on September 2011, and follow-up was until December 2012 (16 months). The intervention was a tax - the so-called 'Hungarian public health product tax' - on sugar-added foods, including selected foods exceeding a specific sugar threshold value. The intervention includes co-interventions: the taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and of foods high in salt or caffeine. The study provides evidence on the effect of taxing foods exceeding a specific sugar threshold value on the consumption of sugar-added foods. After implementation of the Hungarian public health product tax, the mean consumption of taxed sugar-added foods (measured in units of kg) decreased by 4.0% (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.040, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to -0.01; very low-certainty evidence). The study was at low risk of bias in terms of performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias, with the shape of effect pre-specified and the intervention unlikely to have any effect on data collection. The study was at unclear risk of attrition bias and at high risk in terms of other bias and the independence of the intervention. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary and secondary outcomes. The Hungarian public health product tax included a tax on sugar-added foods but did not include a tax on unprocessed sugar. We did not find eligible studies reporting on the taxation of unprocessed sugar. No studies reported on the primary outcomes of consumption of unprocessed sugar, energy intake, overweight, and obesity. No studies reported on the secondary outcomes of substitution and diet, demand, and other health outcomes. No studies reported on differential effects across population subgroups. We could not perform meta-analyses or pool study results., Authors' Conclusions: There was very limited evidence and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Despite the reported reduction in consumption of taxed sugar-added foods, we are uncertain whether taxing unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods has an effect on reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes. Further robustly conducted studies are required to draw concrete conclusions on the effectiveness of taxing unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease that has been classified a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks., Objectives: We conducted a rapid review to assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high transmission of the disease., Search Methods: An information specialist searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 12 February 2020 and updated the search on 12 March 2020. WHO provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases up to 16 March 2020., Selection Criteria: Cohort studies, case-control-studies, case series, time series, interrupted time series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened 30% of records; a single review author screened the remaining 70%. Two review authors screened all potentially relevant full-text publications independently. One review author extracted data and assessed evidence quality with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and resource use., Main Results: We included 29 studies; 10 modelling studies on COVID-19, four observational studies and 15 modelling studies on SARS and MERS. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis. Due to the type of evidence found for this review, GRADE rates the certainty of the evidence as low to very low. Modeling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases averted 44% to 81% incident cases and 31% to 63% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, SARS, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings (2 modelling studies on SARS). Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths was small (2 modelling studies on SARS). When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, including school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than individual measures alone (incident cases: 4 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19; low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence for COVID-19 is limited to modelling studies that make parameter assumptions based on the current, fragmented knowledge. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak situation and the impact of the measures implemented. Testing in representative samples in different settings could help assess the true prevalence of infection, and would reduce uncertainty of modelling assumptions. This review was commissioned by WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Varying conceptualizations of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have made translating research findings or systematic reviews into clinical practice guidelines challenging and inconsistent., Methods: We conducted a review for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to clarify how experts and investigators have defined TRD and to review systematically how well this definition comports with TRD definitions in clinical trials through July 5, 2019., Results: We found that no consensus definition existed for TRD. The most common TRD definition for major depressive disorder required a minimum of two prior treatment failures and confirmation of prior adequate dose and duration. The most common TRD definition for bipolar disorder required one prior treatment failure. No clear consensus emerged on defining adequacy of either dose or duration. Our systematic review found that only 17% of intervention studies enrolled samples meeting the most frequently specified criteria for TRD. Depressive outcomes and clinical global impressions were commonly measured; functional impairment and quality-of-life tools were rarely used., Conclusions: Two key steps are critical to advancing TRD research: (a) Developing a consensus definition of TRD that addresses how best to specify the number of prior treatment failures and the adequacy of dose and duration; and (b) identifying a core package of outcome measures that can be applied in a standardized manner. Our recommendations about stronger approaches to designing and conducting TRD research will foster better evidence to translate into clearer guidelines for treating patients with this serious condition., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the response of articular cartilage to frictional load when sliding against a metal implant, and identify potential mechanisms of damage to articular cartilage in a metal-on-cartilage pairing. Bovine osteochondral cylinders were reciprocally slid against metal cylinders (cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy) with several variations of load and sliding velocity using a microtribometer. The effects of different loads and velocities, and the resulting friction coefficients on articular cartilage, were evaluated by measuring histological and metabolic outcomes. Moreover, the biotribocorrosion of the metal was determined. Chondrocytes stimulated with high load and velocity showed increased metabolic activity and cartilage-specific gene expression. In addition, higher load and velocity resulted in biotribocorrosion of the metal implant and damage to the surface of the articular cartilage, whereas low velocity and a high coefficient of friction increased the expression of catabolic genes. Articular cartilage showed particular responses to load and velocity when sliding against a metal implant. Moreover, metal implants showed tribocorrosion. Therefore, corrosion particles may play a role in the mechano-biochemical wear of articular cartilage after implantation of a metal implant. These findings may be useful to surgeons performing resurfacing procedures and total knee arthroplasty. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society J Orthop Res 37:2531-2539, 2019., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.)

