Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.

Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first-line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second-line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials (590 participants). One single-site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started. Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I² = 38%; moderate-quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision-making. First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 86%; low-quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Second, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' evaluated on a non-traditional dichotomized GOS-Extended scale (GOS-E), that is, grouping the category 'upper severe disability' into the 'good outcome' grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I² value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants). Third, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS-E cutoff into 'favorable' versus 'unfavorable' results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low-quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I² = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD -4.66 mmHg, 95% CI -6.86 to -2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled. Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment-related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low-quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long-term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.

Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the ICP. Hypertonic saline (HTS) is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of HTS compared with other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI is still debated, both in the short and the long term.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches using four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HTS versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute TBI of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long term outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled ICP (defined as failure to decrease the ICP to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events (AEs) (e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials, involving data from 295 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (89%) had a diagnosis of severe TBI. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than TBI and in one trial, there were concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one study and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two studies. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an ICP-lowering agent and one at discharge from ICU. Only three studies collected data after release from hospital. Due to variation in modes of drug administration, follow-up times, and ways of reporting changes in ICP, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled ICP', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated ICP but that HTS had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain hemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. Evidence for all outcomes is considered very low, as assessed by GRADE. All conclusions were downgraded due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of patients without TBI), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects (AEs) - a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). No data were reported on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, investigators do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on AEs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review set out to find trials comparing HTS to a potential range of other ICP-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that HTS is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute TBI. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Issues such as the type of TBI suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given should be investigated.

Intravenous iron therapy for non-anaemic, iron-deficient adults

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency is one of the most common nutritional deficiencies, and has a number of physiological manifestations. Early, or non-anaemic iron deficiency can result in fatigue and diminished exercise capacity. Oral iron preparations have a high incidence of intolerable side effects, and are ineffective in certain forms of iron deficiency. Consequently, intravenous iron preparations are increasingly used in the treatment of non-anaemic iron deficiency. The newer, more stable iron preparations in particular purport to have a lower incidence of side effects, and are now used across a range of different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravenous iron therapy in the treatment of adults with non-anaemic iron deficiency.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 October 2019 we electronically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two further databases and two trials registries 2019. We handsearched the references of full-text extracted studies, and contacted relevant study authors for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared any intravenous iron preparation to placebo in adults. We excluded other forms of comparison such as oral iron versus placebo, intramuscular iron versus placebo, or intravenous iron studies where other iron preparations were used as the comparator. We also excluded studies involving erythropoietin therapy or obstetric populations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened references for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved differences in opinion through discussion and consensus, and where necessary, involved a third review author to adjudicate disputes. We contacted study authors to request additional data where appropriate. The primary outcome measures were haemoglobin concentration at the end of follow-up, and quality-of-life scores at end of follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were serum ferritin, peak oxygen consumption (as measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing), adverse effects (graded as mild to moderate and severe) and bacterial infection. We pooled data for continuous outcomes, which we then reported as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We reported quality-of-life metrics as standardised mean difference (SMD), and then converted them back into a more familiar measure, the Piper Fatigue Scale. We analysed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). Given an expected degree of heterogeneity, we used a random-effects model for all outcomes. We performed the analysis with the software package Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 11 studies with 1074 participants. Outcome metrics for which data were available (haemoglobin concentration, quality-of-life scores, serum ferritin, peak oxygen consumption and mild to moderate adverse effects) were similar across the included studies. The incidence of severe adverse events across all studies was zero. None of the studies measured bacterial infection as a specific outcome metric. Substantial heterogeneity influenced the results of the meta-analysis, arising from differing patient populations, definitions of iron deficiency, iron preparations and dosing regimens, and time to end of follow-up. Consequently, many outcomes are reported with small group sizes and wide confidence intervals, with a subsequent downgrading in the quality of evidence. The level of bias in many included studies was high, further reducing confidence in the robustness of the results. We found that intravenous iron therapy may lead to a small increase in haemoglobin concentration of limited clinical significance compared to placebo (MD 3.04 g/L, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.42; I2 = 42%; 8 studies, 548 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality-of-life scores (Piper Fatigue Scale MD 0.73, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.18; I2 = 0%; studies = 3) and peak oxygen consumption (MD 2.77 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.89 to 6.43; I2 = 36%; 2 studies, 32 participants) were associated with very low-quality evidence, and we remain uncertain about the role of intravenous iron for these metrics. We were unable to present pooled estimates for the outcomes of serum ferritin at the end of follow-up or mild to moderate adverse effects due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. Ultimately, despite the results of the meta-analysis, the low- or very low-quality evidence for all outcomes precludes any meaningful interpretation of results beyond suggesting that further research is needed. We performed a Trial Sequential Analysis for all major outcomes, none of which could be said to have reached a necessary effect size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to show benefit of intravenous iron preparations for the treatment of non-anaemic iron deficiency across a variety of patient populations, beyond stating that it may result in a small, clinically insignificant increase in haemoglobin concentration. However, the certainty for even this outcome remains limited. Robust data for the effectiveness of intravenous iron for non-anaemic iron deficiency is still lacking, and larger studies are required to assess the effect of this therapy on laboratory, patient-centric, and adverse-effect outcomes.

Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Penetrating abdominal trauma occurs when the peritoneal cavity is breached. Routine laparotomy for penetrating abdominal injuries began in the 1800s, with antibiotics first being used in World War II to combat septic complications associated with these injuries. This practice was marked with a reduction in sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Whether prophylactic antibiotics are required in the prevention of infective complications following penetrating abdominal trauma is controversial, however, as no randomised placebo controlled trials have been published to date. There has also been debate about the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis. In 1972 Fullen noted a 7% to 11% post-surgical infection rate with pre-operative antibiotics, a 33% to 57% infection rate with intra-operative antibiotic administration and 30% to 70% infection rate with only post-operative antibiotic administration. Current guidelines state there is sufficient class I evidence to support the use of a single pre-operative broad spectrum antibiotic dose, with aerobic and anaerobic cover, and continuation (up to 24 hours) only in the event of a hollow viscus perforation found at exploratory laparotomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics administered for penetrating abdominal injuries for the reduction of the incidence of septic complications, such as septicaemia, intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were not restricted by date, language or publication status. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2019, issue 7 of 12), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) and PubMed. Searches were last conducted on 23 July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with penetrating abdominal trauma versus no antibiotics or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened the literature search results independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no trials meeting the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no information from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antibiotics for patients with penetrating abdominal trauma.

Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma: duration of use and antibiotic choice

BACKGROUND

Penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) is a common type of trauma leading to admission to hospital, which often progresses to septic complications. Antibiotics are commonly administered as prophylaxis prior to laparotomy for PAT. However, an earlier Cochrane Review intending to compare antibiotics with placebo identified no relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this, many RCTs have been carried out that compare different agents and durations of antibiotic therapy. To date, no systematic review of these trials has been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics in penetrating abdominal trauma, with respect to the type of agent administered and the duration of therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials, from database inception to 23 July 2019; Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Ovid Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase Ovid, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), and two clinical trials registers. We also searched reference lists from included studies. We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs only. We included studies involving participants of all ages, which were conducted in secondary care hospitals only. We included studies of participants who had an isolated penetrating abdominal wound that breached the peritoneum, who were not already taking antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methods. We aggregated study results using a random-effects model. We also conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to help reduce type I and II errors in our analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 4458 participants. We deemed 23 trials to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We are uncertain of the effect of a long course of antibiotic prophylaxis (> 24 hours) compared to a short course (≤ 24 hours) on abdominal surgical site infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), mortality (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.82; I² = 8%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), or intra-abdominal infection (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 111 participants; very-low quality evidence). Based on very low-quality evidence from fifteen studies, involving 2020 participants, which compared different drug regimens with activity against three classes of gastrointestinal flora (gram positive, gram negative, anaerobic), we are uncertain whether there is a benefit of one regimen over another. TSA showed the majority of comparisons did not cross the alpha adjusted boundary for benefit or harm, or reached the required information size, indicating that further studies are required for these analyses. However, in the three analyses which crossed the boundary for futility, further studies are unlikely to show benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of either the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the superiority of one drug regimen over another for penetrating abdominal trauma on abdominal surgical site infection rates, mortality, or intra-abdominal infections. Future RCTs should be adequately powered, test currently used antibiotics, known to be effective against gut flora, use methodology to minimise the risk of bias, and adequately report the level of peritoneal contamination encountered at laparotomy.

Iron therapy for preoperative anaemia

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anaemia is common and occurs in 5% to 76% of patients preoperatively. It is associated with an increased risk of perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, longer hospital stay, and increased morbidity and mortality. Iron deficiency is one of the most common causes of anaemia. Oral and intravenous iron therapy can be used to treat anaemia. Parenteral iron preparations have been shown to be more effective in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic heart failure and postpartum haemorrhage due to rapid correction of iron stores. A limited number of studies has investigated iron therapy for the treatment of preoperative anaemia. The aim of this Cochrane Review is to summarise the evidence for iron supplementation, both enteral and parenteral, for the management of preoperative anaemia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of preoperative iron therapy (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic blood transfusions in anaemic patients undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 30 July 2018. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed, and clinical trials registries, and we screened reference lists. We ran a top-up search on 28 November 2019; one study is now awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative iron monotherapy to placebo, no treatment, standard care or another form of iron therapy for anaemic adults undergoing surgery. We defined anaemia as haemoglobin values less than 13 g/dL for males and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected data and a third review author checked all collected data. Data were collected on the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion, the amount of blood transfused per patient (units), quality of life, ferritin levels and haemoglobin levels, measured as continuous variables at the following predetermined time points: pretreatment (baseline), preoperatively but postintervention, and postoperatively. We performed statistical analysis using the Cochrane software, Review Manager 5. We summarised outcome data in tables and forest plots. We used the GRADE approach to describe the quality of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs, with a total of 372 participants, evaluated preoperative iron therapy to correct anaemia before planned surgery. Four studies compared iron therapy (either oral (one study) or intravenous (three studies)) with no treatment, placebo or usual care, and two studies compared intravenous iron therapy with oral iron therapy. Iron therapy was delivered over a range of periods that varied from 48 hours to three weeks prior to surgery. The 372 participants in our analysis fall far short of the 819 required - as calculated by our information size calculation - to detect a 30% reduction in blood transfusions. Five trials, involving 310 people, reported the proportion of participants who received allogeneic blood transfusions. Meta-analysis of iron therapy versus placebo or standard care showed no difference in the proportion of participants who received a blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.70; 4 studies, 200 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study that compared oral versus intravenous iron therapy measured this outcome, and reported no difference in risk of transfusion between groups. There was no difference between the iron therapy and placebo/standard care groups for haemoglobin level preoperatively at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.63 g/dL, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.34; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-quality evidence). However, intravenous iron therapy produced an increase in preoperative postintervention haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron (MD 1.23 g/dL, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.65; 2 studies, 172 participants; low-quality evidence). Ferritin levels were increased by intravenous iron, both when compared to standard care ((MD 149.00, 95% CI 25.84 to 272.16; 1 study, 63 participants; low-quality evidence) or to oral iron (MD 395.03 ng/mL, 95% CI 227.72 to 562.35; 2 studies, 151 participants; low-quality evidence). Not all studies measured quality of life, short-term mortality or postoperative morbidity. Some measured the outcomes, but did not report the data, and the studies which did report the data were underpowered. Therefore, uncertainty remains regarding these outcomes. The inclusion of new research in the future is very likely to change these results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia does not show a clinically significant reduction in the proportion of trial participants who received an allogeneic blood transfusion compared to no iron therapy. Results for intravenous iron are consistent with a greater increase in haemoglobin and ferritin when compared to oral iron, but do not provide reliable evidence. These conclusions are drawn from six studies, three of which included very small numbers of participants. Further, well-designed, adequately powered, RCTs are required to determine the true effectiveness of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia. Two studies are currently in progress, and will include 1500 randomised participants.

Indomethacin for intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury in adults

BACKGROUND

Among people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury, increased intracranial pressure continues to be a major cause of early death; it is estimated that about 11 people per 100 with traumatic brain injury die. Indomethacin (also known as indometacin) is a powerful cerebral vasoconstrictor that can reduce intracranial pressure and, ultimately, restore cerebral perfusion and oxygenation. Thus, indomethacin may improve the recovery of a person with traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of indomethacin for adults with severe traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the searches from inception to 23 August 2019. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), four other databases, and clinical trials registries. We also screened reference lists and conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our search criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared indomethacin with any control in adults presenting with severe traumatic brain injury associated with elevated intracranial pressure, with no previous decompressive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently decided on the selection of the studies. We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies, either completed or ongoing, that assessed the effects of indomethacin in controlling intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury. Thus, we cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of indomethacin on intracranial pressure, mortality rates, quality of life, disability or adverse effects. This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for indomethacin in controlling intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury. It means that we have not identified eligible research for this review.

