PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Randomized controlled trial as topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

The effectiveness of protective behavioral strategies for reducing alcohol use and alcohol-related harms among adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Excessive alcohol consumption is a major public health concern. Protective behavioral strategies (PBS) are widely incorporated into alcohol interventions, but their effectiveness and role as mechanisms of behavior change remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of PBS-based interventions on alcohol consumption, alcohol-related harms, and PBS use. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and ProQuest were searched from inception to December 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (≥18 years) delivering PBS as an active intervention component. Random-effects meta-analyses using Hedges' g examined alcohol quantity, drinking frequency, alcohol-related problems, and PBS use. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included, predominantly involving young adults attending U.S. universities. PBS interventions increased protective strategy use (g=0.23, p=0.005 after outlier removal), but alcohol effects were modest: no change in quantity (g=-0.05, p=0.162), small reduction in frequency (g=-0.09, p=0.014), and marginal reduction in problems (g=-0.07, p=0.052; significant in sensitivity analysis). Subgroup findings suggested greater effects at longer follow-up and when PBS was incorporated into multi-component interventions. Evidence supporting PBS as a mechanism of change was limited and inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: PBS-based interventions produce modest, context-dependent effects on alcohol outcomes. Most evidence comes from young U.S. university students, underscoring the need for studies in more diverse adult populations and further mechanistic research.

Humans

Comparative efficacy of LDL-C-lowering therapies in first-time vs. recurrent myocardial infarction prevention: a meta-analysis of large-scale randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Reducing elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is central to global efforts to prevent myocardial infarction (MI). While many studies have evaluated LDL-C-lowering therapies in first-time and recurrent MI prevention, direct comparisons of their relative efficacy are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of LDL-C-lowering therapies in first-time vs. recurrent MI prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched three databases until 30 November 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up. Efficacy was quantified as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Differences in benefit magnitude were assessed using Cochran's Q test. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic. Additionally, we applied the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to evaluate study quality and utilized the GRADE method to assess the certainty of the evidence. This study included 22 large-scale RCTs involving 180 304 participants. In first-time MI prevention, LDL-C-lowering therapies achieved a remarkable 38% reduction in MI risk [12 RCTs; 79 604 participants; RR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69); P < 0.001]. In recurrent MI prevention, these therapies were associated with a more modest but significant 16% risk reduction [11 RCTs; 100 700 participants; RR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88); P < 0.001]. Importantly, the benefit magnitude between the two groups was significantly different (Q = 22.63; P < 0.001), highlighting the greater relative benefit in first-time MI prevention. Furthermore, the robustness of our findings was consistently supported by leave-one-out analyses, the absence of publication bias, high-quality GRADE evidence, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that LDL-C-lowering therapies may offer a greater benefit in preventing first-time MI compared with recurrent MI.

Humans

Electronic Nudges to Increase Influenza Vaccination in Immunosuppressed Adults Across the Age Spectrum: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Nationwide Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressed individuals face higher risk of severe influenza complications, yet vaccination coverage remains low. We aimed to assess the effect of electronic letter-based nudges on influenza vaccination uptake by immunosuppression status. METHODS: We performed a participant-level pooled analysis of 2 methodologically harmonized, nationwide, pragmatic randomized clinical trials during the 2023-2024 influenza season. Adults aged &#x2265;65 years (NUDGE-FLU-2) and adults aged 18-64 years with chronic conditions (NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC) were included, with immunosuppression defined by an immunosuppressive diagnosis or a filled prescription for immunosuppressive therapy. Participants were randomized in a 2.45:1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to usual care or 1 of 6 electronic letter interventions. The primary outcome was receipt of influenza vaccination by 1 January 2024 ascertained from nationwide administrative health registries. Effect modification by immunosuppression status was assessed using binomial regression. RESULTS: Among 1 181 254 participants (mean age 67 years; 73 830 [6.3%] immunosuppressed), 66.1% were vaccinated. Any letter increased vaccine uptake compared with usual care (absolute difference, 2.79% points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-2.98; P < .001), with greater effect among immunosuppressed individuals (+4.12 vs +2.70% points; Pinteraction = .002). In younger adults with chronic conditions, letter-based nudges increased vaccination rates by 11.7% points overall and by 13.3% points among those with immunosuppression (Pinteraction = .007). Among immunosuppressed individuals, nudging effects appeared greater for those with immunosuppressive conditions than for those receiving immunosuppressive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic letter-based nudges increased influenza vaccination rates, with greater benefit among immunosuppressed individuals. These findings support implementation of low-cost, letter-based nudging strategies to improve vaccine uptake in this high-risk population. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT06030726 and NCT06030739.