Objective: Patients' sudden deterioration in symptomatology, also called sudden losses, is a rarely explored phenomenon., Method: Psychological distress of 1,763 patients treated by 140 therapists was monitored after every therapy session. Patient-reported outcome measures and patients' therapy satisfaction was assessed. Therapists rated their experience of difficulties for every patient repeatedly over the course of therapy., Results: More than one-quarter of patients (26.5%) experienced at least one sudden loss during therapy. Patients with sudden losses did not differ significantly in psychotherapy outcome and therapy satisfaction from patients without sudden shifts. Therapists did not experience professional self-doubt more often when working with sudden loss patients., Conclusion: Sudden losses were not necessarily harmful for the outcome of psychotherapy and patients' global therapy satisfaction. The results suggest that sudden losses can be compensated over the course of treatment., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly starts in autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD depends on latitude and ranges from 1.5% to 9%. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention in people who have a history of SAD. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: To examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we intended also to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant, light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions mentioned above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies independently. We intended to pool data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, but included only one study., Main Results: We identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review. Only one study, providing data of 225 participants, met our eligibility criteria and compared agomelatine (25 mg/day) with placebo. We rated it as having high risk of attrition bias because nearly half of the participants left the study before completion. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes, because of high risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.The main analysis based on data of 199 participants rendered an indeterminate result with wide confidence intervals (CIs) that may encompass both a relevant reduction as well as a relevant increase of SAD incidence by agomelatine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also the severity of SAD may be similar in both groups at the end of the study with a mean SIGH-SAD (Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders) score of 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 9.4) in the agomelatine group and 10.1 (SD 10.6) in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -1.80, 95% CI -4.58 to 0.98; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events may be similar in both groups. In the agomelatine group, 64 out of 112 participants experienced at least one adverse event, while 61 out of 113 did in the placebo group (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.34; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three out of 112 patients experienced serious adverse events in the agomelatine group, compared to 4 out of 113 in the placebo group (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.30; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence).No data on quality of life or interpersonal functioning were reported. We did not identify any studies on melatonin., Authors' Conclusions: Given the uncertain evidence on agomelatine and the absence of studies on melatonin, no conclusion about efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin for prevention of SAD can currently be drawn. The decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should consider patient preferences and reflect on the evidence base of all available treatment options.

Background and Purpose: Data on real-world experience with intravenous thrombolysis (IV tPA) in wake-up stroke (WUS) are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of IV tPA in patients with WUS included in the Austrian Stroke Unit Registry., Methods: Data from a large nationwide stroke unit registry including initial stroke severity, vascular risk factors, comorbidities, treatment with IV tPA, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH) and functional outcome were extracted and analysed. Patients with WUS were compared with patients with known-onset stroke (KOS) regarding the frequency of IV tPA treatment, neurological improvement (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥4), sICH and 3-month functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale score using standard statistical tests., Results: A total of 107 895 stroke patients entered the analysis, including 12 534 with WUS and 91 899 with KOS. Altogether, 904 (7.2%) patients with WUS received IV tPA as compared with 16 694 (18.2%) patients with KOS. Patients with WUS who received IV tPA treatment had twofold higher initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (median 8 vs. median 4) as compared with patients with KOS. There was no statistical difference in functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 at 3 months between patients with WUS and patients with KOS treated with IV tPA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.31). Also, the rate of sICH did not differ (4.1% vs. 4%, P = 0.852)., Conclusions: In this large non-randomized comparison, the safety and efficacy of IV tPA in patients with WUS in the real-world setting seems to be comparable to patients with KOS., (© 2018 EAN.)