Pro-coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia

BACKGROUND

Some hospital patients may be at risk of or may present with major bleeding. Abnormalities of clotting (coagulation) are often recorded in these people, and the traditional management has been with transfusions of blood components, either to prevent bleeding (prophylactic) or to treat bleeding (therapeutic). There is growing interest in the use of targeted therapies with specific pro-coagulant haemostatic (causing bleeding to stop and to keep blood within a damaged blood vessel) factor concentrates in place of plasma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of pro-coagulant haemostatic factors and factor concentrates in the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018, issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1948), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1938), PubMed (publications in process to 18 April 2018), PROSPERO, Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), LILACS (from 1980), IndMED (from 1985), KoreaMed (from 1934), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 18 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared intravenous administration of a pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate, either with placebo, current best or standard treatment, or another pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate for prevention or treatment of bleeding. There was no restriction on the types of participants. We excluded studies of desmopressin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid and use of pro-coagulant haemostatic factors for vitamin K over-anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 31 RCTs with 2392 participants and 22 ongoing trials. There were 13 therapeutic RCTs that randomised 1057 participants (range from 20 to 249 participants) and 18 prophylactic trials that randomised 1335 participants (range 20 to 479 participants). The pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate was fibrinogen in 23 trials, Factor XIII in seven trials and pro-thrombin complex concentrates (PCC) in one trial.Seventeen trials had industrial funding or support, eight studies either did not declare their funding or were unclear about their source of funding and six studies declared non-industrial funding sources.Certainty in the evidence and included study biasOur certainty in the evidence, using GRADE criteria, ranged from very low to high across all outcomes. We assessed most outcomes as being of low certainty. Risks of bias were a concern in many of the RCTs; randomisation methodology was unclear in 15 RCTs, with allocation concealment unclear in 14 RCTs and at high risk of bias in five RCTs. The blinding status of outcome assessors was unclear in 13 RCTs and at high risk of bias in five RCTs, although most outcomes in these trials were objective and not prone to observer bias. Study personnel were often unblinded or insufficient information was available to assess their level of blinding (five RCTs were at unclear risk and seven at high risk of bias).Primary outcomesAll-cause mortality was reported by 21 RCTs, arterial thromboembolic events by 22 RCTs, and venous thromboembolic events by 21 RCTs.Fibrinogen concentrate: prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (nine RCTs)The trials had heterogeneous clinical settings and outcome time points, so we did not pool the data. Compared to placebo, there was no evidence that prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality (4 RCTs; 248 participants). Compared to inactive comparators there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate did not increase the risk of arterial or venous thromboembolic complications (7 RCTs; 398 participants).Fibrinogen concentrate: prophylactic trials with active comparator (two RCTs)There was no mortality or incidence of thromboembolic events in these two RCTs (with 57 participants).Fibrinogen concentrate: therapeutic trials with inactive comparator (eight RCTs)The trials had heterogeneous surgical settings and outcome time points, so we pooled data for subgroups only. Compared to an inactive comparator, there was no evidence (quality ranging from low to high) that fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality in actively bleeding participants (7 RCTs; 724 participants). Compared to inactive comparators there was no evidence that the use of fibrinogen concentrate in active bleeding increased arterial (7 RCTs; 607 participants) or venous (6 RCTs; 562 participants) thromboembolic events.Fibrinogen concentrate: therapeutic trials with active comparator (four RCTs)We did not pool the outcome data, as they were not measured at comparable time points. Compared to other active pro-coagulant agents, there was no evidence (very low to moderate quality) that fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality in actively bleeding participants (4 RCTs; 220 participants). There was no evidence that fibrinogen concentrate increased the risk of arterial (3 RCTs; 126 participants) or venous (4 RCTs; 220 participants) thromboembolic events.FactorXIII: Prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (six trials)The trials were heterogeneous in their surgical settings and time points for outcome analysis, so we pooled data for subgroups only. Compared to an inactive comparator, there was no evidence that prophylactic Factor XIII reduced all-cause mortality (5 RCTs; 414 participants). There was no evidence (very low to low quality) of a difference in the arterial or venous event rate between Factor XIII and inactive comparators (4 trials; 354 participants).FactorXIII: therapeutic trials with inactive comparator (one trial)There was no mortality or incidence of thromboembolic events in this trial.Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC): prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (one trial)There was no evidence (moderate quality) that PCC reduced all-cause mortality (1 trial; 78 participants). No thromboembolic complications were reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of good-quality comparable evidence precludes the drawing of conclusions for clinical practice. Further research is required to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of these interventions. The sample sizes of future RCTs would need to be greatly increased to detect a reduction in mortality or thromboembolic events between treatment arms. To improve consistency in outcome reporting, the development of core outcome sets is essential and may help address a number of the limitations identified in this review.

Transfusion of red blood cells stored for shorter versus longer duration for all conditions

BACKGROUND

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common treatment for anaemia in many conditions. The safety and efficacy of transfusing RBC units that have been stored for different durations before a transfusion is a current concern. The duration of storage for a RBC unit can be up to 42 days. If evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) were to indicate that clinical outcomes are affected by storage duration, the implications for inventory management and clinical practice would be significant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of using red blood cells (RBCs) stored for a shorter versus a longer duration, or versus RBCs stored for standard practice duration, in people requiring a RBC transfusion.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed (for epublications), LILACS, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science CPCI-S and four international clinical trial registries on 20 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration, or versus standard practice storage duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials (42,835 participants) in this review.The GRADE quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate for our primary outcome of in-hospital and short-term mortality reported at different time points.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration Eleven trials (2249 participants) compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration. Two trials enrolled low birth weight neonates, two enrolled children with severe anaemia secondary to malaria or sickle cell disease, and eight enrolled adults across a range of clinical settings (intensive care, cardiac surgery, major elective surgery, hospitalised in-patients, haematology outpatients). We judged only two trials to be at low risk of bias across all domains; most trials had an unclear risk for multiple domains.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration probably leads to little or no difference in mortality at seven-day follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 3.06; 1 trial, 3098 participants; moderate quality evidence) or 30-day follow-up (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.50 to 1.45; 2 trials, 1121 participants; moderate quality evidence) in adults undergoing major elective cardiac or non-cardiac surgery.For neonates, no studies reported on the primary outcome of in-hospital or short-term mortality. At 40 weeks gestational age, the effect of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration on the risk of death was uncertain, as the quality of evidence is very low (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.85; 1 trial, 52 participants).The effect of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration on the risk of death in children with severe anaemia was also uncertain within 24 hours of transfusion (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.25; 2 trials, 364 participants; very low quality evidence), or at 30-day follow-up (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.31; 1 trial, 290 participants; low quality evidence).Only one trial, in children with severe anaemia (290 participants), reported adverse transfusion reactions. Only one child in each arm experienced an adverse reaction within 24 hours of transfusion.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration Eleven trials (40,588 participants) compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration. Three trials enrolled critically ill term neonates; two of these enrolled very low birth weight neonates. There were no trials in children. Eight trials enrolled critically ill and non-critically ill adults, with most being hospitalised. We judged four trials to be at low risk of bias across all domains with the others having an unclear risk of bias across multiple domains.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration probably leads to little or no difference in adult in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14; 4 trials, 25,704 participants; moderate quality evidence), ICU mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; 3 trials, 13,066 participants; moderate quality evidence), or 30-day mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13; 4 trials, 7510 participants;moderate quality evidence).Two of the three trials that enrolled neonates reported that there were no adverse transfusion reactions. One trial reported an isolated case of cytomegalovirus infection in participants assigned to the standard practice storage duration group. Two trials in critically ill adults reported data on transfusion reactions: one observed no difference in acute transfusion reactions between arms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.36, 2413 participants), but the other observed more febrile nonhaemolytic reactions in the shorter storage duration arm (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95, 4919 participants).Trial sequential analysis showed that we may now have sufficient evidence to reject a 5% relative risk increase or decrease of death within 30 days when transfusing RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration across all patient groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of storage duration on clinically important outcomes has now been investigated in large, high quality RCTs, predominantly in adults. There appears to be no evidence of an effect on mortality that is related to length of storage of transfused RBCs. However, the quality of evidence in neonates and children is low. The current practice in blood banks of using the oldest available RBCs can be continued safely. Additional RCTs are not required, but research using alternative study designs, should focus on particular subgroups (e.g. those requiring multiple RBC units) and on factors affecting RBC quality.

First aid interventions by laypeople for acute oral poisoning

BACKGROUND

Oral poisoning is a major cause of mortality and disability worldwide, with estimates of over 100,000 deaths due to unintentional poisoning each year and an overrepresentation of children below five years of age. Any effective intervention that laypeople can apply to limit or delay uptake or to evacuate, dilute or neutralize the poison before professional help arrives may limit toxicity and save lives.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pre-hospital interventions (alone or in combination) for treating acute oral poisoning, available to and feasible for laypeople before the arrival of professional help.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and three clinical trials registries to 11 May 2017, and we also carried out reference checking and citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions (alone or in combination) that are feasible in a pre-hospital setting for treating acute oral poisoning patients, including but potentially not limited to activated charcoal (AC), emetics, cathartics, diluents, neutralizing agents and body positioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data collection and assessment. Primary outcomes of this review were incidence of mortality and adverse events, plus incidence and severity of symptoms of poisoning. Secondary outcomes were duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, and incidence of hospitalization and ICU admission.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials involving 7099 participants. Using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, we assessed no study as being at low risk of bias for all domains. Many studies were poorly reported, so the risk of selection and detection biases were often unclear. Most studies reported important outcomes incompletely, and we judged them to be at high risk of reporting bias.All but one study enrolled oral poisoning patients in an emergency department; the remaining study was conducted in a pre-hospital setting. Fourteen studies included multiple toxic syndromes or did not specify, while the other studies specifically investigated paracetamol (2 studies), carbamazepine (2 studies), tricyclic antidepressant (2 studies), yellow oleander (2 studies), benzodiazepine (1 study), or toxic berry intoxication (1 study). Eighteen trials investigated the effects of activated charcoal (AC), administered as a single dose (SDAC) or in multiple doses (MDAC), alone or in combination with other first aid interventions (a cathartic) and/or hospital treatments. Six studies investigated syrup of ipecac plus other first aid interventions (SDAC + cathartic) versus ipecac alone. The collected evidence was mostly of low to very low certainty, often downgraded for indirectness, risk of bias or imprecision due to low numbers of events.First aid interventions that limit or delay the absorption of the poison in the bodyWe are uncertain about the effect of SDAC compared to no intervention on the incidence of adverse events in general (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) or vomiting specifically (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 57.26, 1 study, 25 participants), ICU admission (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 0.15 to 391.93, 1 study, 451 participants) and clinical deterioration (zero events in both treatment groups; 1 study, 451 participants) in participants with mixed types or paracetamol poisoning, as all evidence for these outcomes was of very low certainty. No studies assessed SDAC for mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption or hospitalization.Only one study compared SDAC to syrup of ipecac in participants with mixed types of poisoning, providing very low-certainty evidence. Therefore we are uncertain about the effects on Glasgow Coma Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, 1 study, 34 participants) or incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.83, 1 study, 34 participants). No information was available concerning mortality, duration of symptoms, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission.This review also considered the added value of SDAC or MDAC to hospital interventions, which mostly included gastric lavage. No included studies investigated the use of body positioning in oral poisoning patients.First aid interventions that evacuate the poison from the gastrointestinal tractWe found one study comparing ipecac versus no intervention in toxic berry ingestion in a pre-hospital setting. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be an increase in the incidence of adverse events, but the study did not report incidence of mortality, incidence or duration of symptoms of poisoning, drug absorption, hospitalization or ICU admission (103 participants).In addition, we also considered the added value of syrup of ipecac to SDAC plus a cathartic and the added value of a cathartic to SDAC.No studies used cathartics as an individual intervention.First aid interventions that neutralize or dilute the poison No included studies investigated the neutralization or dilution of the poison in oral poisoning patients.The review also considered combinations of different first aid interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review provided mostly low- or very low-certainty evidence about the use of first aid interventions for acute oral poisoning. A key limitation was the fact that only one included study actually took place in a pre-hospital setting, which undermines our confidence in the applicability of these results to this setting. Thus, the amount of evidence collected was insufficient to draw any conclusions.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.