Adolescent

Treatment preference for once-weekly versus once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although once-weekly and once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors have gained widespread market recognition, patient preference differences remain a key focus. This meta-analysis compares treatment preferences for once-weekly versus once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors in T2DM, offering evidence to guide clinical decisions and healthcare policies. METHODS: PubMed, OVID, EBSCO, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and clinical trial registries were searched up to June 30, 2025. After screening literature against predefined criteria, a systematic review was conducted to compare the effects of once-weekly and once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors on the treatment preferences of patients with T2DM. RESULTS: 8 RCTs with 1,575 participants were analyzed. No significant difference in medication adherence and DTSQ total score between the once-weekly and once-daily groups (p > 0.05). HbA1c percentage (MD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.01], p < 0.05) decreased significantly with once-weekly dosing, while GA and FPG showed no change (p > 0.05), this suggests greater improvement in HbA1c percentage levels following a switch to once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitors. Once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitors showed higher musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorder risk (RR = 2.63; 95% CI [1.18, 5.83]), but no significant differences in other adverse events (p > 0.05). No significant differences in treatment burden between both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant association between treatment preferences for once-weekly versus once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors among T2DM patients and medication adherence, treatment satisfaction, glycemic level changes, safety, or treatment burden for these two dosing regimens. Further research is needed to elucidate the influence of physician prescribing behavior on these preferences.

Humans

Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the (1) timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatology, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to publication, and (3) factors associated with publication delays. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 for Phase 3, superiority, parallel-design RCTs that evaluated any treatment for a rheumatologic illness or a rheumatologic treatment for COVID-19 and reported clinical primary efficacy outcome. Outcomes of interest were time to publication after trial completion and publication delay of >2 years after trial completion. RESULTS: 448 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Median time from completion to publication was 549 days and 65.9 % RCTs were published within 2 years of completion. Compared with RCTs on rheumatologic diseases, RCTs on COVID-19 were published sooner (253 vs. 549 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.49, 95 % CI 2.07 to 43.61). Compared with RCTs completed before March 1, 2020, RCTs completed after March 1, 2020, were published sooner (327 vs. 724 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.40, 95 % CI 5.14 to 17.21). Time from RCT completion to submission accounted for most (67 %) of the time to publication. CONCLUSIONS: Publication delay continues to be an important concern in dissemination of clinical research. Most of the delays in publication were attributable to delays in submission to journals after trial completion.

Humans

Neuromodulation for Subjective Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of neuromodulation and bimodal stimulation for chronic subjective tinnitus in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE (January 2015-December 2025) searched per PRISMA 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Adult RCTs (&#x2265;&#x2009;18&#x2009;years) with chronic subjective tinnitus (>&#x2009;3&#x2009;months) assessing validated outcomes (THI, TFI, TQ) for neuromodulation/bimodal interventions vs. sham/controls. Two-stage screening, Cochrane RoB-2 risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects meta-analyses (REML) were performed when &#x2265;&#x2009;3 comparable trials were available; effects reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and measures included change in tinnitus severity (THI/TFI/TQ) while secondary outcomes included loudness (VAS/NRS), durability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;1576) met criteria: tES (11; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;372), rTMS (8; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;432), acoustic coordinated reset (1; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;100), vagus nerve stimulation (2; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;90), and bimodal stimulation (4; n&#x2009;=&#x2009;582). Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant pooled effect for tDCS (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.75 to 0.02; I 2&#x2009;=&#x2009;51%) and rTMS (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.07; I 2&#x2009;=&#x2009;0%). Single-trial evidence for coordinated reset showed no advantage over broadband noise. VNS demonstrated modest benefits with safety concerns limited to implanted approaches. Bimodal stimulation yielded consistent, clinically meaningful reductions (often &#x2265;&#x2009;10-20 points on THI/TFI), with durability up to 12&#x2009;months. Adverse events were mild/transient across noninvasive modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive neuromodulation appears safe with average benefits; among modalities, bimodal stimulation shows the most consistent and durable clinical improvements. Standardized, adequately powered RCTs with harmonized protocols and long-term follow-up are needed to refine targets and dosing.