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery and form of light vary., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies., Main Results: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included RCT had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, white light and infrared light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38; 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but the CI was also too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 24 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28; 29 participants, very low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self-rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for people with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared a SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus placebo or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi 2 statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I 2 statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots.We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE Working Group., Main Results: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 3619 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall, moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in people with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 50% and 60%, NNTBs are 5 (95% CI 4 to 7) and 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest, such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine., Authors' Conclusions: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, three out of four people will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment, and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer a lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Autologous osteochondral transplantation (AOT) utilizing autografts is a widely used technique for the treatment of small-to-medium cartilage defects occurring in knee and ankle joints. The application of viable cartilage and bone ensures proper integration, early weight bearing, as well as restoration of biomechanical and biotribological properties. However, alignment of the autografts onto the defect site remains a pivotal aspect of reinstating the properties of the joint toward successful autograft integration. This is the first study to perform tests with different orientations of osteochondral grafts in a cartilage-on-cartilage test system. The objective was to estimate if there are differences between aligned and 90°-rotated grafts concerning molecular biological and biomechanical parameters. Tissue viability, assessed by XTT assay indicated lower metabolic activity in tested osteochondral grafts (aligned, p = 0.0148 and 90°-rotated, p = 0.0760) in favor of a higher anabolic gene expression (aligned, p = 0.0030 and 90°-rotated, 0.0027). Tissue structure was evaluated by Safranin O histology and microscopic images of the surface. Aligned and 90°-rotated grafts revealed no apparent differences between proteoglycan content or cracks and fissures on the cartilage surface. Test medium analyzed after tribological tests for their sulfated glycosaminoglycan content revealed no differences (p = 0.3282). During the tests, both the friction coefficient and the relative displacement between the two cartilage surfaces were measured, with no significant difference in both parameters (COF, p = 0.2232 and relative displacement, p = 0.3185). From the methods we deployed, this study can infer that there are no differences between aligned and 90°-rotated osteochondral grafts after tribological tests in the used ex vivo tissue model. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. J Orthop Res., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.)