Fitness training for cardiorespiratory conditioning after traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Reduced cardiorespiratory fitness (cardiorespiratory deconditioning) is a common consequence of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Fitness training may be implemented to address this impairment.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this updated review was to evaluate whether fitness training improves cardiorespiratory fitness in people who have sustained a TBI. The secondary objectives were to evaluate whether fitness training improves body function and structure (physical and cognitive impairments, psychological responses resulting from the injury), activity limitations and participation restrictions in people who have sustained a TBI as well as to evaluate its safety, acceptance, feasibility and suitability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Injuries Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Embase; PubMed (MEDLINE); CINAHL; AMED; SPORTDiscus; PsycINFO; PEDro and PsycBITE) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for relevant trials. In addition we screened reference lists from systematic reviews related to the topic that we identified from our search, and from the included studies, and contacted trialists to identify further studies. The search was run in August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies with TBI participants were eligible if they compared an exercise programme incorporating cardiorespiratory fitness training to usual care, a non-exercise intervention, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the search results, extracted data and assessed bias. We contacted all trialists for additional information. We calculated mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data, and odds ratio with 95% CI for dichotomous data. We pooled data when there were sufficient studies with homogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Two new studies incorporating 96 participants were identified in this update and were added to the six previously included studies. A total of eight studies incorporating 399 participants are included in the updated review. The participants were primarily men aged in their mid-thirties who had sustained a severe TBI. No studies included children. The studies were clinically diverse with regard to the interventions, time postinjury and the outcome measures used. At the end of intervention, the mean difference in peak power output was 35.47 watts (W) in favour of fitness training (MD 35.47 W, 95% CI 2.53 to 68.41 W; 3 studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence). The CIs include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there was moderate heterogeneity among the studies.Five of the secondary outcomes had sufficient data at the end of intervention to enable meta-analysis: body composition (SMD 0.29 standard deviations (favouring control), 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79; 2 studies, 61 participants; low-quality evidence), strength (SMD -0.02 (favouring control), 95% CI -0.86 to 0.83; 2 studies, 23 participants; very low-quality evidence), fatigue (SMD -0.32 (favouring fitness training), 95% CI -0.90 to 0.26; 3 studies, 130 participants; very low-quality evidence), depression (SMD -0.43 (favouring fitness training), 95% CI -0.92 to 0.06; 4 studies, 220 participants; very low-quality evidence), and neuromotor function (MD 0.01 m (favouring fitness training), 95% CI -0.25 to 0.27; 2 studies, 109 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether fitness training was more or less effective at improving these secondary outcomes compared to the control interventions. Quality of life was assessed in three trials, but we did not pool the data because of substantial heterogeneity. Five of the eight included studies had no dropouts from their intervention group and no adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence that fitness training is effective at improving cardiorespiratory deconditioning after TBI; there is insufficient evidence to draw any definitive conclusions about the other outcomes. Whilst the intervention appears to be accepted by people with TBI, and there is no evidence of harm, more adequately powered and well-designed studies are required to determine a more precise estimate of the effect on cardiorespiratory fitness, as well as the effects across a range of important outcome measures and in people with different characteristics (e.g. children). In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians may be guided by pre-exercise screening checklists to ensure the person with traumatic brain injury is safe to exercise, and set training parameters using guidelines established by the American College of Sports Medicine for people who have suffered a brain injury.

Elevation of the head during intensive care management in people with severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem and a fundamental cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The burden of TBI disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries. Intracranial hypertension is the most frequent cause of death and disability in brain-injured people. Special interventions in the intensive care unit are required to minimise factors contributing to secondary brain injury after trauma. Therapeutic positioning of the head (different degrees of head-of-bed elevation (HBE)) has been proposed as a low cost and simple way of preventing secondary brain injury in these people. The aim of this review is to evaluate the evidence related to the clinical effects of different backrest positions of the head on important clinical outcomes or, if unavailable, relevant surrogate outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and physiological effects of HBE during intensive care management in people with severe TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from their inception up to March 2017: Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers. The Cochrane Injuries' Information Specialist ran the searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with TBI who underwent different HBE or backrest positions. Studies may have had a parallel or cross-over design. We included adults and children over two years of age with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) less than 9). We excluded studies performed in children of less than two years of age because of their unfused skulls. We included any therapeutic HBE including supine (flat) or different degrees of head elevation with or without knee gatch or reverse Trendelenburg applied during the acute management of the TBI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked all titles and abstracts, excluding references that clearly didn't meet all selection criteria, and extracted data from selected studies on to a data extraction form specifically designed for this review. There were no cases of multiple reporting. Each review author independently evaluated risk of bias through assessing sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three small studies with a cross-over design, involving a total of 20 participants (11 adults and 9 children), in this review. Our primary outcome was mortality, and there was one death by the time of follow-up 28 days after hospital admission. The trials did not measure the clinical secondary outcomes of quality of life, GCS, and disability. The included studies provided information only for the secondary outcomes intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and adverse effects.We were unable to pool the results as the data were either presented in different formats or no numerical data were provided. We included narrative interpretations of the available data.The overall risk of bias of the studies was unclear due to poor reporting of the methods. There was marked inconsistency across studies for the outcome of ICP and small sample sizes or wide confidence intervals for all outcomes. We therefore rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes and have not included the results of individual studies here. We do not have enough evidence to draw conclusions about the effect of HBE during intensive care management of people with TBI.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of consistency among studies, scarcity of data and the absence of evidence to show a correlation between physiological measurements such as ICP, CCP and clinical outcomes, mean that we are uncertain about the effects of HBE during intensive care management in people with severe TBI.Well-designed and larger trials that measure long-term clinical outcomes are needed to understand how and when different backrest positions can affect the management of severe TBI.

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

Hypothermia for traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Hypothermia has been used in the treatment of brain injury for many years. Encouraging results from small trials and laboratory studies led to renewed interest in the area and some larger trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of mild hypothermia for traumatic brain injury (TBI) on mortality, long-term functional outcomes and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran and incorporated studies from database searches to 21 March 2016. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), PubMed, ISI Web of science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. We also re-ran these searches pre-publication in June 2017; the result from this search is presented in 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of participants with closed TBI requiring hospitalisation who were treated with hypothermia to a maximum of 35 ºC for at least 12 consecutive hours. Treatment with hypothermia was compared to maintenance with normothermia (36.5 to 38 ºC).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed data on mortality, unfavourable outcomes according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and pneumonia.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 eligible trials with a total of 3110 randomised participants; nine of these were new studies since the last update (2009) and five studies had been previously excluded but were re-assessed and included during the 2017 update. We identified two ongoing studies from searches of clinical trials registers and database searches and two studies await classification.Studies included both adults and children with TBI. Most studies commenced treatment immediately on admission to hospital or after craniotomies and all treatment was maintained for at least 24 hours. Thirty-three studies reported data for mortality, 31 studies reported data for unfavourable outcomes (death, vegetative state or severe disability), and 14 studies reported pneumonia. Visual inspection of the results for these outcomes showed inconsistencies among studies, with differences in the direction of effect, and we did not pool these data for meta-analysis. We considered duration of hypothermia therapy and the length of follow-up in collected data for these subgroups; differences in study data remained such that we did not perform meta-analysis.Studies were generally poorly reported and we were unable to assess risk of bias adequately. Heterogeneity was evident both in the trial designs and participant inclusion. Inconsistencies in results may be explained by heterogeneity among study participants or bias introduced by individual study methodology but we did not explore this in detail in subgroup or sensitivity analyses. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence for each outcome and downgraded the evidence for mortality and unfavourable outcome to very low. We downgraded the evidence for the pneumonia outcome to low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a large number studies, there remains no high-quality evidence that hypothermia is beneficial in the treatment of people with TBI. Further research, which is methodologically robust, is required in this field to establish the effect of hypothermia for people with TBI.

Desmopressin use for minimising perioperative blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusion is administered during many types of surgery, but its efficacy and safety are increasingly questioned. Evaluation of the efficacy of agents, such as desmopressin (DDAVP; 1-deamino-8-D-arginine-vasopressin), that may reduce perioperative blood loss is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of DDAVP in reducing perioperative blood loss and the need for red cell transfusion in people who do not have inherited bleeding disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases (all searches to 3 April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing DDAVP to placebo or an active comparator (e.g. tranexamic acid, aprotinin) before, during, or immediately after surgery or after invasive procedures in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 65 completed trials (3874 participants) and four ongoing trials. Of the 65 completed trials, 39 focused on adult cardiac surgery, three on paediatric cardiac surgery, 12 on orthopaedic surgery, two on plastic surgery, and two on vascular surgery; seven studies were conducted in surgery for other conditions. These trials were conducted between 1986 and 2016, and 11 were funded by pharmaceutical companies or by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate across all outcomes. No trial reported quality of life. DDAVP versus placebo or no treatmentTrial results showed considerable heterogeneity between surgical settings for total volume of red cells transfused (low-quality evidence) and for total blood loss (very low-quality evidence) due to large differences in baseline blood loss. Consequently, these outcomes were not pooled and were reported in subgroups.Compared with placebo, DDAVP may slightly decrease the total volume of red cells transfused in adult cardiac surgery (mean difference (MD) -0.52 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.08 units; 14 trials, 957 participants), but may lead to little or no difference in orthopaedic surgery (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.64 units; 6 trials, 303 participants), vascular surgery (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.73 units; 2 trials, 135 participants), or hepatic surgery (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.33 units; 1 trial, 59 participants).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants transfused with blood (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 25 trials; 1806 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP decreases total blood loss in adult cardiac surgery (MD -135.24 mL, 95% CI -210.80 mL to -59.68 mL; 22 trials, 1358 participants), orthopaedic surgery (MD -285.76 mL, 95% CI -514.99 mL to -56.53 mL; 5 trials, 241 participants), or vascular surgery (MD -582.00 mL, 95% CI -1264.07 mL to 100.07 mL; 1 trial, 44 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low.DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (pOR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.34; 22 trials, 1631 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.16; 29 trials, 1984 participants) (both low-quality evidence). DDAVP versus placebo or no treatment for people with platelet dysfunctionCompared with placebo, DDAVP may lead to a reduction in the total volume of red cells transfused (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units; 6 trials, 388 participants) (low-quality evidence) and in total blood loss (MD -253.93 mL, 95% CI -408.01 mL to -99.85 mL; 7 trials, 422 participants) (low-quality evidence).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; 5 trials, 258 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in all-cause mortality (pOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.22; 7 trials; 422 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; 7 trials, 422 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. DDAVP versus tranexamic acidCompared with tranexamic acid, DDAVP may increase the volume of blood transfused (MD 0.6 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.11 units; 1 trial, 40 participants) and total blood loss (MD 142.81 mL, 95% CI 79.78 mL to 205.84 mL; 2 trials, 115 participants) (both low-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP increases or decreases the total number of participants transfused with blood is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.64; 3 trials, 135 participants).No trial reported all-cause mortality.Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 2.92, 95% CI 0.32 to 26.83; 2 trials, 115 participants). DDAVP versus aprotininCompared with aprotinin, DDAVP probably increases the total number of participants transfused with blood (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.02; 1 trial, 99 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).No trials reported volume of blood transfused or total blood loss and the single trial that included mortality as an outcome reported no deaths.Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; 2 trials, 152 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence derived by comparing DDAVP versus placebo was obtained in cardiac surgery, where DDAVP was administered after cardiopulmonary bypass. In adults undergoing cardiac surgery, the reduction in volume of red cells transfused and total blood loss was small and was unlikely to be clinically important. It is less clear whether DDAVP may be of benefit for children and for those undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A key area for researchers is examining the effects of DDAVP for people with platelet dysfunction. Few trials have compared DDAVP versus tranexamic acid or aprotinin; consequently, we are uncertain of the relative efficacy of these interventions.

School-based education programmes for the prevention of unintentional injuries in children and young people

BACKGROUND

Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death in children aged four to 18 years and are a major cause of ill health. The school setting offers the opportunity to deliver preventive interventions to a large number of children and has been used to address a range of public health problems. However, the effectiveness of the school setting for the prevention of different injury mechanisms in school-aged children is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of school-based educational programmes for the prevention of injuries in children and evaluate their impact on improving children's safety skills, behaviour and practices, and knowledge, and assess their cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent searches up to 16 September 2016 for the following electronic databases: Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R); Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded; ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science; ISI Web of Science: Social Sciences Citation Index; ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Sciences & Humanities; and the 14 October 2016 for the following electronic databases: Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED); Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA); CINAHL Plus (EBSCO); ZETOC; LILACS; PsycINFO; ERIC; Dissertation Abstracts Online; IBSS; BEI; ASSIA; CSA Sociological Abstracts; Injury Prevention Web; SafetyLit; EconLit (US); PAIS; UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio; Open Grey; Index to Theses in the UK and Ireland; Bibliomap and TRoPHI.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs), and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies that evaluated school-based educational programmes aimed at preventing a range of injury mechanisms. The primary outcome was self-reported or medically attended unintentional (or unspecified intent) injuries and secondary outcomes were observed safety skills, observed behaviour, self-reported behaviour and safety practices, safety knowledge, and health economic outcomes. The control groups received no intervention, a delayed injury-prevention intervention or alternative school-based curricular activities. We included studies that aimed interventions at primary or secondary prevention of injuries from more than one injury mechanism and were delivered, in part or in full, in schools catering for children aged four to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors identified relevant trials from title and abstracts of studies identified in searches and two review authors extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias. We grouped different types of interventions according to the outcome assessed and the injury mechanism targeted. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to provide a summary of results across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 27 studies reported in 30 articles. The studies had 73,557 participants with 12 studies from the US; four from China; two from each of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK; and one from each of Israel, Greece and Brazil. Thirteen studies were RCTs, six were non-RCTs and eight were CBAs. Of the included studies, 18 provided some element of the intervention in children aged four to 11 years, 17 studies included children aged 11 to 14 years and nine studies included children aged 14 to 18 years.The overall quality of the results was poor, with the all studies assessed as being at high or unclear risks of bias across multiple domains, and varied interventions and data collection methods employed. Interventions comprised information-giving, peer education or were multi-component.Seven studies reported the primary outcome of injury occurrence and only three of these were similar enough to combine in a meta-analysis, with a pooled incidence rate ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.08; 2073 children) and substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 63%). However, this body of evidence was low certainty, due to concerns over this heterogeneity (inconsistency) and imprecision. This heterogeneity may be explained by the non-RCT study design of one of the studies, as a sensitivity analysis with this study removed found stronger evidence of an effect and no heterogeneity (I² = 0%).Two studies report an improvement in safety skills in the intervention group. Likewise, the four studies measuring observed safety behaviour reported an improvement in the intervention group relative to the control. Thirteen out of 19 studies describing self-reported behaviour and safety practices showed improvements, and of the 21 studies assessing changes in safety knowledge, 19 reported an improvement in at least one question domain in the intervention compared to the control group. However, we were unable to pool data for our secondary outcomes, so our conclusions were limited, as they were drawn from highly diverse single studies and the body of evidence was low (safety skills) or very low (behaviour, safety knowledge) certainty. Only one study reported intervention costs but did not undertake a full economic evaluation (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether school-based educational programmes can prevent unintentional injuries. More high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the impact of educational programmes on injury occurrence. There is some weak evidence that such programmes improve safety skills, behaviour/practices and knowledge, although the evidence was of low or very low quality certainty. We found insufficient economic studies to assess cost-effectiveness.

Progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability, and the identification of effective, inexpensive and widely practicable treatments for brain injury is of great public health importance worldwide. Progesterone is a naturally produced hormone that has well-defined pharmacokinetics, is widely available, inexpensive, and has steroidal, neuroactive and neurosteroidal actions in the central nervous system. It is, therefore, a potential candidate for treating TBI patients. However, uncertainty exists regarding the efficacy of this treatment. This is an update of our previous review of the same title, published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of progesterone on neurologic outcome, mortality and disability in patients with acute TBI. To assess the safety of progesterone in patients with acute TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (30 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid; 1950 to 30 September 2016), Embase (Ovid; 1980 to 30 September 2016), Web of Science Core Collection: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; 1990 to 30 September 2016); and trials registries: Clinicaltrials.gov (30 September 2016) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 September 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of progesterone versus no progesterone (or placebo) for the treatment of people with acute TBI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened search results independently to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion. Independently, two review authors selected trials that met the inclusion criteria from the results of the screened searches, with no disagreement.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs in the review, with a total of 2392 participants. We assessed one trial to be at low risk of bias; two at unclear risk of bias (in one multicentred trial the possibility of centre effects was unclear, whilst the other trial was stopped early), and two at high risk of bias, due to issues with blinding and selective reporting of outcome data.All included studies reported the effects of progesterone on mortality and disability. Low quality evidence revealed no evidence of a difference in overall mortality between the progesterone group and placebo group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 2392 participants, 2376 pooled for analysis). Using the GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as low, due to the substantial inconsistency across studies.There was also no evidence of a difference in disability (unfavourable outcomes as assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Score) between the progesterone group and placebo group (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06, I² = 37%; 4 studies; 2336 participants, 2260 pooled for analysis). We assessed the quality of this evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency across studies.Data were not available for meta-analysis for the outcomes of mean intracranial pressure, blood pressure, body temperature or adverse events. However, data from three studies showed no difference in mean intracranial pressure between the groups. Data from another study showed no evidence of a difference in blood pressure or body temperature between the progesterone and placebo groups, although there was evidence that intravenous progesterone infusion increased the frequency of phlebitis (882 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of other adverse events between progesterone treatment and placebo in the other three studies that reported on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review did not find evidence that progesterone could reduce mortality or disability in patients with TBI. However, concerns regarding inconsistency (heterogeneity among participants and the intervention used) across included studies reduce our confidence in these results.There is no evidence from the available data that progesterone therapy results in more adverse events than placebo, aside from evidence from a single study of an increase in phlebitis (in the case of intravascular progesterone).There were not enough data on the effects of progesterone therapy for our other outcomes of interest (intracranial pressure, blood pressure, body temperature) for us to be able to draw firm conclusions.Future trials would benefit from a more precise classification of TBI and attempts to optimise progesterone dosage and scheduling.

Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion

BACKGROUND

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal haemoglobin threshold for the use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than others because of a lack of testing for viral pathogens. Therefore, reducing the number and volume of transfusions would benefit patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes in participants randomized to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin level to trigger transfusion (most commonly 7 g/dL or 8 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin level to trigger transfusion (most commonly 9 g/dL to 10 g/dL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by searching CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase (1974 to May 2016), the Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to May 2016), the Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to May 2016), and ongoing trial registries (27 May 2016). We also checked reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials where intervention groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion 'trigger', described as a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) level below which a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion was to be administered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two people extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as 'restrictive transfusion' and to the higher transfusion threshold as 'liberal transfusion'.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 31 trials, involving 12,587 participants, across a range of clinical specialities (e.g. surgery, critical care) met the eligibility criteria. The trial interventions were split fairly equally with regard to the haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group. About half of them used a 7 g/dL threshold, and the other half used a restrictive transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL to 9 g/dL. The trials were generally at low risk of bias .Some items of methodological quality were unclear, including definitions and blinding for secondary outcomes.Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving a RBC transfusion by 43% across a broad range of clinical specialties (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.65; 12,587 participants, 31 trials; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 97%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16, I² = 37%; N = 10,537; 23 trials; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (high-quality evidence)). Liberal transfusion did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound, or bacteraemia).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transfusing at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration of between 7 g/dL to 8 g/dL decreased the proportion of participants exposed to RBC transfusion by 43% across a broad range of clinical specialities. There was no evidence that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacts 30-day mortality or morbidity (i.e. mortality at other points, cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. There were insufficient data to inform the safety of transfusion policies in certain clinical subgroups, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, neurological injury/traumatic brain injury, acute neurological disorders, stroke, thrombocytopenia, cancer, haematological malignancies, and bone marrow failure. The findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds above 7 g/dL to 8 g/dL.

External drains versus no drains after burr-hole evacuation for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma in adults

BACKGROUND

Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common types of intracranial haematoma, and often occurs in older people. Burr-hole craniostomy, which is an evacuation through one or two burr holes drilled over the site of the haematoma, has been widely accepted as the most effective way to manage CSDH. Recurrences are a major problem and need reoperation, sometimes repeatedly.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of the use of external drains versus no drains after burr-hole evacuation for the treatment of CSDH in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran our first search on 27 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), PubMed, ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPSI-SSH), Chinese databases, and clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. In compliance with the MECIR conduct standard 37, the Cochrane Injuries Group Information Specialist ran an update search within 12 months of publication (25 April 2016). We have screened these results but not incorporated the findings into the current review; as a result of the update search, one trial is awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared external subdural drains with no drains after burr-hole evacuation for the treatment of CSDH in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified potential articles from the literature search, extracted data independently using a data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For dichotomous data, where statistical heterogeneity was low, we calculated summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs, including a total of 968 participants, reported outcomes specified by this review. Only one RCT reported the use of an adequate method of allocation concealment; this trial was a large, single-centre, high quality study and was adequately reported. All included trials reported a reduced recurrence of CSDH with external subdural drains. We found a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence with subdural drains (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.61, I(2) = 38%; 9 studies, 968 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of any increase in complications (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.72, I(2) = 0%; 7 studies, 710 participants; low-quality evidence), mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.33, I(2) = 22%; 5 studies, 539 participants; low-quality evidence), or poor functional outcome (which included deaths) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05, I(2) = 31%; 5 studies, 490 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that postoperative drainage is effective in reducing the symptomatic recurrence of CSDH. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Due to the low quality of the evidence for the secondary outcomes, the effect of drainage on the occurrence of surgical complications, mortality and poor functional outcome is uncertain. This uncertainty can be clarified with data from high-quality studies which may be conducted in the future. There is no strong evidence of any increase in complications when drains are used.

Technological aids for the rehabilitation of memory and executive functioning in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury

BACKGROUND

The use of technology in healthcare settings is on the increase and may represent a cost-effective means of delivering rehabilitation. Reductions in treatment time, and delivery in the home, are also thought to be benefits of this approach. Children and adolescents with brain injury often experience deficits in memory and executive functioning that can negatively affect their school work, social lives, and future occupations. Effective interventions that can be delivered at home, without the need for high-cost clinical involvement, could provide a means to address a current lack of provision.We have systematically reviewed studies examining the effects of technology-based interventions for the rehabilitation of deficits in memory and executive functioning in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of technology-based interventions compared to placebo intervention, no treatment, or other types of intervention, on the executive functioning and memory of children and adolescents with acquired brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on the 30 September 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), two other databases, and clinical trials registers. We also searched the internet, screened reference lists, and contacted authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a technological aid for the rehabilitation of children and adolescents with memory or executive-functioning deficits with placebo, no treatment, or another intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. Following retrieval of full-text manuscripts, two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies (involving 206 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review.Three studies, involving 194 participants, assessed the effects of online interventions to target executive functioning (that is monitoring and changing behaviour, problem solving, planning, etc.). These studies, which were all conducted by the same research team, compared online interventions against a 'placebo' (participants were given internet resources on brain injury). The interventions were delivered in the family home with additional support or training, or both, from a psychologist or doctoral student. The fourth study investigated the use of a computer program to target memory in addition to components of executive functioning (that is attention, organisation, and problem solving). No information on the study setting was provided, however a speech-language pathologist, teacher, or occupational therapist accompanied participants.Two studies assessed adolescents and young adults with mild to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), while the remaining two studies assessed children and adolescents with moderate to severe TBI. Risk of biasWe assessed the risk of selection bias as low for three studies and unclear for one study. Allocation bias was high in two studies, unclear in one study, and low in one study. Only one study (n = 120) was able to conceal allocation from participants, therefore overall selection bias was assessed as high.One study took steps to conceal assessors from allocation (low risk of detection bias), while the other three did not do so (high risk of detection bias). Primary outcome 1: Executive functioning: Technology-based intervention versus placeboResults from meta-analysis of three studies (n = 194) comparing online interventions with a placebo for children and adolescents with TBI, favoured the intervention immediately post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.09; P = 0.62; I(2) = 0%). (As there is no 'gold standard' measure in the field, we have not translated the SMD back to any particular scale.) This result is thought to represent only a small to medium effect size (using Cohen's rule of thumb, where 0.2 is a small effect, 0.5 a medium one, and 0.8 or above is a large effect); this is unlikely to have a clinically important effect on the participant.The fourth study (n = 12) reported differences between the intervention and control groups on problem solving (an important component of executive functioning). No means or standard deviations were presented for this outcome, therefore an effect size could not be calculated.The quality of evidence for this outcome according to GRADE was very low. This means future research is highly likely to change the estimate of effect. Primary outcome 2: MemoryOne small study (n = 12) reported a statistically significant difference in improvement in sentence recall between the intervention and control group following an eight-week remediation programme. No means or standard deviations were presented for this outcome, therefore an effect size could not be calculated. Secondary outcomesTwo studies (n = 158) reported on anxiety/depression as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and were included in a meta-analysis. We found no evidence of an effect with the intervention (mean difference -5.59, 95% CI -11.46 to 0.28; I(2) = 53%). The GRADE quality of evidence for this outcome was very low, meaning future research is likely to change the estimate of effect.A single study sought to record adverse events and reported none. Two studies reported on use of the intervention (range 0 to 13 and 1 to 24 sessions). One study reported on social functioning/social competence and found no effect. The included studies reported no data for other secondary outcomes (that is quality of life and academic achievement).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low-quality evidence for the use of technology-based interventions in the rehabilitation of executive functions and memory for children and adolescents with TBI. As all of the included studies contained relatively small numbers of participants (12 to 120), our findings should be interpreted with caution. The involvement of a clinician or therapist, rather than use of the technology, may have led to the success of these interventions. Future research should seek to replicate these findings with larger samples, in other regions, using ecologically valid outcome measures, and reduced clinician involvement.

Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age

BACKGROUND

Evidence from systematic reviews demonstrates that multi-disciplinary rehabilitation is effective in the stroke population, in which older adults predominate. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of rehabilitation following acquired brain injury (ABI) in younger adults has not been established, perhaps because this scenario presents different methodological challenges in research.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation following ABI in adults 16 to 65 years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 14 September 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), Web of Science (ISI WOS) databases, clinical trials registers, and we screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multi-disciplinary rehabilitation versus routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention; or trials comparing an intervention in different settings, of different intensities or of different timing of onset. Controlled clinical trials were included, provided they met pre-defined methodological criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials and rated their methodological quality. A fourth review author would have arbitrated if consensus could not be reached by discussion, but in fact, this did not occur. As in previous versions of this review, we used the method described by Van Tulder 1997 to rate the quality of trials and to perform a 'best evidence' synthesis by attributing levels of evidence on the basis of methodological quality. Risk of bias assessments were performed in parallel using standard Cochrane methodology. However, the Van Tulder system provided a more discriminative evaluation of rehabilitation trials, so we have continued to use it for our primary synthesis of evidence. We subdivided trials in terms of severity of brain injury, setting and type and timing of rehabilitation offered.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 19 studies involving 3480 people. Twelve studies were of good methodological quality and seven were of lower quality, according to the van Tulder scoring system. Within the subgroup of predominantly mild brain injury, 'strong evidence' suggested that most individuals made a good recovery when appropriate information was provided, without the need for additional specific interventions. For moderate to severe injury, 'strong evidence' showed benefit from formal intervention, and 'limited evidence' indicated that commencing rehabilitation early after injury results in better outcomes. For participants with moderate to severe ABI already in rehabilitation, 'strong evidence' revealed that more intensive programmes are associated with earlier functional gains, and 'moderate evidence' suggested that continued outpatient therapy could help to sustain gains made in early post-acute rehabilitation. The context of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation appears to influence outcomes. 'Strong evidence' supports the use of a milieu-oriented model for patients with severe brain injury, in which comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation takes place in a therapeutic environment and involves a peer group of patients. 'Limited evidence' shows that specialist in-patient rehabilitation and specialist multi-disciplinary community rehabilitation may provide additional functional gains, but studies serve to highlight the particular practical and ethical restraints imposed on randomisation of severely affected individuals for whom no realistic alternatives to specialist intervention are available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Problems following ABI vary. Consequently, different interventions and combinations of interventions are required to meet the needs of patients with different problems. Patients who present acutely to hospital with mild brain injury benefit from follow-up and appropriate information and advice. Those with moderate to severe brain injury benefit from routine follow-up so their needs for rehabilitation can be assessed. Intensive intervention appears to lead to earlier gains, and earlier intervention whilst still in emergency and acute care has been supported by limited evidence. The balance between intensity and cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. Patients discharged from in-patient rehabilitation benefit from access to out-patient or community-based services appropriate to their needs. Group-based rehabilitation in a therapeutic milieu (where patients undergo neuropsychological rehabilitation in a therapeutic environment with a peer group of individuals facing similar challenges) represents an effective approach for patients requiring neuropsychological rehabilitation following severe brain injury. Not all questions in rehabilitation can be addressed by randomised controlled trials or other experimental approaches. For example, trial-based literature does not tell us which treatments work best for which patients over the long term, and which models of service represent value for money in the context of life-long care. In the future, such questions will need to be considered alongside practice-based evidence gathered from large systematic longitudinal cohort studies conducted in the context of routine clinical practice.

Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma

BACKGROUND

Although helicopters are presently an integral part of trauma systems in most developed nations, previous reviews and studies to date have raised questions about which groups of traumatically injured people derive the greatest benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) transport, is associated with improved morbidity and mortality for adults with major trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 29 April 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), four other sources, and clinical trials registers. We screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible trials included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies. We also evaluated nonrandomized studies (NRS), including controlled trials and cohort studies. Each study was required to have a GEMS comparison group. An Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 15 or an equivalent marker for injury severity was required. We included adults age 16 years or older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We applied the Downs and Black quality assessment tool for NRS. We analyzed the results in a narrative review, and with studies grouped by methodology and injury type. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables in accordance with the GRADE Working Group criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 38 studies, of which 34 studies examined survival following transportation by HEMS compared with GEMS for adults with major trauma. Four studies were of inter-facility transfer to a higher level trauma center by HEMS compared with GEMS. All studies were NRS; we found no RCTs. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge. We calculated unadjusted mortality using data from 282,258 people from 28 of the 38 studies included in the primary analysis. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity and we could not determine an accurate estimate of overall effect.Based on the unadjusted mortality data from six trials that focused on traumatic brain injury, there was no decreased risk of death with HEMS. Twenty-one studies used multivariate regression to adjust for confounding. Results varied, some studies found a benefit of HEMS while others did not. Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based analysis methods were used in 14 studies; studies showed survival benefits in both the HEMS and GEMS groups as compared with MTOS. We found no studies evaluating the secondary outcome, morbidity, as assessed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Four studies suggested a small to moderate benefit when HEMS was used to transfer people to higher level trauma centers. Road traffic and helicopter crashes are adverse effects which can occur with either method of transport. Data regarding safety were not available in any of the included studies. Overall, the quality of the included studies was very low as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, we could not determine an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS. Although some of the 19 multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, others did not. This was also the case for the TRISS-based studies. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their nonrandomized design. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximize the potential utility of results. Large, multicenter studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma.

Non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Following traumatic brain injury (TBI) there is an increased prevalence of depression compared to the general population. It is unknown whether non-pharmacological interventions for depression are effective for people with TBI.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with TBI at reducing the diagnosis and severity of symptoms of depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 11 February 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases and clinical trials registers. Relevant conference proceedings and journals were handsearched, as were the reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children who had a TBI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials from the search results, then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. The authors contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information. We rated the overall quality of the evidence of the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 334 adult participants. We identified no studies that included children as participants. All studies were affected by high risk of bias due to a lack of blinding of participants and personnel; five studies were affected by high risk of bias for lack of blinding of outcome assessors. There was high or unclear risk of biases affecting some studies across all the Cochrane risk of bias measures.Three studies compared a psychological intervention (either cognitive behaviour therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) with a control intervention. Data regarding depression symptom outcome measures were combined in a meta-analysis, but did not find an effect in favour of treatment (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.19; Z = 0.83; P = 0.41). The other comparisons comprised of single studies of depression symptoms and compared; cognitive behaviour therapy versus supportive psychotherapy (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.48; Z = 0.30; P = 0.77); repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation plus tricyclic antidepressant (rTMS + TCA) versus tricyclic antidepressant alone (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.32; Z = 3;19, P = 0.001); and a supervised exercise program versus exercise as usual (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.03; Z = 1.84; P = 0.07). There was very-low quality evidence, small effect sizes and wide variability of results, suggesting that no comparisons showed a reliable effect for any intervention.Only one study mentioned minor, transient adverse events from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review did not find compelling evidence in favour of any intervention. Future studies should focus on participants with a diagnosed TBI and include only participants who have a diagnosis of depression, or who record scores above a clinical cutoff on a depression measure. There is a need for additional RCTs that include a comparison between an intervention and a control that replicates the effect of the attention given to participants during an active treatment.

Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists

BACKGROUND

Cycling is an attractive form of transport. It is beneficial to the individual as a form of physical activity that may fit more readily into an individual's daily routine, such as for cycling to work and to the shops, than other physical activities such as visiting a gym. Cycling is also beneficial to the wider community and the environment as a result of fewer motorised journeys. Cyclists are seen as vulnerable road users who are frequently in close proximity to larger and faster motorised vehicles. Cycling infrastructure aims to make cycling both more convenient and safer for cyclists. This review is needed to guide transport planning.

OBJECTIVES

To:1. evaluate the effects of different types of cycling infrastructure on reducing cycling injuries in cyclists, by type of infrastructure;2. evaluate the effects of cycling infrastructure on reducing the severity of cycling injuries in cyclists;3. evaluate the effects of cycling infrastructure on reducing cycling injuries in cyclists with respect to age, sex and social group.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 2nd March 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic + Embase(OvidSP), PubMed and 10 other databases. We searched websites, handsearched conference proceedings, screened reference lists of included studies and previously published reviews and contacted relevant organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies which evaluated the effect of cycling infrastructure (such as cycle lanes, tracks or paths, speed management, roundabout design) on cyclist injury or collision rates. Studies had to include a comparator, that is, either no infrastructure or a different type of infrastructure. We excluded studies that assessed collisions that occurred as a result of competitive cycling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of papers obtained from searches to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. We carried out a meta-analysis using the random-effects model where at least three studies reported the same intervention and outcome. Where there were sufficient studies, as a secondary analysis we accounted for changes in cyclist exposure in the calculation of the rate ratios. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the installation of cycle routes and networks.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 studies for inclusion in the review: 20 controlled before-after (CBA) studies and one interrupted time series (ITS) study. These evaluated a range of infrastructure including cycle lanes, advanced stop lines, use of colour, cycle tracks, cycle paths, management of the road network, speed management, cycle routes and networks, roundabout design and packages of measures. No studies reported medically-attended or self-reported injuries. There was no evidence that cycle lanes reduce the rate of cycle collisions (rate ratio 1.21, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.08). Taking into account cycle flow, there was no difference in collisions for cyclists using cycle routes and networks compared with cyclists not using cycle routes and networks (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.05). There was statistically significant heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 75%, Chi² = 8.00 df = 2, P = 0.02) for the analysis adjusted for cycle flow. We judged the quality of the evidence regarding cycle routes and networks as very low and we are very uncertain about the estimate. These analyses are based on findings from CBA studies.From data presented narratively, the use of 20 mph speed restrictions in urban areas may be effective at reducing cyclist collisions. Redesigning specific parts of cycle routes that may be particularly busy or complex in terms of traffic movement may be beneficial to cyclists in terms of reducing the risk of collision. Generally, the conversion of intersections to roundabouts may increase the number of cycle collisions. In particular, the conversion of intersections to roundabouts with cycle lanes marked as part of the circulating carriageway increased cycle collisions. However, the conversion of intersections with and without signals to roundabouts with cycle paths may reduce the odds of collision. Both continuing a cycle lane across the mouth of a side road with a give way line onto the main road, and cycle tracks, may increase the risk of injury collisions in cyclists. However, these conclusions are uncertain, being based on a narrative review of findings from included studies. There is a lack of evidence that cycle paths or advanced stop lines either reduce or increase injury collisions in cyclists. There is also insufficient evidence to draw any robust conclusions concerning the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions in terms of severity of injury, sex, age, and level of social deprivation of the casualty.In terms of quality of the evidence, there was little matching of intervention and control sites. In many studies, the comparability of the control area to the intervention site was unclear and few studies provided information on other cycling infrastructures that may be in place in the control and intervention areas. The majority of studies analysed data routinely collected by organisations external to the study team, thus reducing the risk of bias in terms of systematic differences in assessing outcomes between the control and intervention groups. Some authors did not take regression-to-mean effects into account when examining changes in collisions. Longer data collection periods pre- and post-installation would allow for regression-to-mean effects and also seasonal and time trends in traffic volume to be observed. Few studies adjusted cycle collision rates for exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Generally, there is a lack of high quality evidence to be able to draw firm conclusions as to the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation of cycling infrastructure.

Routine intracranial pressure monitoring in acute coma

BACKGROUND

We know that the brain damage resulting from traumatic and other insults is not due solely to the direct consequences of the primary injury. A significant and potentially preventable contribution to the overall morbidity arises from secondary hypoxic-ischaemic damage. Brain swelling accompanied by raised intracranial pressure (ICP) prevents adequate cerebral perfusion with well-oxygenated blood.Detection of raised ICP could be useful in alerting clinicians to the need to improve cerebral perfusion, with consequent reductions in brain injury.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether routine ICP monitoring in severe coma of any cause reduces the risk of all-cause mortality or severe disability at final follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S), clinical trials registries and reference lists. We ran the most recent search on 22 May 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled studies of real-time ICP monitoring by invasive or semi-invasive means in acute coma (traumatic or non-traumatic aetiology) versus clinical care without ICP monitoring (that is, guided only by clinical or radiological inference of the presence of raised ICP).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (ET and RF) worked independently to identify the one study that met inclusion criteria. JR and RF independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information, including details of methods and outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) meeting the selection criteria has been identified to date.The included study had 324 participants. We judged risk of bias to be low for all categories except blinding of participants and personnel, which is not feasible for this intervention. There were few missing data, and we analysed all on an intention-to-treat basis.Participants could be 13 years of age or older (mean age of sample 29; range 22 to 44), and all had severe traumatic brain injury, mostly due to traffic incidents. All were receiving care within intensive care units (ICUs) at one of six hospitals in either Bolivia or Ecuador. Investigators followed up 92% of participants for six months or until death. The trial excluded patients with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) less than three and fixed dilated pupils on admission on the basis that they had sustained brain injury of an unsalvageable severity.The study compared people managed using either an intracranial monitor or non-invasive monitoring (imaging and clinical examination) to identify potentially harmful raised intracranial pressure. Both study groups used imaging and clinical examination measures.Mortality at six months was 56/144 (39%) in the ICP-monitored group and 67/153 (44%) in the non-invasive group.Unfavourable outcome (defined as death or moderate to severe disability at six months) as assessed by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) was 80/144 (56%) in the ICP-monitored group and 93/153 (61%) in the non-invasive group.Six percent of participants in the ICP monitoring group had complications related to the monitoring, none of which met criteria for being a serious adverse event. There were no complications relating to the non-invasive group.Other complications and adverse events were comparable between treatment groups, 70/157 (45%) in the ICP-monitored group and 76/167 (46%) in the non-invasive group.Late mortality in both the monitored and non-invasive groups was high, with 35% of deaths occurring > 14 days after injury. The authors comment that this high late mortality may reflect inadequacies in post-ICU services for disabled survivors requiring specialist rehabilitation care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from the single RCT studying the role of routine ICP monitoring in acute traumatic coma fails to provide evidence to support the intervention.Research in this area is complicated by the fact that RCTs necessarily assess the combined impact of measurement of ICP with the clinical management decisions made in light of this data. Future studies will need to assess the added value of ICP data alongside other information from the multimodal monitoring typically performed in intensive care unit settings. Additionally, even within traumatically acquired brain injury (TBI), there is great heterogeneity in mechanisms, distribution, location and magnitude of injury, and studies within more homogeneous subgroups are likely to be more informative.

