Aim: To assess the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in accordance to PRISMA Statement. Through a comprehensive literature search we considered all randomized clinical trials that compared neurodevelopmental treatment with conventional physical therapy for children with cerebral palsy. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Table to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trial, and the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the body of the evidence. Results: We found 3 randomized clinical trials (2 published and 1 ongoing) comprising 66 children. Published randomized clinical trials presented methodological and reporting limitations and only 1 provided data for outcomes of interest. No difference between neurodevelopmental treatment and conventional physical therapy was found for gross motor function (mean difference 1.40; 95% confidence interval –5.47 to 8.27, low certainty evidence). Conclusion: This review found that the effects of neurodevelopmental treatment for children with cerebral palsy are still uncertain. Further studies are required to assess the efficacy and safety of neurodevelopmental treatment for this purpose and until there, current evidence do not support its routinely use in practice. Number of protocol registration in PROSPERO database: CRD42017082817 (available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=82817 ).
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) include autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder and pervasive developmental disorder. The manifestations of ASDs can have an important impact on learning and social functioning that may persist during adulthood. The aim here was to summarize the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions for ASDs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted within the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS:We included and summarized the results from Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions for ASDs. RESULTS: Seventeen reviews were included. These found weak evidence of benefits from acupuncture, gluten and casein-free diets, early intensive behavioral interventions, music therapy, parent-mediated early interventions, social skill groups, Theory of Mind cognitive model, aripiprazole, risperidone, tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI); this last only for adults. No benefits were found for sound therapies, chelating agents, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, omega-3, secretin, vitamin B6/ magnesium and SSRI for children. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture, gluten and casein-free diets, early intensive behavioral interventions, music therapy, parent-mediated early interventions, social skill groups and the Theory of Mind cognitive model seem to have benefits for patients with autism spectrum disorders (very low to low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole, risperidone, tricyclic antidepressants and SSRI (this last only for adults) also showed some benefits, although associated with higher risk of adverse events. Experimental studies to confirm a link between probable therapies and the disease, and then high-quality long-term clinical trials, are needed. RESUMO MÉTODOS:Nós incluímos e resumimos os resultados de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane sobre intervenções para TEA. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídas 17 revisões que encontraram evidências fracas de benefícios da acupuntura, dietas isentas de glúten e caseína, intervenção comportamental intensiva precoce, musicoterapia, intervenção precoce mediada pelos pais, grupos de habilidades sociais, modelo cognitivo de Teoria da Mente, aripiprazol, risperidona, antidepressivos tricíclicos, inibidores seletivos da recaptação da serotonina (ISRS); o último apenas para adultos. Nenhum benefício foi encontrado com terapias sonoras, agentes quelantes, oxigenoterapia hiperbárica, ômega-3, secretina, vitamina B6/magnésio e ISRS para crianças. CONCLUSÃO: Acupuntura, dietas sem glúten e caseína, intervenção comportamental intensiva precoce, musicoterapia, intervenção precoce mediada pelos pais, grupos de habilidades sociais e modelo cognitivo de Teoria da Mente parecem ter benefícios para pacientes com TEA (evidência de qualidade muito baixa a baixa). Aripiprazol, risperidona, antidepressivos tricíclicos e ISRS (o último apenas para adultos) também apresentam algum benefício, embora estejam associados a maior risco de event...
Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing adverse events of chemotherapy. This review focuses on the findings and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) of cannabinoids for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Review of SRs, a systematic literature search, was conducted in several electronic databases and included SRs evaluating cannabinoids for CINV in cancer patients. Methodological quality and quality of reporting were evaluated by AMSTAR and PRISMA, respectively. Initial search retrieved 2,206 records, and 5 SRs were included. On the basis of findings of the sole SR judged as high methodological quality, cannabinoids seem to be more effective than placebo, equal to prochlorperazine for reducing CINV, and to be preferred by patients. The response to different combinations of antiemetic agents seems to be equal to 1 antiemetic alone. The average of AMSTAR score was 5, and the average of PRISMA score was 13.2. Cannabinoids represent a valuable option for treating CINV, despite the adverse events related to treatment, such as drowsiness and cognitive impairment. There is no good quality evidence to recommend or not the use of cannabinoids for CINV. More studies are still needed to evaluate the effectiveness of cannabinoids when compared with modern antiemetics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.