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

Background and Purpose: The aim of this pooled patient-level data analysis was to test if multidomain interventions, addressing several modifiable vascular risk factors simultaneously, are more effective than usual post-stroke care for the prevention of cognitive decline after stroke., Methods: This pooled patient-level data analysis included two randomized controlled trials using a multidomain approach to target vascular risk factors in stroke patients and cognition as primary outcome. Changes from baseline to 12 months in the trail making test (TMT)-A, TMT-B and 10-words test were analysed using stepwise backward linear mixed models with study as random factor. Two analyses were based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle using different imputation approaches and one was based on complete cases., Results: Data from 322 patients (157 assigned to multidomain intervention and 165 to standard care) were analysed. Differences between randomization groups for TMT-A scores were found in one ITT model (P = 0.014) and approached significance in the second ITT model (P = 0.087) and for complete cases (P = 0.091). No significant intervention effects were found for any of the other cognitive variables., Conclusion: We found indications that multidomain interventions compared with standard care can improve the scores in TMT-A at 1 year after stroke but not those for TMT-B or the 10-words test. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to the small number of patients., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigated whether bug-in-the-eye (BITE) supervision (live computer-based supervision during a psychotherapy session) affects the manner in which patients and therapists experience general change mechanisms (GCMs) during cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)., Method: A total of 23 therapists were randomized either to the BITE condition or the control condition (delayed video-based [DVB] supervision). After each session, both patients (BITE: n = 19; DVB: n = 23) and therapists (BITE: n = 11; DVB: n = 12) completed the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Bernese Post Session Report (BPSR). The HAQ total score and the 3 secondary factors of the BPSR (interpersonal experiences, intrapersonal experiences, problem actuation) functioned as GCMs. Multilevel models were performed., Results: For patients, GCMs did not develop differently between BITE and DVB during CBT. Therapists rated the alliance as well as interpersonal and intrapersonal experiences not significantly different between BITE and DVB during CBT, but they perceived problem actuation to increase significantly more in BITE than in DVB (p < .05)., Conclusion: BITE supervision might be helpful in encouraging CBT therapists to apply interventions, which focus on the activation of relevant problems and related emotions., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background and Purpose: Intravenous thrombolysis (ivT) with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator is established in acute ischaemic stroke. Little is known, however, about its efficacy in different stroke subtypes., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 128 733 patients from the Austrian Stroke Unit Registry was performed. Patients were classified as lacunar (LacS) or non-lacunar ischaemic stroke (nonLacS) by use of the clinical syndrome and technical findings. Outcome parameters were the short term improvement in the stroke unit [the difference of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission and at discharge] and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Patients were assigned to four groups according to thrombolysis and stroke subtype. To control for confounding, patients were matched for variables identified with impact outcome and for variables of general interest (NIHSS at admission, mRS before stroke and general risk factors)., Results: There were four matched groups of 401 cases each. In LacS median short term improvement was 3 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-5] NIHSS points in the thrombolysed patients and 2 (IQR 1-4) in the non-thrombolysed patients (P < 0.001). In the nonLacS groups median short term improvement was 3 (IQR 1-5) in the thrombolysed and 2 (IQR 0-4) in the non-thrombolysed patients (P < 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, ivT was significantly associated with a better functional outcome in LacS (P < 0.001) and nonLacS patients (P < 0.001). Taking magnetic resonance imaging as a requirement for stroke subtyping led to similar results., Conclusions: Patients with both lacunar and non-lacunar stroke benefitted from ivT. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups., (© 2017 EAN.)

Up to 30% of the population in Western countries suffer from chronic pain. The treatment of chronic pain causes medical and socioeconomic problems. Guided self-help (GSH) might be an effective supplementary treatment, however, the size of this effect is unclear. This meta-analysis quantifies the effect of GSH on chronic pain. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Psyndex, Psycinfo and Scopus. Studies that investigated GSH in chronic pain conditions (children and adults) were included. Disability, quality of life and pain severity were defined as main outcomes. We conducted random effects models to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs). By applying mixed models and subgroup analyses, we examined the moderating effects of sample characteristics (age; pain region), GSH format (online; face-to-face contact) and study characteristics (study quality; control condition). We identified 16 eligible studies, including 739 subjects. Between-group analyses resulted in a medium, but heterogeneous effect size for pain severity (SMD = 0.51; CI 95 : 0.21, 0.81). After excluding two samples suggesting small study bias, the effect on pain severity was small but homogeneous (SMD = 0.34; CI 95 : 0.13, 0.54). We found a small effect size for disability (SMD = 0.30; CI 95 : 0.10, 0.50). The pooled effect size for quality of life did not reach significance (SMD = 0.24; CI 95 : -0.07, 0.54). We conclude that GSH has a small but robust effect on pain severity and disability in chronic pain patients. This applies to various GSH formats and patient populations. It seems reasonable to integrate GSH into clinical practice as a supplemental treatment option. WHAT DOES THIS REVIEW ADD?: The present meta-analytic review found small but robust effects of guided self-help interventions for the treatment of chronic pain., (© 2016 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background: Lead poisoning is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children, and trials have tested many household interventions to prevent lead exposure. This is an update of the original review, first published in 2008., Objectives: To assess the effects of household interventions for preventing or reducing lead exposure in children, as measured by improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels., Search Methods: In May 2016 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and two trials registers: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to find unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 14 studies involving 2643 children: 13 RCTs (involving 2565 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Thirteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, and one was in Australia. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in all studies. The duration of the intervention ranged from 3 months to 24 months in 12 studies, while 2 studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 48 months. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. We rated two RCTs and one quasi-RCT as being at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs as being at high risk of attrition bias. For educational interventions, we rated the quality of evidence to be high for continuous blood lead levels and moderate for all other outcomes. For environmental interventions, we assessed the quality of evidence as moderate to low. National or international research grants or governments funded 12 studies, while the other 2 did not report their funding sources.No studies reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes. No studies reported on adverse events in children. All studies reported blood lead level outcomes.We put studies into subgroups according to their intervention type. We performed meta-analyses of both continuous and dichotomous data for subgroups where appropriate. Educational interventions were not effective in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.12, I² = 0%; 5 studies; N = 815; high quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.11; I² = 90%; 3 studies; N = 298; low quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; I² = 0; 2 studies; N = 210; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07; I² = 56%; 2 studies; N = 210; low quality evidence). After adjusting the dust control subgroup for clustering in meta-analysis, we found no evidence of effectiveness. We could not pool the studies using soil abatement (removal and replacement) and combination intervention groups in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between studies, and generalisability or reproducibility of the results from these studies is unknown. Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to clarify whether soil abatement or a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels., Authors' Conclusions: Based on current knowledge, household educational interventions are ineffective in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. Dust control interventions may lead to little or no difference in blood lead levels (the quality of evidence was moderate to low, meaning that future research is likely to change these results). There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement or combination interventions. No study reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes or adverse events. These patient-relevant outcomes would have been of great interest to draw conclusions for practice.Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for preventing lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.

