Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Incontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine leakage and protect their clothes. It can be difficult to define light urinary incontinence because urine volumes, flow and frequency rates may vary substantially whilst still being considered 'light'. Light incontinence may encompass occasional (monthly) leaks of very small amounts (e.g. 1 g to 2 g) up to frequent leaks (several times per day) of larger amounts (e.g. 20 g to 50 g). A practical definition is urine loss that can be contained within a small absorbent pad (typically 50 g to 500 g; ISO 1996). ⋯ Although data were available from only one eligible trial the data were sufficiently robust to make recommendations for practice. Disposable insert pads are typically more effective than the other designs considered. However, because they are the most expensive, providing choice of designs (or combinations of designs for different circumstances) is likely to be cost-effective.
-
Fungating wounds arise from primary, secondary or recurrent malignant disease and are associated with advanced cancer. A small proportion of patients may achieve healing following surgical excision but treatment is usually palliative. Fungating wound management usually aims to slow disease progression and optimise quality of life by alleviating physical symptoms, such as copious exudate, malodour, pain and the risk of haemorrhage, through appropriate dressing and topical agent selection. ⋯ There is weak evidence from one small trial that 6% miltefosine solution applied topically to people with superficial fungating breast lesions (smaller than 1cm) who have received either previous radiotherapy, surgery, hormonal therapy or chemotherapy for their breast cancer may slow disease progression. There is insufficient evidence in this review to give a clear direction for practice with regard to improving quality of life or managing wound symptoms associated with fungating wounds. More research is needed.
-
Grant giving relies heavily on peer review for the assessment of the quality of proposals but the evidence of effects of these procedures is scarce. ⋯ There is little empirical evidence on the effects of grant giving peer review. No studies assessing the impact of peer review on the quality of funded research are presently available. Experimental studies assessing the effects of grant giving peer review on importance, relevance, usefulness, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of funded research are urgently needed. Practices aimed to control and evaluate the potentially negative effects of peer review should be implemented meanwhile.