Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Nov 2021
Review Retraction Of PublicationInterventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth.
This review has been withdrawn because it does it does not include recent evidence and does not reflect up-to-date Cochrane methodological standards.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Nov 2021
Review Retraction Of PublicationPharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: effects by subgroup defined by genetically informed biomarkers.
This review has been withdrawn because it has been found to be in breach of the Cochrane Commercial Sponsorship policy clause 2: 'Individuals who are currently employed or where employed any time in the last three years by a company that has a real or potential financial interest in the outcome of the review (including but not limited to drug companies or medical device manufacturers); or who hold or have applied for a patent related to the review are prohibited from being Cochrane Review authors. In most cases, current or previous employment would be characterized by the affiliation statement made by the author at the title registration, protocol, or review stage of the review'.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jul 2021
Comment Review Retraction Of PublicationHand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.
This Cochrane Review has been withdrawn from publication. Errors were identified in the data extraction process and in the reporting of results, and as such the findings of the review may not be reliable. The authors and the Cochrane Neonatal Co-ordinating Editor agreed to withdraw the review, following an internal investigation. The authors are undertaking a full revision of this Cochrane Review, with the intention of publishing a new version.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Mar 2021
Review Retraction Of Publication Meta AnalysisTreatment for Barrett's oesophagus.
This review has been withdrawn because it has been split into the following reviews: 'Pharmaceutical interventions for Barrett's oesophagus' and 'Endoscopic interventions for Barrett's oesophagus'.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2021
Review Meta Analysis Retracted PublicationHand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.
Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. ⋯ Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain. The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.