Background and Purpose: Our aim was to update previous European Federation of Neurological Societies guidelines on neurostimulation for neuropathic pain, expanding the search to new techniques and to chronic pain conditions other than neuropathic pain, and assessing the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials published between 2006 and December 2014 was conducted. Pain conditions included neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I and post-surgical chronic back and leg pain (CBLP). Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct electrical stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) were assessed. The GRADE system was used to assess quality of evidence and propose recommendations., Results: The following recommendations were reached: 'weak' for SCS added to conventional medical management in diabetic painful neuropathy, CBLP and CRPS, for SCS versus reoperation in CBLP, for MCS in neuropathic pain, for rTMS of M1 in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia and for tDCS of M1 in neuropathic pain; 'inconclusive' for DBS in neuropathic pain, rTMS and tDCS of the DLPFC, and for motor cortex tDCS in fibromyalgia and spinal cord injury pain., Conclusions: Given the poor to moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale multicentre studies of non-invasive and invasive neurostimulation are encouraged. The collection of higher quality evidence of the predictive factors for the efficacy of these techniques, such as the duration, quality and severity of pain, is also recommended., (© 2016 EAN.)

Background and Purpose: Based on a tight network of stroke units (SUs) and interventional centres, endovascular treatment of acute major intracranial vessel occlusion has been widely implemented in Austria. Documentation of all patients in the nationwide SU registry has thereby become mandatory., Methods: Demographic, clinical and interventional characteristics of patients who underwent endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in 11 Austrian interventional centres between 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2014 were analysed., Results: In total, 301 patients (50.5% women; median age 70.5 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 17) were identified.193 patients (64.1%) additionally received intravenous thrombolysis. The most frequent vessel occlusion sites were the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (n = 161, 53.5%), the intracranial internal carotid artery (n = 60, 19.9%) and the basilar artery (n = 40, 13.3%). Stent retrievers were used in 235 patients (78.1%) and adequate reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scores 2b and 3, median onset to reperfusion time 254 min) was achieved in 242 patients (81.4%). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 7%. 43.8% of patients (n = 132) had good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and the mortality rate was 20.9% (n = 63) after 3 months. Compared to the anterior circulation, vertebrobasilar stroke patients had higher mortality. Patients with secondary hospital transportation had better outcomes after 3 months than in-house treated patients., Conclusion: Our results document nationwide favourable outcome and safety rates of endovascular stroke treatment comparable to recent randomized trials. The ability to provide such data and the need to further optimize such an approach also underscore the contribution of respective registries., (© 2016 EAN.)