Humans

Efficacy and Safety of Bimagrumab in Adults With Obesity and Metabolic Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AIMS: This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of bimagrumab on body composition and glucose parameters in adults with obesity and metabolic dysfunction and its safety profile. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on April 20, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing bimagrumab treatment in adults with obesity, insulin resistance, or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2), and meta-analyses of efficacy and safety data were conducted using R software. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the strength of evidence. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261377110). RESULTS: Of the 134 retrieved records, 4 RCTs (enrolling 268 participants) were included. The included population represented a broad spectrum of metabolic dysfunction, from obesity and nondiabetic insulin resistance to established T2DM. Compared with placebo, bimagrumab treatment significantly reduced total weight (mean difference [MD] -4.85&#x2009;kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.82 to -2.88), fat mass (-4.72&#x2009;kg [-8.05 to -1.40]), and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (-0.13% [-0.23 to -0.03]) and significantly increased total lean mass (1.66&#x2009;kg [0.81 to 2.51]). However, bimagrumab led to an increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations of 0.47&#x2009;mmol/L [0.03 to 0.91] and significantly increased incidences of discontinuation (risk ratio [RR] 5.75 [1.61 to 20.46]), muscle spasms (RR 10.44 [4.23 to 25.75]), and diarrhoea (RR 4.91 [2.38 to 10.11]). CONCLUSION: Bimagrumab effectively reversed adverse effects on body composition in obese individuals, resulting in significant fat reduction, increased skeletal muscle mass, and improved glycemic control, suggesting that bimagrumab is a promising new target for personalized metabolic therapy.

Humans

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for ERBB2-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With or Without Brain Metastases: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Brain metastases reduce overall survival rates of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); patients with epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2])-mutant NSCLC are more likely to have baseline brain metastases. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is an approved ERBB2-directed treatment for previously treated unresectable or metastatic ERBB2-mutant NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg and 6.4 mg/kg doses in patients with previously treated ERBB2-mutant metastatic NSCLC with or without untreated or previously treated stable brain metastases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc secondary analysis pooled patients from the DESTINY-Lung01 (data cutoff date: December 3, 2021) and DESTINY-Lung02 (data cutoff date: December 23, 2022) clinical trials by T-DXd dose (5.4 mg/kg and 6.4 mg/kg). DESTINY-Lung01 was a multicenter, open-label, 2-cohort, nonrandomized phase 2 study, while DESTINY-Lung02 was a dose-blinded, multicenter, 2-cohort, randomized phase 2 study. Participants had a previously treated ERBB2-mutant metastatic NSCLC with or without untreated or previously treated stable brain metastases at baseline. All statistical analyses were performed from April 2023 to October 2024. INTERVENTION: Patients received a T-DXd dose of either 5.4 mg/kg or 6.4 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Systemic and intracranial effectiveness by blinded independent central review using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1, sites of progression, and safety. RESULTS: This analysis included 102 patients in the T-DXd 5.4-mg/kg dose group (65 females [64%]; median [range] age, 57.5 [37.0-83.0] years and 59.5 [30.0-79.0] years in patients with and without brain metastases, respectively) and 141 patients in the T-DXd 6.4-mg/kg dose group (94 females [67%]; median [range] age, 62.5 [29.0-88.0] years and 59.0 [27.0-83.0] years in patients with and without brain metastases, respectively). In each group, 31% (32 of 102) and 38% (54 of 141) of patients, respectively, had baseline brain metastases and 53% (17 of 32) and 44% (24 of 54), respectively, received prior brain metastasis treatment. In patients with and without brain metastases, systemic confirmed objective response rates (ORRs) were 47% (15 of 32; 95% CI, 29%-65%) and 50% (35 of 70; 95% CI, 38%-62%), respectively, with the T-DXd 5.4-mg/kg dose, and 50% (27 of 54; 95% CI, 36%-64%) and 59% (51 of 87; 95% CI, 48%-69%) with the T-DXd 6.4-mg/kg dose. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 (95% CI, 5.5-9.7) months in the T-DXd 5.4-mg/kg dose group and 7.1 (95% CI, 4.5-9.6) months in the T-DXd 6.4-mg/kg dose group of patients with baseline brain metastases. Among patients with measurable baseline brain metastases, intracranial confirmed ORRs were 50% (7 of 14; 95% CI, 23%-77%) with the T-DXd 5.4-mg/kg dose and 30% (9 of 30; 95% CI, 15%-49%) with the T-DXd 6.4-mg/kg dose. At both doses, the safety profile of T-DXd was generally manageable, regardless of baseline brain metastases, favoring the T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg dose. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis, T-DXd at the approved dose of 5.4 mg/kg showed antitumor activity in patients with previously treated ERBB2-mutant metastatic NSCLC with or without brain metastases. This finding supports T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg use in this population.

