Search

Ocimum basilicum L. is an annual plant found in the wild tropical, subtropical and temperate regions of the world. It is member of family labiatae (lamiaceae). It contains wide variety of constituents of medicinal importance. Ocimum basilicum L. is a common herb, grown in many households with a broad range of therapeutic properties. It would be a blessing in disguise if this herb becomes a medicine for the common man. Various plant parts such as leaves, seeds and roots are recommended for the common people as folk medicines. Ocimum basilicum L., has reputed medicinal uses as antioxidant, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal, antiviral, cytoprotective, anticonvulsant, hypoglycaemic, hypolipidemic, hepatoprotective, renoprotective, neuroprotective, spermicidal, dermatologic and insectisidal.

Background: Stress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of traditional suburethral sling procedures for treating stress urinary incontinence in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); we handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017) and the reference lists of relevant articles. On 23 January 2019, we updated this search; as a result, several additional reports of studies are awaiting classification., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that assessed traditional suburethral slings for treating stress or mixed urinary incontinence., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias. When appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, odds ratio (OR) for continence and cure rates that were expected to be high, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence., Main Results: A total of 34 trials involving 3244 women were included. Traditional slings were compared with 10 other treatments and with each other. We did not identify any trials comparing suburethral slings with no treatment or sham treatment, conservative management, anterior repair, or laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence. One trial compared traditional slings with bladder neck needle suspension, and another trial compared traditional slings with single-incision slings. Both trials were too small to be informative. Traditional suburethral sling operation versus drugs One small trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin to treat women with mixed urinary incontinence. This trial did not report any of our GRADE-specific outcomes. It is uncertain whether surgery compared with oxybutynin leads to more women being dry (83% vs 0%; OR 195.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.91 to 3871.03) or having less urgency urinary incontinence (13% vs 43%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94) because the quality of this evidence is very low. Traditional suburethral sling versus injectables One small trial compared traditional slings with suburethral injectable treatment. The impact of surgery versus injectables is uncertain in terms of the number of continent women (100% were dry with a traditional sling versus 71% with the injectable after the first year; OR 11.57, 95% CI 0.56 to 239.74), the need for repeat surgery for urinary incontinence (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.36) or the occurrence of perioperative complications (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.49), as the quality of evidence is very low. Traditional suburethral sling versus open abdominal retropubic colposuspension Eight trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Moderate-quality evidence shows that the traditional suburethral sling probably leads to more continent women in the medium term (one to five years) (69% vs 59% after colposuspension: OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.37). High-quality evidence shows that women were less likely to need repeat continence surgery after a traditional sling operation than after colposuspension (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42). We found no evidence of a difference in perioperative complications between the two groups, but the CI was very wide and the quality of evidence was very low (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86). Traditional suburethral sling operation versus mid-urethral slings Fourteen trials compared traditional sling operations and mid-urethral sling operations. Depending on judgements about what constitutes a clinically important difference between interventions with regard to continence, traditional suburethral slings are probably no better, and may be less effective, than mid-urethral slings in terms of number of women continent in the medium term (one to five years) (67% vs 74%; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; n = 458; moderate-quality evidence). One trial reported more continent women with the traditional sling after 10 years (51% vs 32%: OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.61). Mid-urethral slings may be associated with fewer perioperative complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.60; low-quality evidence). One type of traditional sling operation versus another type of traditional sling operation Nine trials compared one type of traditional sling operation with another. The different types of traditional slings, along with the number of different materials used, mean that trial results could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. Complications were reported by two trials - one comparing non-absorbable Goretex with a rectus fascia sling, and the second comparing Pelvicol with a rectus fascial sling. The impact was uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence., Authors' Conclusions: Low-quality evidence suggests that women may be more likely to be continent in the medium term (one to five years) after a traditional suburethral sling operation than after colposuspension. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in urinary incontinence after a traditional suburethral sling compared with a mid-urethral sling in the medium term. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as long-term follow-up data were not available from most trials. Long-term follow-up of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional slings with colposuspension and mid-urethral slings is essential. Evidence is insufficient to suggest whether traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other management techniques. This review is confined to RCTs and therefore may not identify all of the adverse effects that may be associated with these procedures. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified three eligible economic evaluations, which are not directly comparable due to differences in methods, time horizons, and settings. End users of this review will need to assess the extent to which methods and results of identified economic evaluations may be applicable (or transferable) to their own setting., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS., Search Methods: On 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI., Main Results: We identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low. At short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published. We are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low. There was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength. There is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality., (Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Stress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are one of the surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence., Objectives: To determine the effects of traditional suburethral slings on stress or mixed incontinence in comparison with other management options., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 3 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included traditional suburethral slings for the treatment of stress or mixed urinary incontinence., Data Collection and Analysis: At least three reviewers independently extracted data from included trials onto a standard form and assessed trial methodological quality. The data abstracted were relevant to predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: a relative risk for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data., Main Results: We included 26 trials involving 2284 women. The quality of evidence was moderate for most trials and there was generally short follow-up ranging from 6 to 24 months.One medium-sized trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin in the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. Surgery appeared to be more effective than drugs in treating participant-reported incontinence (n = 75, risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.43).One trial found that traditional slings were more effective than transurethral injectable treatment (RR for clinician-assessed incontinence within a year 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21)Seven trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Participant-reported incontinence was lower with the slings after one year (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not when assessed by clinicians. Colposuspension, however, was associated with fewer peri-operative complications, shorter duration of use of indwelling catheter and less long-term voiding dysfunction. One study showed there was a 20% lower risk of bladder perforation with the sling procedure but a 50% increase in urinary tract infection with the sling procedure compared with colposuspension. Fewer women developed prolapse after slings (compared with after colposuspension) in two small trials but this did not reach statistical significance.Twelve trials addressed the comparison between traditional sling operations and minimally invasive sling operations. These seemed to be equally effective in the short term (RR for incontinence within first year 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) but minimally invasive slings had a shorter operating time, fewer peri-operative complications (other than bladder perforation) and some evidence of less post-operative voiding dysfunction and detrusor symptoms.Six trials compared one type of traditional sling with another. Materials included porcine dermis, lyophilised dura mater, fascia lata, vaginal wall, autologous dermis and rectus fascia. Participant-reported improvement rates within the first year favoured the traditional autologous material rectus fascia over other biological materials (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98). There were more complications with the use of non-absorbable Gore-Tex in one trial.Data for comparison of bladder neck needle suspension with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a single trial with a small specialised population.No trials compared traditional suburethral slings with anterior repair, laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension or artificial sphincters. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence when reporting participant characteristics.For most of the comparisons, clinically important differences could not be ruled out., Authors' Conclusions: Traditional slings seem to be as effective as minimally invasive slings, but had higher rates of adverse effects. This should be interpreted with some caution however, as the quality of evidence for the studies was variable, follow-up short and populations small, particularly for identifying complication rates. Tradional sling procedures appeared to confer a similar cure rate in comparison to open retropubic colposuspension, but the long-term adverse event profile is still unclear. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified two studies suggesting that traditional slings may be more cost-effective compared with collagen injection but not cost-effective when compared with minimally invasive sling operations. Reliable evidence to clarify whether or not traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other surgical or conservative management options is lacking.