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD in the United States ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: We conducted a search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We conducted a grey literature search (e.g. in clinical trial registries) and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: To examine efficacy, we planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant (SGA), light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors planned to independently extract data and assess risk of bias of included studies. We planned to pool data for meta-analysis when participant groups were similar and when studies assessed the same treatments by using the same comparator and presented similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment; however, we identified no studies for inclusion., Main Results: We identified 2986 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review and assessed 91 articles at full-text level for eligibility. We identified no controlled studies on use of melatonin and agomelatine to prevent SAD and to improve patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Authors' Conclusions: No available methodologically sound evidence indicates that melatonin or agomelatine is or is not an effective intervention for prevention of SAD and improvement of patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. Lack of evidence clearly shows the need for well-conducted, controlled studies on this topic. A well-conducted RCT of melatonin or agomelatine for prevention of SAD would assess the comparative benefits and risks of these interventions against others currently used to treat the disorder.

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared an SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications and assigned risk of bias ratings based on the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third party. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi(2) statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I(2) statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity and examined potential sources of heterogeneity using sensitivity analysis or analysis of subgroups. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots. However, given the small number of component studies in our meta-analyses, these tests have low sensitivity to detect publication bias. We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group., Main Results: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 2895 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in patients with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; three RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 40% and 50%, NNTBs are 6 (95% CI 5 to 9) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 7), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine., Authors' Conclusions: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, four of five patients will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery (e.g. visors, light boxes) and form of light (e.g. bright white light) vary., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD., Search Methods: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles., Selection Criteria: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention and compared this with the same comparator intervention as monotherapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies., Main Results: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included randomised controlled trial (RCT) had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, both forms of preventive light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but in this case also the CI was too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28). The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as SGA, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for patients with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

The close relationship between stroke and dementia is an important health issue. Ischaemic stroke can facilitate the onset of vascular dementia as well as aggravate pre-existing cognitive decline. The onset of cognitive decline may become manifest immediately following the onset of ischaemic stroke, but often there is a delay in the development of cognitive decline after a stroke. This delay can be seen as a therapeutic time window allowing interventions to be applied to preserve cognition following stroke. Both neurodegenerative and vascular mechanisms are activated and probably result in overlapping processes within the neurovascular unit. This review focuses on the incidence and prevalence of cognitive decline following stroke, predisposing stroke aetiologies, pre-stroke decline, imaging factors and biomarkers. Outcomes are discussed in relation to timing of assessment and neuropsychological tests used for evaluation of cognitive decline in ischaemic stroke patients. Including such tests in routine evaluations of stroke patients after some weeks or months is recommended. Finally, an outlook on ongoing and planned intervention trials is added and some recommendations for future research are proposed., (© 2014 EAN.)

Background and Purpose: Diabetes is a predictor for poor outcome after thrombolysis in stroke patients, and early post-stroke glycaemia is associated with higher rates of post-thrombolytic symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhages (SICHs). Diabetic stroke patients may nevertheless profit from thrombolysis. Here, we compared outcome data of matched thrombolysed and non-thrombolysed diabetic and non-diabetic stroke patients from a national database., Methods: The outcomes of 1079 matched quadruples, each consisting of a thrombolysed diabetic, a non-thrombolysed diabetic, a thrombolysed non-diabetic and a non-thrombolysed non-diabetic case (a total of 4316 cases), enrolled in the Austrian Stroke Unit Registry (2004-2013), were compared. Patients were matched according to sex, age, stroke severity, pre-stroke disability and prior stroke., Results: A regression model with improvement as depending variable found no effect of diabetes (P = 0.158) or the interaction diabetes × thrombolysis (P = 0.507), whereas the effect of thrombolysis itself was highly significant (P < 0.001). Functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale) was significantly better in thrombolysed than in non-thrombolysed diabetic patients at discharge from the stroke-unit (P < 0.001) and 3 months later (P = 0.006). No significant differences were found in the number of SICHs after thrombolytic treatment between diabetic (4.9%) and non-diabetic strokes (3.5%). Both groups had a higher risk of SICH compared with the non-thrombolysed groups (diabetics 2.6%, non-diabetics 2.5%). Due to lack of documentation, the effect of admission blood glucose on SICH was not investigated., Conclusions: Data from this nationwide survey show that diabetic stroke patients receive a substantial benefit from thrombolysis, and therefore diabetic strokes should not be excluded from thrombolytic treatment., (© 2013 The Author(s) European Journal of Neurology © 2013 EFNS.)