Adult

Pharmacological Interventions for Weight Reduction in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Significant weight gain is a concerning adverse effect of antipsychotic medications experienced by patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs). Its high prevalence and significant contribution to cardiometabolic morbidity in this population warrant better consensus on the management of antipsychotic-induced weight gain and related comorbidity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between pharmacological interventions and changes in body weight among antipsychotic-treated patients with SSDs. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal were searched up to December 5, 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials examining any pharmacological intervention for weight reduction in antipsychotic-treated patients with SSDs were included. No restrictions to study duration were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A systematic review and frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool. The first round of data analysis took place between May 2025 to November 2025 and was updated in December 2025. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in body weight following treatment with pharmacological agent vs placebo or standard care. Secondary outcomes included other anthropometric and metabolic parameters. RESULTS: A total of 95 studies examining 39 individual pharmacological interventions were included in this review (pooled N&#x2009;=&#x2009;5898). The network meta-analysis found that semaglutide (mean difference [MD], -10.98 kg; 95% CI, -13.33 to -8.62; k&#x2009;=&#x2009;3; moderate certainty), liraglutide (MD, -5.43 kg; 95% CI, -8.54 to -2.33; k&#x2009;=&#x2009;2; moderate certainty), topiramate (MD, -3.95 kg; 95% CI, -5.89 to -2.02; k&#x2009;=&#x2009;5; moderate certainty), metformin (MD, -3.86 kg; 95% CI, -5.02 to -2.70; k&#x2009;=&#x2009;16; moderate certainty), and exenatide (MD, -2.97 kg; 95% CI, -5.83 to -0.11; k&#x2009;=&#x2009;3; moderate certainty) were associated with the most significant reductions in body weight compared to placebo. Other interventions including ramelteon, nizatidine, and aripiprazole were also found to be associated with weight-reducing effects but with very low certainty of evidence. Clinically meaningful weight change of 5% or greater was observed with semaglutide and metformin. Beneficial effects on other metabolic outcomes were also noted with several of the medications, and there were no major concerns with gastrointestinal adverse effects or leaving the study early (ie, dropouts) between interventions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and network meta-analysis found substantial variability in weight-related outcomes across pharmacological interventions for antipsychotic-treated individuals with SSDs. Semaglutide, liraglutide, topiramate, metformin, and exenatide were associated with the greatest reductions in body weight and were supported by the highest-certainty evidence, providing guidance for clinicians managing antipsychotic-associated weight gain.

Humans

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I&#xb2; = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I&#xb2; = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I&#xb2; = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I&#xb2; = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I&#xb2; = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (&#x2265; 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children.