Hemodialysis for lithium poisoning

BACKGROUND

Lithium salts, particularly lithium carbonate, are frequently used to treat bipolar disorder and mania. Lithium poisoning, which can occur as a result of reduced renal elimination, prescribing error, drug-drug interactions, or deliberate overdosage, produces neurologic injury that can be permanent. Hemodialysis is often recommended to treat lithium poisoning. Although hemodialysis clearly enhances the elimination of lithium, it is unclear whether this translates into improved patient outcomes. Evidence from observational studies, generally of low methodological quality, shows similar outcomes in patients managed with or without the use of hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hemodialysis, applied in addition to standard therapy, reduces the likelihood, severity, or duration of neurological sequelae following lithium poisoning.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 15 May 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus, clinical trials registers and four other databases. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies, textbook chapters, and review articles, and performed a Google search to identify grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In the context of this review, hemodialysis was defined as any extracorporeal technique to filter and extract toxicants from the serum, including all forms of hemodialysis, hemofiltration, and continuous renal replacement techniques, but not peritoneal dialysis. We included any clinical trials in which patients were randomly allocated to receive, or not receive, hemodialysis in addition to standard care for lithium poisoning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed the abstracts of all identified articles. If either author identified an article as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria, both authors reviewed the full text of the article.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials of hemodialysis therapy for lithium poisoning were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of hemodialysis to enhance the elimination of lithium in patients with lithium poisoning appears logical, there is no evidence from randomized controlled trials to support nor refute the use of hemodialysis in the management of patients with lithium poisoning.

Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography (performed by means of a four-quadrant, focused assessment of sonography for trauma (FAST)) is regarded as a key instrument for the initial assessment of patients with suspected blunt abdominal and thoraco-abdominal trauma in the emergency department setting. FAST has a high specificity but low sensitivity in detecting and excluding visceral injuries. Proponents of FAST argue that ultrasound-based clinical pathways enhance the speed of primary trauma assessment, reduce the number of unnecessary multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans, and enable quicker triage to surgical and non-surgical care. Given the proven accuracy, increasing availability of, and indication for, MDCT among patients with blunt abdominal and multiple injuries, we aimed to compile the best available evidence of the use of FAST-based assessment compared with other primary trauma assessment protocols.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of diagnostic algorithms using ultrasonography including in FAST examinations in the emergency department in relation to the early, late, and overall mortality of patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search was run on 30th June 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. Trial authors were contacted for further information and individual patient data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were patients with blunt torso, abdominal, or multiple trauma undergoing diagnostic investigations for abdominal organ injury. The intervention was diagnostic algorithms comprising emergency ultrasonography (US). The control was diagnostic algorithms without US examinations (for example, primary computed tomography (CT) or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL)). Outcomes were mortality, use of CT or invasive procedures (DPL, laparoscopy, laparotomy), and cost-effectiveness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (DS and CG) independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and weighted mean differences, each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Overall, trials were of poor to moderate methodological quality. Few trial authors responded to our written inquiries seeking to resolve controversial issues and to obtain individual patient data. Strong heterogeneity amongst the trials prompted discussion between the review authors as to whether the data should or should not be pooled; we decided in favour of a quantitative synthesis to provide a rough impression about the effect sizes achievable with US-based triage algorithms. We pooled mortality data from three trials involving 1254 patients; the RR in favour of the FAST arm was 1.00 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.00). FAST-based pathways reduced the number of CT scans (random-effects model RD -0.52, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.21), but the meaning of this result was unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The experimental evidence justifying FAST-based clinical pathways in diagnosing patients with suspected abdominal or multiple blunt trauma remains poor. Because of strong heterogeneity between the trial results, the quantitative information provided by this review may only be used in an exploratory fashion. It is unlikely that FAST will ever be investigated by means of a confirmatory, large-scale RCT in the future. Thus, this Cochrane Review may be regarded as a review which provides the best available evidence for clinical practice guidelines and management recommendations. It can only be concluded from the few head-to-head studies that negative US scans are likely to reduce the incidence of MDCT scans which, given the low sensitivity of FAST (or reliability of negative results), may adversely affect the diagnostic yield of the trauma survey. At best, US has no negative impact on mortality or morbidity. Assuming that major blunt abdominal or multiple trauma is associated with 15% mortality and a CT-based diagnostic work-up is considered the current standard of care, 874, 3495, or 21,838 patients are needed per intervention group to demonstrate non-inferiority of FAST to CT-based algorithms with non-inferiority margins of 5%, 2.5%, and 1%, power of 90%, and a type-I error alpha of 5%.

Non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury

BACKGROUND

Surgery used to be the treatment of choice in cases of blunt hepatic injury, but this approach gradually changed over the last two decades as increasing non-operative management (NOM) of splenic injury led to its use for hepatic injury. The improvement in critical care monitoring and computed tomographic scanning, as well as the more frequent use of interventional radiology techniques, has helped to bring about this change to non-operative management. Liver trauma ranges from a small capsular tear, without parenchymal laceration, to massive parenchymal injury with major hepatic vein/retrohepatic vena cava lesions. In 1994, the Organ Injury Scaling Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) revised the Hepatic Injury Scale to have a range from grade I to VI. Minor injuries (grade I or II) are the most frequent liver injuries (80% to 90% of all cases); severe injuries are grade III-V lesions; grade VI lesions are frequently incompatible with survival. In the medical literature, the majority of patients who have undergone NOM have low-grade liver injuries. The safety of NOM in high-grade liver lesions, AAST grade IV and V, remains a subject of debate as a high incidence of liver and collateral extra-abdominal complications are still described.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-operative management compared to operative management in high-grade (grade III-V) blunt hepatic injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The search for studies was run on 14 April 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PubMed, ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and we screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials that compare non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to relevant study reports. We used standard methodological procedures as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomised controlled trials of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to further explore the preliminary findings provided by animal models and observational clinical studies that suggests there may be a beneficial effect of non-operative management versus operative management in high-grade blunt hepatic injury, large, high quality randomised trials are needed.

Surgical versus nonsurgical interventions for flail chest

BACKGROUND

Thoracic trauma (TT) is common among people with multiple traumatic injuries. One of the injuries caused by TT is the loss of thoracic stability resulting from multiple fractures of the rib cage, otherwise known as flail chest (FC). A person with FC can be treated conservatively with orotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (internal pneumatic stabilization) but may also undergo surgery to fix the costal fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical stabilization compared with clinical management for people with FC.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on the 12 May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), and clinical trials registers. We also screened reference lists and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for people diagnosed with FC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies that involved 123 people. The methods used for blinding the participants and researchers to the treatment group were not reported, but as the comparison is surgical treatment with medical treatment this bias is hard to avoid. There was no description of concealment of the randomization sequence in two studies.All three studies reported on mortality, and deaths occurred in two studies. There was no clear evidence of a difference in mortality between treatment groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 2.42); however, the analysis was underpowered to detect a difference between groups. Out of the 123 people randomized and treated, six people died; the causes of death were pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, mediastinitis, and septic shock.Among people randomized to surgery, there were reductions in pneumonia (RR 0.36, 95% 0.15 to 0.85; three studies, 123 participants), chest deformity (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; two studies, 86 participants), and tracheostomy (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.02; two studies, 83 participants). Duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU), and length of hospital stay were measured in the three studies. Due to differences in reporting, we could not combine the results and have listed them separately. Chest pain, chest tightness, bodily pain, and adverse effects were each measured in one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence from three small studies that showed surgical treatment was preferable to nonsurgical management in reducing pneumonia, chest deformity, tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of ICU stay. Further well-designed studies with a sufficient sample size are required to confirm these results and to detect possible surgical effects on mortality.

Prolonged storage of packed red blood cells for blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

A blood transfusion is an acute intervention, used to address life- and health-threatening conditions on a short-term basis. Packed red blood cells are most often used for blood transfusion. Sometimes blood is transfused after prolonged storage but there is continuing debate as to whether transfusion of 'older' blood is as beneficial as transfusion of 'fresher' blood.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of prolonged storage of packed red blood cells, in comparison with fresh, on recipients of blood transfusion.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 1st May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and two other databases. We also searched clinical trials registers and screened reference lists of the retrieved publications and reviews. We updated this search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials including participants assessed as requiring red blood cell transfusion were eligible for inclusion. Prolonged storage was defined as red blood cells stored for ≥ 21 days in a blood bank. We did not apply limits regarding the duration of follow-up, or country where the study took place. We excluded trials where patients received a combination of short- and long-stored blood products, and also trials without a clear definition of prolonged storage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction by at least two review authors. The major outcomes were death from any cause, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and adverse events. We estimated relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model to synthesise the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three randomised clinical trials, involving a total of 120 participants, comparing packed red blood cells with ≥ 21 days storage ('prolonged' or 'older') versus packed red blood cells with < 21 days storage ('fresh'). We pooled data to assess the effect of prolonged storage on death from any cause. The confidence in the results from these trials was very low, due to the bias in their design and their limited sample sizes.The estimated effect of packed red blood cells with ≥ 21 days storage versus packed red blood cells with < 21 days storage for the outcome death from any cause was imprecise (5/45 [11.11%] versus 2/46 [4.34%]; RR 2.36; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.52; I(2): 0%, P = 0.26, very low quality of evidence). Trial sequential analysis, with only two trials, shows that we do not yet have convincing evidence that older packed red blood cells induce a 20% relative risk reduction of death from any cause compared with fresher packed red blood cells. No trial included other outcomes of interest specified in this review, namely transfusion-related acute lung injury, postoperative infections, and adverse events. The safety profile is unknown.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Recognising the limitations of the review, relating to the size and nature of the included trials, this Cochrane Review provides no evidence to support or reject the use of packed red blood cells for blood transfusion which have been stored for ≥ 21 days ('prolonged' or 'older') compared with those stored for < 21 days ('fresh'). These results are based on three small single centre trials with high risks of bias. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of fresh or older packed red blood cells for blood transfusion. Therefore, we urge readers to interpret the trial results with caution. The results from four large ongoing trials will help to inform future updates of this review.

Snake antivenom for snake venom induced consumption coagulopathy

BACKGROUND

Snake venom induced consumption coagulopathy is a major systemic effect of envenoming. Observational studies suggest that antivenom improves outcomes for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in some snakebites and not others. However, the effectiveness of snake antivenom in all cases of venom induced consumption coagulopathy is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of snake antivenom as a treatment for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in people with snake bite.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was done on 30 January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), three other sources, clinical trials registers, and we also screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All completed, published or unpublished, randomised, controlled trials with a placebo or no treatment arm, where snake antivenom was administered for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in humans with snake bites.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed the identified trials and independently applied the selection criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised placebo-controlled trials are required to investigate the effectiveness of snake antivenom for clinically relevant outcomes in patients with venom induced consumption coagulopathy resulting from snake bite. Although ethically difficult, the routine administration of a treatment that has a significant risk of anaphylaxis cannot continue without strong evidence of benefit.

WITHDRAWN: Haemostatic drugs for traumatic brain injury

May 2015: The authors have asked for this review to be withdrawn. The information contained in this review has been included in the review 'Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury'.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Antifibrinolytic drugs for acute traumatic injury

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled bleeding is an important cause of death in trauma victims. Antifibrinolytic treatment has been shown to reduce blood loss following surgery and may also be effective in reducing blood loss following trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antifibrinolytic drugs in patients with acute traumatic injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search in January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), PubMed and clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of antifibrinolytic agents (aprotinin, tranexamic acid [TXA], epsilon-aminocaproic acid and aminomethylbenzoic acid) following acute traumatic injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

From the results of the screened electronic searches, bibliographic searches, and contacts with experts, two authors independently selected trials meeting the inclusion criteria, and extracted data. One review author assessed the risk of bias for key domains.Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); adverse events (specifically vascular occlusive events [myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism] and renal failure); number of patients undergoing surgical intervention or receiving blood transfusion; volume of blood transfused; volume of intracranial bleeding; brain ischaemic lesions; death or disability.We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met the inclusion criteria.Two trials (n = 20,451) assessed the effect of TXA. The larger of these (CRASH-2, n = 20,211) was conducted in 40 countries and included patients with a variety of types of trauma; the other (n = 240) restricted itself to those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) only.One trial (n = 77) assessed aprotinin in participants with major bony trauma and shock.The pooled data show that antifibrinolytic drugs reduce the risk of death from any cause by 10% (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; P = 0.002) (quality of evidence: high). This estimate is based primarily on data from the CRASH-2 trial of TXA, which contributed 99% of the data.There is no evidence that antifibrinolytics have an effect on the risk of vascular occlusive events (quality of evidence: moderate), need for surgical intervention or receipt of blood transfusion (quality of evidence: high). There is no evidence for a difference in the effect by type of antifibrinolytic (TXA versus aprotinin) however, as the pooled analyses were based predominantly on trial data concerning the effects of TXA, the results can only be confidently applied to the effects of TXA. The effects of aprotinin in this patient group remain uncertain.There is some evidence from pooling data from one study (n = 240) and a subset of data from CRASH-2 (n = 270) in patients with TBI which suggest that TXA may reduce mortality although the estimates are imprecise, the quality of evidence is low, and uncertainty remains. Stronger evidence exists for the possibility of TXA reducing intracranial bleeding in this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

TXA safely reduces mortality in trauma patients with bleeding without increasing the risk of adverse events.  TXA should be given as early as possible and within three hours of injury, as further analysis of the CRASH-2 trial showed that treatment later than this is unlikely to be effective and may be harmful. Although there is some promising evidence for the effect of TXA in patients with TBI, substantial uncertainty remains.Two ongoing trials being conducted in patients with isolated TBI should resolve these remaining uncertainties.

