Biomedical subjects

Z Fedorowicz

Publications and source records attributed to Z Fedorowicz.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Antiemetics for reducing vomiting related to acute gastroenteritis in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Vomiting caused by acute gastroenteritis is very common in children and adolescents. Treatment of vomiting in children can be problematic and the use of antiemetics remains a controversial issue. There have been concerns expressed about apparently unacceptable levels of side effects such as sedation and extrapyramidal reactions, which are associated with some of the earlier generation of antiemetics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antiemetics on gastroenteritis induced vomiting in children and adolescents. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register (searched 28 July 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week and Digestive Disease Week were handsearched. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group were contacted for details of any ongoing or relevant unpublished clinical trials. The search was re-run on 12th July 2006 and one new trial was found. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing antiemetics and/or placebo in children and adolescents, under the age of 18, with vomiting due to gastroenteritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects data was collected from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 396 participants were included. Although no data were available for the precise time to cessation of vomiting (the primary outcome specified in the protocol for this review), one trial reported that the proportion of patients without vomiting over a 24 hour period was higher in the ondansetron and metoclopramide groups than placebo. In the second trial, ondansetron ensured complete anti-emesis for 8/12 (67%) patients within the first 4 hours and in 7/12 (58%) patients in the first 24 hr period. A few secondary outcomes were reported in the included trials. The third trial reported that 14% of patients who received ondansetron vomited during oral rehydration (which was given over one hour period after randomization) compared to 35% of the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of included trials provided some, albeit weak and unreliable, evidence which appeared to favor the use of ondansetron and metoclopramide over placebo to reduce the number of episodes of vomiting due to gastroenteritis in children. The increased incidence of diarrhea noted with both ondansetron and metoclopramide was considered to be as a result of retention of fluids and toxins that would otherwise have been eliminated through the process of vomiting.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2006

Antiemetics for reducing vomiting related to acute gastroenteritis in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Vomiting caused by acute gastroenteritis is very common in children and adolescents. Treatment of vomiting in children can be problematic and the use of antiemetics remains a controversial issue. There have been concerns expressed about apparently unacceptable levels of side effects such as sedation and extrapyramidal reactions, which are associated with some of the earlier generation of antiemetics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antiemetics on gastroenteritis induced vomiting in children and adolescents. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register (searched 28 July 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week and Digestive Disease Week were handsearched. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group were contacted for details of any ongoing or relevant unpublished clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing antiemetics and/or placebo in children and adolescents, under the age of 18, with vomiting due to gastroenteritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects data was collected from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving 181 participants were included. Although no data were available for the precise time to cessation of vomiting (the primary outcome specified in the protocol for this review), one trial reported that the proportion of patients without vomiting over a 24 hour period was higher in the ondansetron and metoclopramide groups than placebo. In the second trial, ondansetron ensured complete anti-emesis for 8/12 (67%) patients within the first 4 hours and in 7/12 (58%) patients in the first 24 hr period. A few secondary outcomes were reported in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of included trials provided some, albeit weak and unreliable, evidence which appeared to favor the use of ondansetron and metoclopramide over placebo to reduce the number of episodes of vomiting due to gastroenteritis in children. The increased incidence of diarrhea noted with both ondansetron and metoclopramide was considered to be as a result of retention of fluids and toxins that would otherwise have been eliminated through the process of vomiting.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2006

Tongue scraping for treating halitosis.

BACKGROUND: Halitosis is used to describe any disagreeable odour of expired air regardless of its origin. Mouthwashes which disguise oral malodor are more socially acceptable and generally more popular than tongue scrapers. OBJECTIVES: To provide reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of tongue scraping versus other interventions (including mouthwashes) to control halitosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 15th September 2005); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005); MEDLINE 1966 to September Week 1 2005; EMBASE 1974 to September 2005 (searched September 19th 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing different methods of tongue cleaning to reduce mouth odour in adults with halitosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Clinical heterogeneity between the two included trials precluded pooling of data, therefore a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: This review included two trials involving 40 participants. Both trials were methodologically sound but included no data for the primary outcomes specified in this review. Secondary outcomes expressed as volatile sulfur compound (VSC) levels were assessed by a portable sulfide monitor in both trials. One trial showed reductions of VSC levels of 42% with the tongue cleaner, 40% with the tongue scraper and 33% with the toothbrush. Reduced VSC levels persisted longer with the tongue cleaner than the toothbrush and could not be detected for more than 30 minutes after the intervention in any of the groups. Differences were assessed by the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed rank tests with the level of significance set at P < 0.05. The second trial, in which differences in totaled rank values between groups were compared by the Dunn method alpha = 0.01, showed a reduction of VSC levels compared with baseline measurements of 75% with the tongue scraper and 45% with the toothbrush. Adverse effects in one trial were nausea (60%) and trauma (10%) with the toothbrush and all participants receptive to using the tongue scraper. Based on the independent data from these two trials there was a statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of either the tongue cleaner or the tongue scraper in reducing VSC levels when compared with the toothbrush. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is weak and unreliable evidence to show that there is a small but statistically significant difference in reduction of VSC levels when tongue scrapers or cleaners rather than toothbrushes are used to reduce halitosis in adults. We found no high level evidence comparing mechanical with other forms of tongue cleaning.

Dental Devices, Home Care↗

PubMed2005

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis.

BACKGROUND: Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant minority of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to provide reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of prescribing systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis by comparing clinical outcomes expressed as pain relief. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive (PaPaS) Care Group Trials Register to 6th September 2004; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library Issue 3 2004; MEDLINE (1966 to 6th September 2004); EMBASE (1980 to week 36 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes one randomised controlled trial which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Only one trial is included in this review, therefore pooling of data from studies was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: One trial involving 40 participants was included in this review. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention and placebo groups over the 7 day study period. The between-group differences in sum pain intensity differences (SPID) for the penicillin group were (6.0+/-10.5), and for placebo (6.0+/-9.5) P = 0.776. The sum pain percussion intensity differences (SPPID) for the penicillin group were (3.5+/-7.5) and placebo (2.0+/-7.0) P = 0.290, with differences as assessed by the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test considered to be statistically significant at P < 0.05. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets (P = 0.839) and Tylenol tablets (P = 0.325), in either group over the study period. The administration of penicillin over placebo did not appear to significantly reduce the quantity of analgesic medication taken (P > 0.05) for irreversible pulpitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review which was based on one methodologically sound but low powered small sample trial provided some evidence that there is no significant difference in pain relief for patients with untreated irreversible pulpitis who did or did not receive antibiotics in addition to analgesics.

Analgesics↗

PubMed2005

Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract found in the developing world. With the increased number of people with cataract there is an urgent need for cataract surgery to be made available as a day care procedure. OBJECTIVES: To provide reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cataract extraction performed as day care versus in-patient procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to August 2004) and LILACS (July 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomised controlled trials comparing day care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Although two trials are included in the review, adequate data were available for only one trial and therefore pooling of data from studies was not attempted. A descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials, involving a total of 1284 people, are included in this review. One trial reported statistically significant differences in early postoperative complication rates in the day care group, with an increased risk of increased intraocular pressure, which had no clinical relevance to visual outcomes four months postoperatively. The mean change in visual acuity (Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 2.3) for the day care group and 4.1 (SD 2.2) for the in-patient group and not statistically significant. The four-month postoperative mean change in quality of life score measured using the VF14 showed minimal differences between the two groups. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. One study only reported hotel costs for the non-hospitalised participants making aggregation of data on costs impossible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides some evidence that there is a cost saving but no significant difference in outcome or risk of postoperative complications between day care and in-patient cataract surgery. This is based on one detailed and methodologically sound trial conducted in the developed world. The success, safety and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery as a day care procedure appear to be acceptable but additional well-designed trials are required to confirm these perceptions.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗

PubMed2004

Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract found in the developing world. With the increased number of people with cataract there is an urgent need for cataract surgery to be made available as a day-care procedure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to provide reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cataract extraction performed as day-care versus in-patient procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group trials register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2002), EMBASE (1980 to November 2002) and LILACS (November 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomised controlled trials comparing day-care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Although two trials are included in the review, adequate data were available for only one trial and therefore pooling of data from studies was not attempted. A descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials, involving a total of 1284 people, are included in this review. One trial reported statistically significant differences in early postoperative complication rates in the day-care group, with an increased risk of increased intraocular pressure, which had no clinical relevance to visual outcomes four months postoperatively. The mean change in visual acuity (Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 2.3) for the day-care group and 4.1 (SD 2.2) for the in-patient group and not statistically significant. The four-month postoperative mean change in quality of life score measured using the VF14 showed minimal differences between the two groups. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. One study only reported hotel costs for the non-hospitalised participants making aggregation of data on costs impossible. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review provides some evidence that there is a cost saving but no significant difference in outcome or risk of postoperative complications between day-care and in-patient cataract surgery. This is based on one detailed and methodologically sound trial conducted in the developed world. The success, safety and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery as a day-care procedure appears to be acceptable but additional well-designed trials are required to confirm these perceptions.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