Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
September 2016 updated withdrawal notice This Cochrane Review was withdrawn in April 2015, and this withdrawal notice was updated in September 2016. The review was withdrawn as result of comments submitted via the Cochrane Library by Harri Hemilä in February 2015. Hemilä identified multiple errors in this Cochrane Review and made allegations of plagiarism of text and data from a previously published systematic review (Hemilä H. ⋯ April 2015 withdrawal notice This review was withdrawn due to concerns raised via the feedback mechanism regarding the calculation and analysis of data in the review in April 2015. Whilst it is not unusual for reviews to be withdrawn, the editorial group took the view that it would be better to take a cautious approach and explore the source and calculation of data used in the analysis in more detail, rather than keep the review on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the time being. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
-
September 2016 updated withdrawal notice This Cochrane Review was withdrawn in April 2015, and this withdrawal notice was updated in September 2016. The review was withdrawn as result of comments submitted via the Cochrane Library by Harri Hemilä in February 2015. Hemilä identified multiple errors in this Cochrane Review and made allegations of plagiarism of text and data from a previously published systematic review (Hemilä H. ⋯ April 2015 withdrawal notice This review was withdrawn due to concerns raised via the feedback mechanism regarding the calculation and analysis of data in the review in April 2015. Whilst it is not unusual for reviews to be withdrawn, the editorial group took the view that it would be better to take a cautious approach and explore the source and calculation of data used in the analysis in more detail, rather than keep the review on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the time being. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Apr 2015
Review Meta AnalysisClinical symptoms, signs and tests for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people.
There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised. ⋯ There is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicate water-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a high proportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Apr 2015
Review Meta AnalysisClinical symptoms, signs and tests for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people.
There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised. ⋯ There is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicate water-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a high proportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Apr 2015
Review Meta AnalysisBarrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.
Pelvic adhesions can form as a result of inflammation, endometriosis or surgical trauma. During pelvic surgery, strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation include placing barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene or fibrin sheets between the pelvic structures. ⋯ We found no evidence on the effects of barrier agents used during pelvic surgery on either pain or fertility outcomes in women of reproductive age.Low quality evidence suggests that oxidised regenerated cellulose (Interceed), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and sodium hyaluronate with carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm) may all be more effective than no treatment in reducing the incidence of adhesion formation following pelvic surgery. There is no conclusive evidence on the relative effectiveness of these interventions. There is no evidence to suggest that fibrin sheet is more effective than no treatment. No adverse events directly attributed to the adhesion agents were reported. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The most common limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Most studies were commercially funded, and publication bias could not be ruled out.