Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jul 2007
ReviewInterventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.
An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to make and sustain a quit attempt. ⋯ High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. These interventions are effective regardless of the patient's admitting diagnosis. lnterventions of lower intensity or shorter duration have not been shown to be effective in this setting. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding NRT or bupropion to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone, but the evidence of benefit for NRT has strengthened in this update and the point estimates are compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT and bupropion are effective.
-
Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them lithium. ⋯ There is no randomised trial-based evidence that lithium on its own is an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium is inconclusive, but does justify further, large, simple and well-designed trials. These should concentrate on two target groups: 1) people with no affective symptoms, so that trialists can determine whether lithium has an effect on the core symptoms of schizophrenia, 2) people with schizoaffective disorders for whom lithium is widely used in clinical practice, although there is no evidence to support this use.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jul 2007
ReviewWITHDRAWN: Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction.
Intravenous thrombolytic therapy is the standard care for patients with acute myocardial infarction, based upon its widespread availability and ability to reduce patient mortality well demonstrated in randomised trials. Despite its proven efficacy, thrombolytic therapy has limitations. Many patients are ineligible for treatment with thrombolytics. Of those given thrombolytic therapy, 10 to 15 percent have persistent occlusion or reocclusion of the infarct-related artery. Consequently, primary angioplasty (primary PTCA) has been advocated as a better treatment of myocardial infarction. ⋯ This meta-analysis suggests that angioplasty provides a short-term clinical advantage over thrombolysis which may not be sustained. Primary angioplasty when available promptly at experienced centres, may be considered the preferred strategy for myocardial reperfusion. In most situations, however, optimal thrombolytic therapy should still be regarded as an excellent reperfusion strategy.
-
Faecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Electrical stimulation has been used with apparent success in the treatment of faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established. ⋯ At present, there are insufficient data to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn on the effects of electrical stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence. There is a suggestion that electrical stimulation may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. Larger, more generalisable trials are needed.
-
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The modern oral contraceptive pill is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited. ⋯ The limited data we found available suggests that this is no evidence of a difference in outcomes between the the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) studied and GnRH analogue was as effective as a GnRH analogue in treating for endometriosis-associated painful symptoms of endometriosis. However, the lack of studies with larger sample sizes, or focusing on other comparable treatments is concerning and further research is needed to fully evaluate fully the role of OCPs oral contraceptive pills in managing symptoms associated with ement of endometriosis.