Cell salvage in emergency trauma surgery

BACKGROUND

Trauma is the leading cause of death in people under the age of 45 years. Over the past 20 years, intraoperative autologous transfusions (obtained by cell salvage, also known as intraoperative blood salvage (IBS)) have been used as an alternative to blood products from other individuals during surgery because of the risk of transfusion-related infections such as hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In this review, we sought to assess the effects and cost of cell salvage in individuals undergoing abdominal or thoracic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect and cost of cell salvage with those of standard care in individuals undergoing abdominal or thoracic trauma surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 25 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), PubMed, and ISI Web of Science (SCI-Expanded & CPSI-SSH). We also screened reference lists and contacted principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing cell salvage with no cell salvage (standard care) in individuals undergoing abdominal or thoracic trauma surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from the trial reports. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one small study (n = 44) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results suggested that cell salvage did not affect mortality overall (death rates were 67% (14/21 participants) in the cell salvage group and 65% (15/23) in the control group) (odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 3.72). For individuals with abdominal injury, mortality was also similar in both groups (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.10).Less donor blood was needed for transfusion within the first 24 hours postinjury in the cell salvage group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -4.70 units, 95% CI -8.09 to -1.31). Adverse events, notably postoperative sepsis, did not differ between groups (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.55). Cost did not notably differ between groups (MD -177.81, 95% CI -452.85 to 97.23, measured in GBP in 2002).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the use of cell salvage in individuals undergoing abdominal or thoracic trauma surgery remains equivocal. Large, multicentre, methodologically rigorous trials are needed to assess the relative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of cell salvage in different surgical procedures in the emergency context.

Iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects about a quarter of the world's population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I(2) was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I(2) > 80%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.The comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.Comparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.Subgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.

Interventions for primary prevention of suicide in university and other post-secondary educational settings

BACKGROUND

Suicide is a leading cause of death among post-secondary students worldwide. Suicidal thoughts and planning are common among post-secondary students. Previous reviews have examined the effectiveness of interventions for symptomatic individuals; however, many students at high risk of suicide are undiagnosed and untreated.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effect on suicide and suicide-related outcomes of primary suicide prevention interventions that targeted students within the post-secondary setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources up to June 2011: Specialised Registers of two Cochrane Groups, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and nine other databases, trial registers, conference proceedings, and websites of national and international organizations. We screened reference lists and contacted authors of included studies to identify additional studies. We updated the search in November 2013; we will include these results in the review's next update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that tested an intervention for the primary prevention of suicide using a randomized controlled trial (RCT), controlled before-and-after (CBA), controlled interrupted time series (CITS), or interrupted time series (ITS) study design. Interventions targeted students within the post-secondary setting (i.e. college, university, academy, vocational, or any other post-secondary educational institution) without known mental illness, previous suicide attempt or self-harm, or suicidal ideation. Outcomes included suicides, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, changes in suicide-related knowledge, attitudes and behavior, and availability of means of suicide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardized electronic forms for data extraction, risk of bias and quality of evidence determination, and analysis. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed studies by intervention type and study design. We summarized RCT effect sizes using random-effects models meta-analyses; and analysed statistical heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. We described narratively the results from studies that used other study designs.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met inclusion criteria. They were heterogeneous in terms of participants, study designs, and interventions. Five of eight studies had high risk of bias. In 3 RCTs (312 participants), classroom-based didactic and experiential programs increased short-term knowledge of suicide (SMD = 1.51, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.45; moderate quality evidence) and knowledge of suicide prevention (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence). The effect on suicide prevention self-efficacy in one RCT (152 participants) was uncertain (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.54; low quality evidence). One CBA analysed the effects of an institutional policy that restricted student access to laboratory cyanide and mandated professional assessment for suicidal students. The incidence of student suicide decreased significantly at one university with the policy relative to 11 control universities, 2.00 vs. 8.68 per 100,000 (Z = 5.90; P < 0.05). Four CBAs explored effects of training 'gatekeepers' to recognize and respond to warning signs of emotional crises and suicide risk in students they encountered. The magnitude of effect sizes varied between studies. Gatekeeper training enhanced short-term suicide knowledge in students, peer advisors residing in student accommodation, and faculty and staff, and suicide prevention self-efficacy among peer advisors. There was no evidence of an effect on participants' suicide-related attitudes or behaviors. One CBA found no evidence of effects of gatekeeper training of peer advisors on suicide-related knowledge, self-efficacy, or gatekeeper behaviors measured four to six months after intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to support widespread implementation of any programs or policies for primary suicide prevention in post-secondary educational settings. As all evaluated interventions combined primary and secondary prevention components, we were unable to determine the independent effects of primary preventive interventions. Classroom instruction and gatekeeper training increased short-term suicide-related knowledge. We found no studies that tested the effects of classroom instruction on suicidal behavior or long-term outcomes. Limited evidence suggested minimal longer-term effects of gatekeeper training on suicide-related knowledge, while no evidence was found evaluating its effect on suicidal behavior. A policy-based suicide intervention reduced student suicide, but findings have not been replicated. Our findings are limited by the overall low quality of the evidence and the lack of studies from middle- and low-income countries. Rigorously designed studies should test the effects of preventive interventions on important health outcomes, including suicidal ideation and behavior, in varying post-secondary settings.

Advanced trauma life support training for hospital staff

BACKGROUND

Injury is responsible for an increasing global burden of death and disability. As a result, new models of trauma care have been developed. Many of these, though initially developed in high-income countries (HICs), are now being adopted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). One such trauma care model is advanced trauma life support (ATLS) training in hospitals, which is being promoted in LMICs as a strategy for improving outcomes for victims of trauma. The impact of this health service intervention, however, has not been rigorously tested by means of a systematic review in either HIC or LMIC settings.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the impact of ATLS training for hospital staff on injury mortality and morbidity in hospitals with and without such a training program.

SEARCH METHODS

The search for studies was run on the 16th May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies comparing the impact of ATLS-trained hospital staff versus non-ATLS trained hospital staff on injury mortality and morbidity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors applied the eligibility criteria to trial reports for inclusion, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

None of the studies identified by the search met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from controlled trials that ATLS or similar programs impact the outcome for victims of injury, although there is some evidence that educational initiatives improve knowledge of hospital staff of available emergency interventions. Furthermore, there is no evidence that trauma management systems that incorporate ATLS training impact positively on outcome. Future research should concentrate on the evaluation of trauma systems incorporating ATLS, both within hospitals and at the health system level, by using more rigorous research designs.

Advanced training in trauma life support for ambulance crews

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing global burden of injury especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To address this, models of trauma care initially developed in high income countries are being adopted in LMIC settings. In particular, ambulance crews with advanced life support (ALS) training are being promoted in LMICs as a strategy for improving outcomes for victims of trauma. However, there is controversy as to the effectiveness of this health service intervention and the evidence has yet to be rigorously appraised.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the impact of ALS-trained ambulance crews versus crews without ALS training on reducing mortality and morbidity in trauma patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The search for studies was run on the 16th May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and non-randomised studies, including before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies, comparing the impact of ALS-trained ambulance crews versus crews without ALS training on the reduction of mortality and morbidity in trauma patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed study reports against the inclusion criteria, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found one controlled before-and-after trial, one uncontrolled before-and-after study, and one randomised controlled trial that met the inclusion criteria. None demonstrated evidence to support ALS training for pre-hospital personnel. In the uncontrolled before-and-after study, 'a priori' sub-group analysis showed an increase in mortality among patients who had a Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than nine and received care from ALS trained ambulance crews. Additionally, when the pre-hospital trauma score was taken into account in logistic regression analysis, mortality in the patients receiving care from ALS trained crews increased significantly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At this time, the evidence indicates that there is no benefit of advanced life support training for ambulance crews on patient outcomes.

Modest cooling therapies (35ºC to 37.5ºC) for traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Animal models of traumatic brain injury suggest that induced normothermia (36.5 or 37 ºC), compared to induced hyperthermia (39 ºC), improves histopathological and neurobehavioural outcomes. Observational clinical studies of patients with TBI suggest an association between raised body temperature and unfavourable outcome, although this relationship is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of modest cooling therapies (defined as any drug or physical therapy aimed at maintaining body temperature between 35 ºC and 37.5 ºC) when applied to patients in the first week after traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search was run on 23(rd) September 2013. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI WOS: SCI-EXPANDED (1970) & CPCI-S (1990), PubMed and trials registries together with reference checking.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All completed randomised, controlled and placebo-controlled trials published or unpublished, where modest cooling therapies were applied in the first week after traumatic brain injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to relevant trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to find any randomised controlled trials of modest cooling therapies after traumatic brain injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to further explore the preliminary findings provided by animal models and observational clinical studies that suggests there may be a beneficial effect of modest cooling for TBI, randomised trials designed to explore the effect of these interventions on patient-centred outcomes are needed.

Oral or parenteral iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency is a significant cause of deferral in people wishing to donate blood. If iron removed from the body through blood donation is not replaced, then donors may become iron deficient. All donors are screened at each visit for low haemoglobin (Hb) levels. However, some deferred blood donors do not return to donate. Deferred first-time donors are even less likely to return. Interventions that reduce the risk of provoking iron deficiency and anaemia in blood donors will therefore increase the number of blood donations. Currently, iron supplementation for blood donors is not a standard of care in many blood services. A systematic review is required to answer specific questions regarding the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation in blood donors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation to reduce deferral, iron deficiency and/or anaemia in blood donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 18 November 2013. We searched Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and six other databases. We also searched clinical trials registers and screened guidelines reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iron supplementation versus placebo or control, oral versus parenteral iron supplementation, iron supplementation versus iron-rich food supplements, and different doses, treatment durations and preparations of iron supplementation in healthy blood donors. Autologous blood donors were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We combined data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic; we explored considerable heterogeneity (I(2) > 75%) in subgroup analyses. We carried out sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of trial quality on the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty RCTs (4704 participants) met the eligibility criteria, including 19 comparisons of iron supplementation and placebo or control; one comparison of oral and parenteral iron supplementation; four comparisons of different doses of iron supplementation; one comparison of different treatment durations of iron supplementation; and 12 comparisons of different iron supplementation preparations.Many studies were of low or uncertain methodological quality and therefore at high or uncertain risk of bias. We therefore rated the quality of the evidence for our outcomes as moderate. There was a statistically significant reduction in deferral due to low haemoglobin in donors who received iron supplementation compared with donors who received no iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit after commencement of iron supplementation (risk ratio (RR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.55; four studies; 1194 participants; P value < 0.0001) and at subsequent donations (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; three studies; 793 participants; P value < 0.00001). Supplementation also resulted in significantly higher haemoglobin levels (mean difference (MD) 2.36 g/L; 95% CI 0.06 to 4.66; eight studies; 847 participants, P value =0.04), and iron stores, including serum ferritin (MD 13.98 ng/mL; 95% CI 8.92 to 19.03; five studies; 640 participants; P value < 0.00001) and transferrin saturation (MD 3.91%; 95% CI 2.02 to 5.80; four studies; 344 participants; P value < 0.0001) prior to further donation. The differences were maintained after subsequent donation(s).Adverse effects were widely reported and were more frequent in donors who received iron supplementation (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.07; four studies; 1748 participants; P value = 0.0005). Adverse effects included constipation, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and taste disturbances, and some participants stopped treatment due to side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that rates of donor deferral due to low haemoglobin are considerably less in those taking iron supplements compared with those without iron supplementation, both at the first donation visit and at subsequent donation. Iron-supplemented donors also show elevated haemoglobin and iron stores. These beneficial effects are balanced by more frequent adverse events in donors who receive iron supplementation than in those who do not; this is likely to limit acceptability and compliance. The long-term effects of iron supplementation without measurement of iron stores are unknown. These considerations are likely to preclude widespread use of iron supplementation by tablets. Blood services may consider targeted use of supplementation in those at greatest risk of iron deficiency, personalised donation intervals and providing dietary advice.

Timing and volume of fluid administration for patients with bleeding

BACKGROUND

Treatment of haemorrhagic shock involves maintaining blood pressure and tissue perfusion until bleeding is controlled. Different resuscitation strategies have been used to maintain the blood pressure in trauma patients until bleeding is controlled. However, while maintaining blood pressure may prevent shock, it may worsen bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect on mortality and coagulation times of two intravenous fluid administration strategies in the management of haemorrhagic hypovolaemia, early compared to delayed administration and larger compared to smaller volume of fluid administered.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-Expanded and CPCI-S) and clinical trials registries. We checked reference lists of identified articles and contacted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was run on 5 February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of the timing and volume of intravenous fluid administration in trauma patients with bleeding. Trials in which different types of intravenous fluid were compared were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 2128 people were included in this review. We did not combine the results quantitatively because the interventions and patient populations were so diverse. Early versus delayed fluid administration Three trials reported mortality and two reported coagulation data.In the first trial (n = 598) the relative risk (RR) for death with early fluid administration was 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.58). The weighted mean differences (WMD) for prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time were 2.7 (95% CI 0.9 to 4.5) and 4.3 (95% CI 1.74 to 6.9) seconds, respectively.In the second trial (n = 50) the RR for death with early blood transfusion was 5.4 (95% CI 0.3 to 107.1). The WMD for partial thromboplastin time was 7.0 (95% CI 6.0 to 8.0) seconds. In the third trial (n = 1309) the RR for death with early fluid administration was 1.06 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.47). Larger versus smaller volume of fluid administration Three trials reported mortality and one reported coagulation data.In the first trial (n = 36) the RR for death with a larger volume of fluid resuscitation was 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 22.29). Prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time were 14.8 and 47.3 seconds in those who received a larger volume of fluid, as compared to 13.9 and 35.1 seconds in the comparison group.In the second trial (n = 110) the RR for death with a high systolic blood pressure resuscitation target (100 mm Hg) maintained with a larger volume of fluid as compared to a low systolic blood pressure resuscitation target (70 mm Hg) maintained with a smaller volume of fluid was 1.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 3.81). In the third trial (n = 25) there were no deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials for or against early or larger volume of intravenous fluid administration in uncontrolled haemorrhage. There is continuing uncertainty about the best fluid administration strategy in bleeding trauma patients. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the most effective fluid resuscitation strategy.