Background and Purpose: Despite a high prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment, therapeutic possibilities are still limited. Stroke and dementia share the same cluster of modifiable risk factors. Thus, lifestyle interventions and strict adherence to medication may not only decrease the risk of recurrent stroke but also the risk of post-stroke cognitive decline., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) targeting modifiable risk factors for the prevention of cognitive decline following stroke., Results: We identified 25 non-pharmacological interventions and eight multiple risk factor interventions in stroke patients using cognition as outcome measure. None of the published trials investigated interventions aimed at the prevention of post-stroke cognitive decline. However, a number of ongoing trials aim at risk factor reduction and include measures on cognition., Conclusion: Evidence for risk factor modification for the prevention of cognitive decline after stroke is scarce and comes mainly from observational studies. There is a need for more RCTs targeting the prevention of post-stroke dementia using lifestyle interventions and a multiple risk factor approach., (© 2012 The Author(s) European Journal of Neurology © 2012 EFNS.)

The second most frequently affected organ in mitochondrial disorders (MIDs) is the central nervous system (CNS). One of the most frequent CNS abnormalities on imaging is the affection of the white matter (WMLs) for which the term, leukoencephalopathies in mitochondrial disorders (LEM), is proposed. The morphology of LEM on imaging is quite variable even within the same type of MID and the same family. LEM can be a subtle or prominent feature on imaging and may go along with or without clinical neurologic or neuropsychological manifestations. WMLs are most likely due to the underlying metabolic defect of the respiratory chain or concomitant oxidative stress, resulting in neuronal death and replacement of neurons by glial cells. WMLs in MIDs frequently give rise to misinterpretation, particularly if the mitochondrial defect is not evident in organs other than the CNS or if the presence of WMLs does not induce consideration of a MID as a differential. The diagnosis of a LEM requires the diagnosis of an MID, the detection of WMLs on imaging, and the exclusion of all possible differentials. Because the presence of LEM has an impact on the prognosis of an MID, all MID patients should undergo cerebral imaging even in the absence of clinical CNS manifestations., (© 2012 by the American Society of Neuroimaging.)

Background: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often suffer from accompanying symptoms that influence the choice of pharmacotherapy with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). We conducted a systematic review to determine the comparative effectiveness of citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and trazodone, for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in patients with MDD., Methods: We conducted searches in multiple databases including MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycINFO, from 1980 through August 2011 and reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data. We included randomized, head-to-head trials of SGAs of at least 6 weeks' duration. We grouped SGAs into three classes for the analysis: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and others. We graded the strength of the evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (GRADE) approach., Results: We located 19 head-to-head trials in total: 11 on anxiety, six on insomnia, and four on pain. For the majority of comparisons, the strength of the evidence was moderate or low: evidence is weakened by inconsistency and imprecision. For treating anxiety, insomnia, and pain moderate evidence suggests that the SSRIs do not differ., Conclusions: Evidence guiding the selection of an SGA based on accompanying symptoms of depression is limited. Very few trials were designed and adequately powered to answer questions about accompanying symptoms; analyses were generally of subgroups in larger MDD trials., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy or psychotherapy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs for the treatment of SAD in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs or psychotherapy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group's specialised register (CCDANCTR) on the 26 August 2011. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we searched pharmaceutical industry trials registers via the Internet to identify unpublished trial data. Furthermore, we searched OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE and PsycINFO to 27July 2011 for publications on adverse effects (including non-randomised studies)., Selection Criteria: For efficacy we included randomised trials of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse effects we also included non-randomised studies., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and completeness by a second. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment., Main Results: For efficacy we included three randomised trials of between five and eight weeks duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse effects we included two randomised trials and three observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks duration with a total of 225 participants. Overall, the randomised trials had low-to-moderate risk of bias, and the observational studies had a high risk of bias (due to small size and high attrition). The participants in the studies all met DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age was approximately 40 years and 70% of the participants were female.Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine was not significantly more effective than placebo in achieving clinical response (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.83). The number of adverse effects were similar between the two groups.We located two trials that contained a total of 136 participants for the comparison fluoxetine versus light therapy. Our meta-analysis of the results of the two trials showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71). The number of adverse effects was similar in both groups.Two of the three randomised trials and three non-randomised studies contained adverse effect data on 225 participants who received fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, reboxetine, light therapy or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse effects, so any interpretation of this needs to be undertaken with caution. Between 22% and 100% of participants who received a SGA suffered an adverse effect and between 15% and 27% of participants withdrew from the studies because of adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo, which shows a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy, which suggest equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precludes the ability to draw any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs.Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. Therefore the data we obtained on adverse effects is not robust and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 27% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the studies early due to adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence in this review is very low.

