Probiotics and diarrhoea management in enterally tube fed critically ill patients : what is the evidence?

Objective: The aim of this literature review is to identify the role of probiotics in the management of enteral tube feeding (ETF) diarrhoea in critically ill patients.---------- Background: Diarrhoea is a common gastrointestinal problem seen in ETF patients. The incidence of diarrhoea in tube fed patients varies from 2% to 68% across all patients. Despite extensive investigation, the pathogenesis surrounding ETF diarrhoea remains unclear. Evidence to support probiotics to manage ETF diarrhoea in critically ill patients remains sparse.---------- Method: Literature on ETF diarrhoea and probiotics in critically ill, adult patients was reviewed from 1980 to 2010. The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Science Direct, Medline and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases were searched using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Key search terms used were: enteral nutrition, diarrhoea, critical illness, probiotics, probiotic species and randomised clinical control trial (RCT).---------- Results: Four RCT papers were identified with two reporting full studies, one reporting a pilot RCT and one conference abstract reporting an RCT pilot study. A trend towards a reduction in diarrhoea incidence was observed in the probiotic groups. However, mortality associated with probiotic use in some severely and critically ill patients must caution the clinician against its use.---------- Conclusion: Evidence to support probiotic use in the management of ETF diarrhoea in critically ill patients remains unclear. This paper argues that probiotics should not be administered to critically ill patients until further research has been conducted to examine the causal relationship between probiotics and mortality, irrespective of the patient's disease state or projected prophylactic benefit of probiotic administration.

Structured Telephone Support or Telemonitoring Programs for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Background: Specialised disease management programmes for chronic heart failure (CHF) improve survival, quality of life and reduce healthcare utilisation. The overall efficacy of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as an individual component of a CHF disease management strategy remains inconclusive. Objectives: To review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of structured telephone support or telemonitoring compared to standard practice for patients with CHF in order to quantify the effects of these interventions over and above usual care for these patients. Search strategy: Databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Citation Index on ISI Web of Knowledge) and various search engines were searched from 2006 to November 2008 to update a previously published non-Cochrane review. Bibliographies of relevant studies and systematic reviews and abstract conference proceedings were handsearched. No language limits were applied. Selection criteria: Only peer reviewed, published RCTs comparing structured telephone support or telemonitoring to usual care of CHF patients were included. Unpublished abstract data was included in sensitivity analyses. The intervention or usual care could not include a home visit or more than the usual (four to six weeks) clinic follow-up. Data collection and analysis: Data were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, all-cause and CHF-related hospitalisations which were meta-analysed using fixed effects models. Other outcomes included length of stay, quality of life, acceptability and cost and these were described and tabulated. Main results: Twenty-five studies and five published abstracts were included. Of the 25 full peer-reviewed studies meta-analysed, 16 evaluated structured telephone support (5613 participants), 11 evaluated telemonitoring (2710 participants), and two tested both interventions (included in counts). Telemonitoring reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.81, P < 0.0001) with structured telephone support demonstrating a non-significant positive effect (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01, P = 0.08). Both structured telephone support (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, P < 0.0001) and telemonitoring (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94, P = 0.008) reduced CHF-related hospitalisations. For both interventions, several studies improved quality of life, reduced healthcare costs and were acceptable to patients. Improvements in prescribing, patient knowledge and self-care, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were observed. Authors' conclusions: Structured telephone support and telemonitoring are effective in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality and CHF-related hospitalisations in patients with CHF; they improve quality of life, reduce costs, and evidence-based prescribing.

Editoral : Correspondence regarding Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. The Lancet 2011; 378: 731–39. Published 20 August 2011.

We read the excellent review of telemonitoring in chronic heart failure (CHF)1 with interest and commend the authors on the proposed classification of telemedical remote management systems according to the type of data transfer, decision ability and level of integration. However, several points require clarification in relation to our Cochrane review of telemonitoring and structured telephone support2. We included a study by Kielblock3. We corresponded directly with this study team specifically to find out whether or not this was a randomised study and were informed that it was a randomised trial, albeit by date of birth. We note in our review2 that this randomisation method carries a high risk of bias. Post-hoc metaanalyses without these data demonstrate no substantial change to the effect estimates for all cause mortality (original risk ratio (RR) 0·66 [95% CI 0·54, 0·81], p<0·0001; revised RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·57, 0·92], p=0·008), all-cause hospitalisation (original RR 0·91 [95% CI 0·84, 0·99] p=0·02; revised RR 0.92 [95% CI 0·84, 1·02], p=0·10 ) or CHF-related hospitalisation (original RR 0·79 [95% CI 0·67, 0·94] p=0·008; revised RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60, 0·94] p=0·01). Secondly, we would classify the Tele-HF study4, 5 as structured telephone support, rather than telemonitoring. Again, inclusion of these data alters the point-estimate but not the overall result of the meta-analyses4. Finally, our review2 does not include invasive telemonitoring as the search strategy was not designed to capture these studies. Therefore direct comparison of our review findings with recent studies of these interventions is not recommended.

New Evidence for Structured Telephone Support in the Management of Patients with Heart Failure [Letter to Editor]

Letter to the Editor of New England Journal of Medicine on behalf of the Cochrane Systematic Review team.

Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities

Background: Cancer patients experience distress and anxiety related to their diagnosis, treatment and the unfamiliar cancer centre. Strategies with the aim of orienting patients to a cancer care facility may improve patient outcomes. Although meeting patients' information needs at different stages is important, there is little agreement about the type of information and the timing for information to be given. Orientation interventions aim to address information needs at the start of a person's experience with a cancer care facility. The extent of any benefit of these interventions is unknown. Objectives: To assess the effects of information interventions which orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility, and to the services available in the facility. Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to Jun 2011), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1966 to Jun 2011), CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to Jun 2011), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1966 to Jun 2011), review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted principal investigators and experts in the field. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of information interventions that orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility. Data collection and analysis: Results of searches were reviewed against the pre-determined criteria for inclusion by two review authors. The primary outcomes were knowledge and understanding; health status and wellbeing, evaluation of care, and harms. Secondary outcomes were communication, skills acquisition, behavioural outcomes, service delivery, and health professional outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: We included four RCTs involving 610 participants. All four trials aimed to investigate the effects of orientation programs for cancer patients to a cancer facility. There was high risk of bias across studies. Findings from two of the RCTs demonstrated significant benefits of the orientation intervention in relation to levels of distress (mean difference (MD) -8.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.79 to -6.13), but non-significant benefits in relation to state anxiety levels (MD -9.77 (95% CI -24.96 to 5.41). Other outcomes for participants were generally positive (e.g. more knowledgeable about the cancer centre and cancer therapy, better coping abilities). No harms or adverse effects were measured or reported by any of the included studies. There were insufficient data on the other outcomes of interest. Authors conclusion: This review has demonstrated the feasibility and some potential benefits of orientation interventions. There was a low level of evidence suggesting that orientation interventions can reduce distress in patients. However, most of the other outcomes remain inconclusive (patient knowledge recall/ satisfaction). The majority of studies were subject to high risk of bias, and were likely to be insufficiently powered. Further well conducted and powered RCTs are required to provide evidence for determining the most appropriate intensity, nature, mode and resources for such interventions. Patient and carer-focused outcomes should be included.

A systematic review : the effects of orientation programs for cancer patients and their family/carers

Objectives To assess the effects of information interventions which orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility and the services available within the facility. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Methods We included studies evaluating the effect of an orientation intervention, compared with a control group which received usual care, or with trials comparing one orientation intervention with another orientation intervention. Results Four RCTs of 610 participants met the criteria for inclusion. Findings from two RCTs demonstrated significant benefits of the orientation intervention in relation to reduced levels of distress (mean difference (MD): −8.96, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): −11.79 to −6.13), but non-significant benefits in relation to the levels state anxiety levels (MD −9.77) (95%CI: −24.96 to 5.41). There are insufficient data on the other outcomes of interest. Conclusions This review has demonstrated the feasibility and some potential benefits of orientation interventions. There was a low level of evidence to suggest that orientation interventions can reduce distress in patients. However, other outcomes, including patient knowledge recall/satisfaction, remain inconclusive. The majority of trials were subjected to high risk of bias and were likely to be insufficiently powered. Further well conducted and powered RCTs are required to provide evidence for determining the most appropriate intensity, nature, mode and resources for such interventions. Patient and carer-focused outcomes should be included.

Is flapless implant surgery a viable option in posterior maxilla? : a review

This article reviews the literature on the outcome of flapless surgery for dental implants in the posterior maxilla. The literature search was carried out in using the keywords: flapless, dental implants and maxilla. A hand search and Medline search were carried out on studies published between 1971 and 2011. The authors included research involving a minimum of 15 dental implants with a followup period of 1 year, an outcome measurement of implant survival, but excluded studies involving multiple simultaneous interventions, and studies with missing data. The Cochrane approach for cohort studies and Oxford Centre for Evidence- Based Medicine were applied. Of the 56 published papers selected, 14 papers on the flapless technique showed high overall implant survival rates. The prospective studies yielded 97.01% (95% CI: 90.72–99.0) while retrospective studies or case series illustrated 95.08% (95% CI: 91.0–97.93) survival. The average of intraoperative complications was 6.55% using the flapless procedure. The limited data obtained showed that flapless surgery in posterior maxilla areas could be a viable and predictable treatment method for implant placement. Flapless surgery tends to be more applicable in this area of the mouth. Further long-term clinical controlled studies are needed.

Re-examining the evidence in radiation dermatitis management literature : an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Purpose: To provide an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs) of published interventions for the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis. Methods and Materials: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We also manually searched through individual reference lists of potentially eligible articles and a number of key journals in the topic area. Two authors screened all potential articles and included eligible SRs. Two authors critically appraised and extracted key findings from the included reviews using AMSTAR (the measurement tool for “assessment of multiple systematic reviews”). Results: Of 1837 potential titles, 6 SRs were included. A number of interventions have been reported to be potentially beneficial for managing radiation dermatitis. Interventions evaluated in these reviews included skin care advice, steroidal/nonsteroidal topical agents, systemic therapies, modes of radiation delivery, and dressings. However, all the included SRs reported that there is insufficient evidence supporting any single effective intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies varied, and methodological shortfalls in these reviews might create biases to the overall results or recommendations for clinical practice. Conclusions: An up-to-date high-quality SR in the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis is needed to guide practice and direction for future research. We recommend that clinicians or guideline developers critically evaluate the information of SRs in their decision making.