Background: Appendicectomy is a well established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis.  The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic) or as an open procedure. A recent development in appendicectomy has been the introduction of less invasive single incision laparoscopic surgery, using a single multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports, through a single skin incision. There are yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this new and novel technique including: patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, long-term outcomes, and survival., Objectives: The aim of this review is to perform meta-analysis using data from available trials comparing single incision with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis, in order to ascertain any differences in outcome., Search Strategy: We searched the electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1980 to December 2010), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) with pre-specified terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, in which at least one arm involves single incision procedures and another multi-incision procedures., Data Collection and Analysis: There were no RCTs or prospectively controlled trials found that met the inclusion criteria., Main Results: Three authors performed study selection independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. Current evidence exists only the form of case-series.This review has been authored as 'empty' pending the results of 5 ongoing trials., Authors' Conclusions: No RCTs comparing single incision laparoscopic appendectomy with multi-incision surgery could be identified. No definitive conclusions can be made at this time. Well designed prospective RCTs are required in order to evaluate benefit or harm from laparoscopic surgical approaches for appendicectomy. Until appropriate data has been reported, the institutional polices of healthcare providers must be based on the clinical judgement of experts in the field.

Background: Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence., Objectives: To determine the effects of traditional suburethral slings on stress or mixed incontinence in comparison with other management options., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 3 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included traditional suburethral slings for the treatment of stress or mixed urinary incontinence., Data Collection and Analysis: At least three reviewers independently extracted data from included trials onto a standard form and assessed trial methodological quality. The data abstracted were relevant to predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: a relative risk for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data., Main Results: Twenty six trials involving 2284 women were included. The quality of evidence was moderate for most trials and there was generally short follow-up ranging from 6-24 months.One medium sized trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin in the treatment of mixed urinary incontinence patients. Surgery appeared to be more effective than drugs in treating patient-reported incontinence (n = 75, Risk Ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.43).One trial found that traditional slings were more effective than transurethral injectable treatment (RR for clinician-assessed incontinence within a year 0.21; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21), and also cheaper on average cost.Seven trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Patient-reported incontinence was lower with the slings after one year (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not when assessed by clinicians. Colposuspension, however, was associated with fewer peri-operative complications, shorter duration of use of indwelling catheter and less long term voiding dysfunction. One study showed there was a 20% lower risk of bladder perforation with the sling procedure but a 50% increase in urinary tract infection with the sling procedure compared with colposuspension. Fewer women developed prolapse after slings (compared with after colposuspension) in two small trials but this did not reach statistical significance.Twelve trials addressed the comparison between traditional sling operations and minimally invasive sling operations.These seemed to be equally effective in the short term (RR for incontinence within first year 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) but minimally invasive slings had a shorter operating time, fewer peri-operative complications (other than bladder perforation) and some evidence of less post-operative voiding dysfunction and detrusor symptoms.Six trials compared one type of traditional sling with another. Materials included porcine dermis, lyophilised dura mater, fascia lata, vaginal wall, autologous dermis and rectus fascia. Patient-reported improvement rates within the first year favoured the traditional autologous material rectus fascia over other biological materials (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98). There were more complications with the use of non-absorbable Goretex in one trial.Data for comparison of bladder neck needle suspension with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a single trial with a small specialised population.No trials compared traditional suburethral slings with anterior repair, laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension or artificial sphincters. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence when reporting patient characteristics.For most of the comparisons, clinically important differences could not be ruled out., Authors' Conclusions: Traditional slings seem to be as effective as minimally invasive slings, but had higher rates of adverse effects. This should be interpreted with some caution however, as the quality of evidence for the studies was variable, follow-up short and populations small, particularly for identifying complication rates. Tradional sling procedures appeared to confer a similar cure rate in comparison to open retropubic colposuspension, but the long term adverse event profile is still unclear. Reliable evidence to clarify whether or not traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other surgical or conservative management options is lacking.