Background: Abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are among the most common medical problems in paediatric medicine. Frequently, physicians prescribe antidepressants as a second-line treatment for children and adolescents with FGIDs. To date, the evidence on the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of abdominal pain-related FGIDs has not been assessed systematically., Objectives: The primary objectives were to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of abdominal pain-related FGIDs in children and adolescents., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, IPA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, Biosis Previews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization with appropriate filters (from inception to January 31, 2011)., Selection Criteria: For efficacy we included double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for treatment of abdominal pain-related FGIDs in children and adolescents 18 years or younger. Open-label and uncontrolled experimental studies, as well as observational studies were eligible for the assessment of harms. The minimum study duration was 4 weeks. The minimum study size was 30 participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed all abstracts and full text articles, and rated the risk of bias for included studies. Data were extracted independently by one author and checked for accuracy by another author. Data were analysed using RevMan 5., Main Results: Two RCTs (123 participants), both using amitriptyline, met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. These studies provided mixed findings on the efficacy of amitriptyline for the treatment of abdominal pain-related FGIDs. The larger, publicly-funded study reported no statistically significant difference in efficacy between amitriptyline and placebo in 90 children and adolescents with FGIDs after 4 weeks of treatment. On intention-to-treat (ITT)- analysis, 59% of the children reported feeling better in the amitriptyline group compared with 53% in the placebo group (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.63; P = 0.54). The risk of bias for this study was rated as low.The second RCT enrolled 33 adolescents with irritable bowel syndrome. Patients receiving amitriptyline experienced greater improvements in the primary outcome, overall quality of life, at weeks 6, 10, and 13 compared with those on placebo (P= 0.019, 0.004, and 0.013, respectively). No effect estimates were calculated for the quality of life outcome because mean quality of life scores and standard deviations were not reported. For most secondary outcomes no statistically significant differences between amitriptyline and placebo could be detected. The risk of bias for this study was rated as unclear for most items. However, it was rated as high for other bias due to multiple testing. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of patients and multiple testing.The larger study reported mild adverse events including fatigue, rash and headache and dizziness. On ITT analysis, 4% of the amitriptyline group experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% of the placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who experienced at least one adverse event (RR 1.91; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.35; P = 0.59). The smaller study reported no adverse events. The methods of adverse effects assessment was poorly reported in both studies and no clear conclusions on the risks of harms of amitriptyline can be drawn., Authors' Conclusions: Clinicians must be aware that for the majority of antidepressant medications no evidence exists that supports their use for the treatment of abdominal pain-related FGIDs in children and adolescents. The existing randomised controlled evidence is limited to studies on amitriptyline and revealed no statistically significant differences between amitriptyline and placebo for most efficacy outcomes. Amitriptyline does not appear to provide any benefit for the treatment of FGIDs in children and adolescents. Studies in children with depressive disorders have shown that antidepressants can lead to substantial, sometimes life-threatening adverse effects. Until better evidence evolves, clinicians should weigh the potential benefits of antidepressant treatment against known risks of antidepressants in paediatric patients.