Vision screening of older drivers for preventing road traffic injuries and fatalities

BACKGROUND

Demographic data in North America, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand suggest a rapid growth in the number of persons over the age of 65 years as the baby boomer generation passes retirement age. As older adults make up an increasing proportion of the population, they are an important consideration when designing future evidence-based traffic safety policies, particularly those that lead to restrictions or cessation of driving. Research has shown that cessation of driving among older drivers can lead to negative emotional consequences such as depression and loss of independence. Older adults who continue to drive tend to do so less frequently than other demographic groups and are more likely to be involved in a road traffic crash, possibly due to what is termed the "low mileage bias". Available research suggests that older driver crash risk estimates based on traditional exposure measures are prone to bias. When annual driving distances are taken in to consideration, older drivers with low driving distances have an increased crash risk, while those with average or high driving distances tend to be safer drivers when compared to other age groups. In addition, older drivers with lower distance driving tend to drive in urban areas which, due to more complex and demanding traffic patterns, tend to be more accident-prone. Failure to control for actual annual driving distances and driving locations among older drivers is referred to as "low mileage bias" in older driver mobility research. It is also important to note that older drivers are more vulnerable to serious injury and death in the event of a traffic crash due to changes in physiology associated with normal ageing. Vision, cognition, and motor functions or skills (e.g., strength, co-ordination, and flexibility) are three key domains required for safe driving. To drive safely, an individual needs to be able to see road signs, road side objects, traffic lights, roadway markings, other vulnerable road users, and other vehicles on the road, among many other cues-all while moving, and under varying light and weather conditions. It is equally important that drivers must have appropriate peripheral vision to monitor objects and movement to identify possible threats in the driving environment. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is agreement among researchers that vision plays a significant role in driving performance. Several age-related processes/conditions impair vision, thus it follows that vision testing of older drivers is an important road safety issue. The components of visual function essential for driving are acuity, static acuity, dynamic acuity, visual fields, visual attention, depth perception, and contrast sensitivity. These indices are typically not fully assessed by licensing agencies. Also, current vision screening regulations and cut-off values required to pass a licensing test vary from country to country. Although there is a clear need to develop evidence-based and validated tools for vision screening for driving, the effectiveness of existing vision screening tools remains unclear. This represents an important and highly warranted initiative to increase road safety worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of vision screening interventions for older drivers to prevent road traffic injuries and fatalities.

SEARCH METHODS

For the update of this review we searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science: (CPCI-S & SSCI). The searches were conducted up to 26 September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before and after studies comparing vision screening to non-screening of drivers aged 55 years and older, and which assessed the effect on road traffic crashes, injuries, fatalities and any involvement in traffic law violations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the reference lists for eligible articles and independently assessed the articles for inclusion against the criteria. If suitable trials had been available, two review authors would have independently extracted data using a standardised extraction form.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most countries require a vision screening test for the renewal of an individual's driver's licence. There is, however, lack of methodologically sound studies to assess the effects of vision screening tests on subsequent motor vehicle crash reduction. There is a need to develop valid and reliable tools of vision screening that can predict driving performance.

Non-operative versus operative treatment for blunt pancreatic trauma in children

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic trauma in children is a serious condition with high morbidity. Blunt traumatic pancreatic lesions in children can be treated non-operatively or operatively. For less severe, grade I and II, blunt pancreatic trauma a non-operative or conservative approach is usually employed. Currently, the optimal treatment, of whether to perform operative or non-operative treatment of severe, grade III to V, blunt pancreatic injury in children is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of operative versus non-operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S) and ZETOC. In addition, we searched bibliographies of relevant articles, conference proceeding abstracts and clinical trials registries. We conducted the search on the 21 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to select all randomised clinical trials investigating non-operative versus operative treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children, irrespective of blinding, publication status or language of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used relevant search strategies to obtain the titles and abstracts of studies that were relevant for the review. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility.

MAIN RESULTS

The search found 83 relevant references. We excluded all of the references and found no randomised clinical trials investigating treatment of blunt pancreatic trauma in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that strategies regarding non-operative versus operative treatment of severe blunt pancreatic trauma in children are not based on randomised clinical trials. We recommend that multi-centre trials evaluating non-operative versus operative treatment of paediatric pancreatic trauma are conducted to establish firm evidence in this field of medicine.

Immunonutrition as an adjuvant therapy for burns

BACKGROUND

With burn injuries involving a large total body surface area (TBSA), the body can enter a state of breakdown, resulting in a condition similar to that seen with severe lack of proper nutrition. In addition, destruction of the effective skin barrier leads to loss of normal body temperature regulation and increased risk of infection and fluid loss. Nutritional support is common in the management of severe burn injury, and the approach of altering immune system activity with specific nutrients is termed immunonutrition. Three potential targets have been identified for immunonutrition: mucosal barrier function, cellular defence and local or systemic inflammation. The nutrients most often used for immunonutrition are glutamine, arginine, branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids and nucleotides.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a diet with added immunonutrients (glutamine, arginine, BCAAs, n-3 fatty acids (fish oil), combined immunonutrients or precursors to known immunonutrients) versus an isonitrogenous diet (a diet wherein the overall protein content is held constant, but individual constituents may be changed) on clinical outcomes in patients with severe burn injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was run on 12 August 2012. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI WOS SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S and four other databases. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies. We updated this search in October 2014, but the results of this updated search have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the addition of immunonutrients to a standard nutritional regimen versus an isonitrogenated diet or another immunonutrient agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors were responsible for handsearching, reviewing electronic search results and identifying potentially eligible studies. Three review authors retrieved and reviewed independently full reports of these studies for inclusion. They resolved differences by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted and entered data from the included studies. A third review author checked these data. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each included study and resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with the third and fourth review authors. Outcome measures of interest were mortality, hospital length of stay, rate of burn wound infection and rate of non-wound infection (bacteraemia, pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 trials involving 678 people that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 16 trials contributed data to the analysis. Of note, most studies failed to report on randomisation methods and intention-to-treat principles; therefore study results should be interpreted with caution. Glutamine was the most common immunonutrient and was given in seven of the 16 included studies. Use of glutamine compared with an isonitrogenous control led to a reduction in length of hospital stay (mean stay -5.65 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.09 to -3.22) and reduced mortality (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). However, because of the small sample size, it is likely that these results reflect a false-positive effect. No study findings suggest that glutamine has an effect on burn wound infection or on non-wound infection. All other agents investigated showed no evidence of an effect on mortality, length of stay or burn wound infection or non-wound infection rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we found evidence of an effect of glutamine on mortality reduction, this finding should be taken with care. The number of study participants analysed in this systematic review was not sufficient to permit conclusions that recommend or refute the use of glutamine. Glutamine may be effective in reducing mortality, but larger studies are needed to determine the overall effects of glutamine and other immunonutrition agents.

Passive movements for the treatment and prevention of contractures

BACKGROUND

Contractures, a common complication following immobility, lead to restricted joint range of motion. Passive movements (PMs) are widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures; however, it is not clear whether they are effective.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the effects of PMs on persons with contractures or at risk of developing contractures. Specifically, the aim was to determine whether PMs increase joint mobility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED; SSCI; CPCI-S; CPCI-SSH), PEDro and PsycINFO (Ovid SP). The search was run on 21 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of PMs administered for the treatment or prevention of contractures were included. Studies were included if they compared the effectiveness of PMs versus no intervention, sham intervention or placebo in people with or at risk of contracture. Studies that involved other co-interventions were included, provided the co-interventions were administered in the same way to all groups. Interventions administered through mechanical devices and interventions that involved sustained stretch were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three independent review authors screened studies for inclusion. Two review authors then extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were joint mobility and occurrence of adverse events such as joint subluxations or dislocations, heterotopic ossification, autonomic dysreflexia and fractures or muscle tears. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, pain, spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions. We used standard methodological procedures as advocated by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Two identified studies randomly assigned a total of 122 participants with neurological conditions comparing PMs versus no PMs. Data from 121 participants were available for analysis. Both studies had a low risk of bias. One within-participant study involving 20 participants (40 limbs) measured ankle joint mobility and reported a mean between-group difference of four degrees (95% confidence interval (CI), two to six degrees) favouring the experimental group. Both studies measured spasticity with the Modified Ashworth Scale, but the results were not pooled because of clinical heterogeneity. Neither study reported a clinically or statistically relevant reduction in spasticity with PMs. In one study, the mean difference on a tallied 48-point Modified Ashworth Scale for the upper limbs was one of 48 points (95% CI minus two to four points), and in the other study, the median difference on a six-point Modified Ashworth Scale for the ankle plantar flexor muscles was zero points (95% CI minus one to zero points). In both studies, a negative between-group difference indicated a reduction in spasticity in the experimental group compared with the control group. One study with a total of 102 participants investigated the short-term effects on pain. The mean difference on a zero to 24-point pain scale was -0.4 points in favour of the control group (95% CI -1.4 to 0.6 points). The GRADE level of evidence about the effects of PMs on joint mobility, spasticity and pain is very low. Neither study examined quality of life, activity limitations or participation restrictions or reported any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether PMs are effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures.

The Lund concept for severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Severe traumatic brain injury is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Treatment strategies in management of such injuries are directed to the prevention of secondary brain ischaemia, as a consequence of disturbed post-traumatic cerebral blood flow. They are usually concerned with avoiding high intracranial pressure (ICP) or adequate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). An alternative to this conventional treatment is the Lund concept, which emphasises a reduction in microvascular pressures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the role of the Lund concept versus other treatment modalities such as ICP-targeted therapy, CPP-targeted therapy or other possible treatment strategies in the management of severe traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 10, 2013), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO Host), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S) and trials registries. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies and published reviews found with our search. The most recent search was 5 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs, level 1 evidence) exploring the efficacy of the Lund concept in the treatment of traumatic brain injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected papers and made decisions about the eligibility of potentially relevant studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that the Lund concept is a preferable treatment option in the management of severe traumatic brain injury.

Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections

BACKGROUND

Intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics are indicated for the treatment of severe infections. However, the emergence of infections caused by multi-drug resistant organisms in conjunction with a lack of novel antibiotics has prompted the investigation of alternative dosing strategies to improve clinical efficacy and tolerability. To optimise pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic antibiotic parameters, continuous antibiotic infusions have been compared to traditional intermittent antibiotic infusions.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous intravenous administration of concentration-dependent and time-dependent antibiotics to traditional intermittent intravenous administration in adults with severe acute bacterial infections.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched in September 2012: The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S). The reference lists of all relevant material, the Internet and the trials registry www.clinicaltrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in adults with a bacterial infection requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy comparing continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics were included. Both time-dependent and concentration-dependent antibiotics were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three independent authors performed data extraction for the included studies. All data was cross-checked and disagreements resolved by consensus. An intention to treat analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria with a combined total of over 1,600 patients. The majority of included studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias with regard to randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, management of incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential threats to validity. No studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for all methodological quality items assessed. There were no differences in all-cause mortality (n=1241, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.20, p=0.45), infection recurrence (n=398, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 - 4.19, p=0.76), clinical cure (n=975, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 - 1.08, p=0.98), and superinfection post-therapy (n=813, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.60 - 1.94, p=0.79). There were no differences in safety outcomes including adverse events (n=575, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.12, p=0.63), serious adverse events (n=871, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 - 2.30, p=0.26), and withdrawal due to adverse events (n=871, RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.52 - 7.95, p=0.31). A difference was observed in the subgroup analyses of clinical cure in septic versus non-septic patients, where intermittent antibiotic infusions were favoured for clinical cure in septic patients. However, this effect was not consistent between random-effects and fixed-effects analyses. No differences were found in sensitivity analyses conducted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in mortality, infection recurrence, clinical cure, superinfection post-therapy, and safety outcomes when comparing continuous infusions of intravenous antibiotics to traditional intermittent infusions of antibiotics. However, the wide confidence intervals suggest that beneficial or harmful effects cannot be ruled out for all outcomes. Therefore, the current evidence is insufficient to recommend the widespread adoption of continuous infusion antibiotics in the place of intermittent infusions of antibiotics. Further large prospective randomised trials, with consistent and complete reporting of clinical outcome measures, conducted with concurrent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in special populations are required to determine whether adoption of continuous antibiotic infusions is warranted in specific circumstances.