Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004
Review Meta AnalysisEffect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure.
Many randomised trials assessing the effect of salt reduction on blood pressure show reduction in blood pressure in individuals with high blood pressure. However, there is controversy about the magnitude and the clinical significance of the fall in blood pressure in individuals with normal blood pressure. Several meta-analyses of randomised salt reduction trials have been published in the last few years. However, most of these included trials of very short duration (e.g. 5 days) and included trials with salt loading followed by salt deprivation (e.g. from 20 to 1 g/day) over only a few days. These short-term experiments are not appropriate to inform public health policy which is for a modest reduction in salt intake over a prolonged period of time. A meta-analysis by Hooper et al is an important attempt to look at whether advice to achieve a long-term salt reduction (i.e. more than 6 months) in randomised trials causes a fall in blood pressure. However, most trials included in this meta-analysis achieved a small reduction in salt intake; on average, salt intake was reduced by 2 g/day. It is, therefore, not surprising that this analysis showed a small fall in blood pressure, and that a dose-response to salt reduction was not demonstrable. ⋯ Our meta-analysis demonstrates that a modest reduction in salt intake for a duration of 4 or more weeks has a significant and, from a population viewpoint, important effect on blood pressure in both individuals with normal and elevated blood pressure. These results support other evidence suggesting that a modest and long-term reduction in population salt intake could reduce strokes, heart attacks, and heart failure. Furthermore, our meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the magnitude of salt reduction and the magnitude of blood pressure reduction. Within the daily intake range of 3 to 12 g/day, the lower the salt intake achieved, the lower the blood pressure.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004
ReviewOral immunoglobulin for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth-weight neonates.
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most common emergency of the gastrointestinal tract occurring in the neonatal period. There have been published reports which suggest that oral immunoglobulins IgA and IgG produce an immunoprotective effect in the gastrointestinal mucosa. This systematic review was undertaken to clarify the issue. ⋯ Based on the available trials, the evidence does not support the administration of oral immunoglobulin for the prevention of NEC. There are no randomised controlled trials of oral IgA alone for the prevention of NEC.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004
ReviewCommunity-based interventions for the prevention of burns and scalds in children.
Burns and scalds are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in children. Successful counter-measures to prevent burn and scald-related injury have been identified. However, evidence indicating the successful roll-out of these counter-measures into the wider community is lacking. Community-based interventions in the form of multi-strategy, multi-focused programmes are hypothesised to result in a reduction in population-wide injury rates. This review tests this hypothesis with regards to burn and scald injury in children. ⋯ There are a very limited number of research studies allowing conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of community-based injury prevention programmes to prevent burns and scalds in children. There is a pressing need to evaluate high-quality community-based intervention programmes based on efficacious counter-measures to reduce burns and scalds in children. It is important that a framework for considering the problem of burns/scalds in children from a prevention perspective be articulated, and that an evidence-based suite of interventions be combined to create programme guidelines suitable for implementation in communities throughout the world.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004
ReviewNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus opioids for acute renal colic.
Renal colic is a common cause of acute severe pain. Both opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended for treatment, but the relative efficacy of these drugs is uncertain. ⋯ Both NSAIDs and opioids can provide effective analgesia in acute renal colic. Opioids are associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly vomiting. Given the high rate of vomiting associated with the use of opioids, particularly pethidine, and the greater likelihood of requiring further analgesia, we recommend that if an opioid is to be used it should not be pethidine.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2004
Review Meta AnalysisDual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block.
Dual chamber pacing or single chamber atrial pacing ('physiologic' pacing) is believed to have an advantage over single chamber ventricular pacing in that it resembles cardiac physiology more closely by maintaining atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and dominance of the sinus node, which in turn may reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality thus contributing to patient survival and quality of life. However, a significant proportion of pacemakers currently implanted are single chamber ventricular pacemakers. ⋯ This review shows a trend towards greater effectiveness with dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber ventricular pacing, which supports the current British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's Guidelines regarding atrioventricular block. Additional randomised controlled trial evidence from ongoing trials in this area will further inform the debate.