Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J K Schultz

Publications and source records attributed to J K Schultz.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Antihistamines and/or decongestants for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME) is common and may cause hearing loss with associated developmental delay. Treatment remains controversial. The effectiveness of antihistamines, decongestants and antihistamine/decongestant combinations in promoting the resolution of effusions has been assessed by randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether antihistamine, decongestant, or combination therapy is effective in treating children who present with OME. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), MEDLINE (1951 to 2006) and a gray literature database were searched using a search strategy created by an experienced medical librarian. The date of the last search was March 2006. Reference lists from included studies and relevant reviews were searched by hand; pharmaceutical manufacturers of antihistamines and decongestants and first authors of included studies were contacted to identify other potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines, decongestants or antihistamine/decongestant combinations as treatment for OME in children were selected. We excluded trials that randomized on the basis of acute otitis media (AOM) even though OME was also studied in follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the published reports by two authors independently using standardized data extraction forms and methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two authors. Dichotomous results were expressed as a relative risk with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model when homogeneous and a random-effects model when heterogeneous. Nearly all outcomes analysed were homogeneous. Continuous results were discussed qualitatively. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. MAIN RESULTS: No statistical or clinical benefit was found for any of the interventions or outcomes studied. However, treated study subjects experienced 11% more side effects than untreated subjects (number needed to treat to harm = 9). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because the pooled data demonstrate no benefit and some harm from the use of antihistamines or decongestants alone or in combination in the management of OME, we recommend against their use.

Child↗
PubMed2004

Decongestants and antihistamines for acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common and important source of morbidity in children, although most cases resolve spontaneously. While frequently recommended, decongestant and antihistamine therapy is of unclear benefit. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of decongestant and antihistamine therapy in children with AOM on outcomes of AOM resolution, symptom resolution, medication side effects, and complications of AOM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2003), EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2003) and reference lists of articles for this updated review. We also contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating decongestant or antihistamine treatment for children with AOM were included. Patient-oriented outcomes were considered most relevant. There were no quality or language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Investigators independently evaluated studies for inclusion, performed validity assessments, and completed data extraction. Dichotomous data were pooled to generate relative risks; homogeneity was assessed using approximate chi-square tests. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 2695 people were included. Only the combined decongestant-antihistamine group demonstrated statistically lower rates of persistent AOM at the two week period (fixed relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.96; number needed to treat (NNT) 10). No benefit was found for early cure rates, symptom resolution, prevention of surgery or other complications. There was a five to eight -fold increased risk of side effects for those receiving an intervention, which reached statistical significance for all decongestant groupings. Validity sub analyses demonstrated that lower quality studies found benefit, while analysis of those studies with higher validity scores found no benefit of treatment. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Given lack of benefit and increased risk of side effects, these data do not support the use of decongestant treatment in children with AOM. There was a small statistical benefit from combination medication use but the clinical significance is minimal and study design may be biasing the results. Thus, the routine use of antihistamines for treating AOM in children cannot be recommended.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: While many cessation programs are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search was performed in: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register (Apr 2004), Cochrane controlled trials register (Apr 2004), CDC and Prevention-Tobacco Information and Prevention Database (Jul 2000), MEDLINE (1966-Apr 2004), Cancer Lit (1966-Apr 2004), EMBASE (1974-Apr 2004), CINAHL (1966-Jul 2000), PsycInfo (1861-Apr 2004), ERIC, PsycLit, & Dissertation Abstracts (1861-Dec 1999), SSCI (1972-Apr 2004) and HealthStar (1975-Jul 2000). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees, and co-worker). The search was also limited to English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of 6 months or greater. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third reviewer was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence and biochemical assessment were the primary outcome measures and were analyzed at two post-treatment intervals: 6-9 months and >12 months. The scores of PIQ (partner interaction questionnaire) were also analyzed to assess partner support. A fixed-effects model was used to assess the summary effect of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 40 articles were identified for this review. Only eight articles (nine studies) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied among the studies. All studies included data on self reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence rates. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence at 6-9 months was 1.08 (CI 95%, 0.81 -1.44); and at 12 months post-treatment was 1.0 (CI 95%, 0.75 - 1.34). Of the six studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review of the randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programs, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions did not increase partner support either. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. More systematic intervention to affect partnership significantly should be delivered if partner support were part of an existing cessation program.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: While many cessation programs are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation program. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search was performed in: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register (Aug 2001), Cochrane controlled trials register (Apr 2000), CDC and Prevention-Tobacco Information and Prevention Database (Jul 2000), MEDLINE (1966-Jul 2000), Cancer Lit (1966-Jul 2000), EMBASE (1974-Apr 2000), CINAHL (1966-Jul 2000), PsycInfo (1861-Oct 2000), ERIC, PsycLit, & Dissertation Abstracts (1861-Dec 1999), SSCI (1972-Jul 2000) and HealthStar (1975-Jul 2000). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees, and co-worker). The search was also limited to English language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of 6 months or greater. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data using a structured form. A third reviewer was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence and biochemical assessment were the primary outcome measures and were analyzed at two post-treatment intervals: 6-9 months and >12 months. The scores of PIQ (partner interaction questionnaire) were also analyzed to assess partner support. A fixed-effects model was used to assess the summary effect of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 31 articles were identified for this review. Only eight articles (nine studies) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied among the studies. All studies included data on self reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence rates. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence at 6-9 months was 1.08 (CI 95%, 0.81 -1.44); and at 12 months post-treatment was 1.0 (CI 95%, 0.75 - 1.34). Of the six studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programs did not increase quit rates. Limited data from several of the RCTs suggest that these interventions did not increase partner support either. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. More systematic intervention to affect partnership significantly should be delivered if partner support were part of an existing cessation program.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We compared fluid-based cytologies (FBC) with conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) tests (CT) to determine if either is superior. STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review of original research reports evaluating both CT and FBC with respect to specimen adequacy, comparison with a reference standard, or both. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full articles to determine inclusion status, with differences resolved by consensus with a third author. Risk differences (RD) between occurrence rates for FBC and CT were used for the specimen adequacy data. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled independently and weighted by the inverse of the variance using a random effects model. DATA SOURCES: Studies published between 1985 and November 1999 were identified from MEDLINE, Best Evidence, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts/RRM, and The Cochrane Library. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), and the proportion of satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and "satisfactory but limited by" test results were measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in AuROC (P = .37). FBC specimens were more likely to be satisfactory (RD=0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.09) or to have absent endocervical cells (RD=0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.10) but had 10% fewer "satisfactory but limited by - other" reports (RD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06). There was no difference in unsatisfactory Pap test results. CONCLUSIONS: For most women there is no reason to replace CT with FBC. For women at high risk of cervical cancer or who are screened infrequently, the possible increase in FBC sensitivity may outweigh the potential harms from additional false positives.

Confidence Intervals↗