BACKGROUND: In 2023, an estimated 1.3 million children (aged 0-14 years) became ill with tuberculosis, and 166,000 children (aged 0-15 years) died from the disease. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a molecular World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid diagnostic test that detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2020 and last updated in 2022. Parts of the current update informed the 2024 WHO updated guidance for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance in children (aged 0-9 years) with presumed tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and three trial registers without language restrictions to 6 October 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: For study design, we included cross-sectional and cohort studies and randomized trials that evaluated Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children aged birth to nine years. Regarding specimen type, we included studies evaluating sputum, gastric, stool, or nasopharyngeal specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis); cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis); and fine needle aspirate or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). Reference standards for detection of tuberculosis were microbiological reference standard (MRS; including culture) or composite reference standard (CRS); for stool, we considered Xpert Ultra in sputum or gastric aspirates in addition to culture. Reference standards for detection of rifampicin resistance in sputum were phenotypic drug susceptibility testing or targeted or whole genome sequencing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the tailored QUADAS-2 tool, judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and sample type. We conducted separate meta-analyses for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance. We used a bivariate model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 23 studies (including 9 new studies since the previous review) that evaluated detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (21 studies, 9223 children), tuberculous meningitis (3 studies, 215 children), lymph node tuberculosis (2 studies, 58 children), and rifampicin resistance (3 studies, 130 children). Seventeen studies (74%) took place in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Overall, risk of bias and applicability concerns were low. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (microbiological reference standard) Sputum (11 studies) Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity was 75.3% (95% CI 68.9% to 80.8%; 345 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 95.9% (95% CI 92.3% to 97.9%; 2645 children; high-certainty evidence). Gastric aspirate (12 studies) Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity was 69.6% (95% CI 60.3% to 77.6%; 167 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 91.0% (95% CI 82.5% to 95.6%; 1792 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Stool (10 studies) Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity was 68.0% (95% CI 50.3% to 81.7%; 255 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 96.3% to 99.1%; 2630 children; high-certainty evidence). Nasopharyngeal aspirate (6 studies) Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity was 46.2% (95% CI 34.9% to 57.9%; 94 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.5% (95% CI 95.1% to 98.7%; 1259 children; high-certainty evidence). Xpert Ultra sensitivity was lower against CRS than against MRS for all specimen types, while the specificities were similar. Extrapulmonary tuberculosis Meta-analysis was not possible for lymph node tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis due to low study numbers. Interpretation of results For a population of 1000 children, where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis: In sputum: &#x2022; 112 would be Xpert Ultra positive, of whom 75 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (true positives) and 37 would not (false positives). &#x2022; 888 would be Xpert Ultra negative, of whom 863 would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (true negatives) and 25 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). In gastric aspirate: &#x2022; 151 would be Xpert Ultra positive, of whom 70 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (true positives) and 81 would not (false positives). &#x2022; 849 would be Xpert Ultra negative, of whom 819 would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (true negatives) and 30 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). In stool: &#x2022; 85 would be Xpert Ultra positive, of whom 68 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (true positives) and 17 would not (false positives). &#x2022; 915 would be Xpert Ultra negative, of whom 883 would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (true negatives) and 32 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). In nasopharyngeal aspirate: &#x2022; 68 would be Xpert Ultra positive, of whom 46 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (true positives) and 22 would not (false positives). &#x2022; 932 would be Xpert Ultra negative, of whom 878 would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (true negatives), and 54 would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). Detection of rifampicin resistance Three studies with 76 children evaluated detection of rifampicin resistance (sputum only); two of these studies reported no cases and one reported rifampicin resistance in two children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra sensitivity was moderate in sputum, gastric aspirate, and stool specimens. Nasopharyngeal aspirate had the lowest sensitivity. Xpert Ultra specificity was high against both MRS and CRS. We were unable to determine the accuracy of Xpert Ultra for detecting tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance due to a paucity of data. FUNDING: This update was funded through WHO. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was originally published through Cochrane in 2019. The protocol for this update was a generic protocol that consolidated previously published Cochrane protocols of Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis detection and can be accessed at https://osf.io/26wg7/. Protocol (2019) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013359 Original review (2020) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013359.pub2 Review update (2022) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013359.pub3.

Adolescent

Thymosin-&#x251;1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-&#x251;1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-&#x3b1;1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-&#x251;1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-&#x3b1;1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-&#x3b1;1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-&#x251;1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-&#x251;1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-&#x251;1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I&#xb2; = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I&#xb2; = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I&#xb2; = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin&#x2011;&#x3b1;1 administration for any outcome (P &#x2265; 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-&#x3b1;1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I&#xb2; = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I&#xb2; = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I&#xb2; = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I&#xb2; = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I&#xb2; = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long&#x2011;term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic