Results for “Composite Resins” — Page 11

PubMed2026

Balanced Fluid or 0.9% Saline in Children Treated for Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Whether treatment with balanced crystalloid fluid leads to better outcomes than 0.9% saline in children treated for septic shock is debated. METHODS: In this pragmatic clinical trial conducted at 47 emergency departments in five countries, patients (2 months to <18 years of age) with suspected septic shock and abnormal perfusion were randomly assigned to receive fluid resuscitation with either balanced fluid or 0.9% saline for up to 48 hours. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event (a composite of death, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction) at 30 days after enrollment or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Of 9041 enrolled patients, 277 (6.1%) in the balanced-fluid group and 282 (6.2%) in the 0.9%-saline group withdrew from the trial, leaving 4235 and 4247 patients, respectively, for analysis. A primary-outcome event occurred in 137 patients (3.4%) in the balanced-fluid group and in 124 (3.0%) in the 0.9%-saline group (difference, 0.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1.3; risk ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.40; P = 0.85). The median number of hospital-free days during 28 days after enrollment was 23 (interquartile range, 19 to 25) in both groups. Hyperchloremia occurred in 868 patients (31.4%) in the balanced-fluid group and in 1383 (49.0%) in the 0.9%-saline group; hypernatremia in 52 (1.8%) and 89 (3.1%), respectively; and hyperlactatemia in 260 (19.8%) and 228 (16.7%). No differences in other safety outcomes or adverse events were seen. CONCLUSIONS: Among children treated for septic shock, no significant difference was seen in the incidence of death, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction when fluid resuscitation was administered with balanced fluid as compared with 0.9% saline. (Funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; PRoMPT BOLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04102371.).

Adolescent↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