SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Clinical protocols”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,449 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70 years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5 months vs. threshold < 12.0 months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold ≥ 50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold < 5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold ≥ 75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45 days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of ≥ 95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3 months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Pricing Combination Therapies: A Systematic Review of Value Attribution, Cost-Sharing Mechanisms and Policy Frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies are increasingly central to modern pharmacotherapy, particularly in oncology and other high-burden diseases. However, pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement systems remain largely designed for single-product-single-indication interventions. When multiple patented medicines are used together, especially when owned by different manufacturers, conventional pricing frameworks may struggle to align prices with the value of the combination while preserving incentives for innovation and timely patient access. OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe, and critically assess the methods, models, and policy frameworks proposed in the literature to establish prices for combination therapies, with particular attention to value attribution mechanisms, cost-sharing arrangements between manufacturers, and budget impact considerations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered Open Science Framework protocol. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EconLit, CRD databases, and grey literature sources for publications up to July 2025. Eligible studies analysed pricing approaches, economic models, reimbursement mechanisms, or policy frameworks relevant to combination therapies, including more recent multi-indication pricing literature. Given the heterogeneity of the literature, findings were synthesized using a structured narrative and thematic approach. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The literature was dominated by conceptual and policy analyses, with relatively few empirical or implementation-oriented studies. Value attribution emerged as the central methodological challenge in pricing combination therapies. Several complementary approaches were proposed to operationalise value attribution, including adaptations of indication- or pathway-based pricing, manufacturer cost-sharing arrangements, managed entry agreements, and outcome-based reimbursement mechanisms. Empirical evidence suggests that health systems continue to rely primarily on pragmatic and often partial solutions rather than fully specified pricing frameworks. A complementary review of the multi-indication pricing literature indicates that, although the two fields address different pricing problems, they share important methodological and institutional lessons that can inform the development of pricing frameworks for combination therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature provides a growing repertoire of conceptual approaches for pricing combination therapies but limited empirical evidence on implementation. Pricing frameworks should place value attribution at their core while combining complementary policy mechanisms adapted to national pricing and reimbursement systems. Lessons from multi-indication pricing provide a valuable foundation but require additional governance mechanisms to address value attribution, multi-manufacturer negotiation, and implementation challenges specific to combination therapies.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

The effect of tDCS on emotion-related risk-taking behavior and delay discounting in adults with ADHD.

INTRODUCTION: Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often engage in risky behaviors due to impaired decision-making processes. This study aims to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) on emotion-related risk-taking behavior and delay discounting in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Thirty adults with ADHD underwent three tDCS conditions, administered in a randomized order with at least one week between sessions: (1) left dlPFC anode/right vmPFC cathode, (2) left dlPFC cathode/right vmPFC anode, and (3) sham stimulation. In each session, participants completed the Delay Discounting Task (DDT) and the Modified Balloon Analogue Risk Task (mBART) under three emotional conditions (neutral, positive, and negative) which were induced using emotionally congruent photographs and sounds. Galvanic skin responses (GSR) were also recorded. In the DDT, both area under the curve (AUC) values and log-transformed discounting rates (log k) were calculated for small, medium, and large reward magnitudes (RM). Exploratory electric field modeling was also performed to characterize current distribution. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated task-specific effects of tDCS on decision-making. Although no overall tDCS effect was observed on DDT performance, significant tDCS × RM interactions emerged, particularly for smaller rewards. In contrast, exploratory analyses suggested that tDCS affected all mBART scores. Emotional condition did not influence consistently behavioral performance in either task, whereas both emotional stimulation and tDCS significantly affected GSR responses. However, exploratory electric field modeling indicated a broad prefrontal current distribution extending beyond the intended cortical targets. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest preliminary evidence that prefrontal tDCS can influence risk-related decision-making and autonomic responses in adults with ADHD. However, its effects on delay discounting appear to be context-dependent and limited to specific RMs. Future studies combining neuroimaging with individualized electric field modeling are needed to clarify the neural mechanisms underlying the observed effects of tDCS and to optimize stimulation protocols in adults with ADHD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Obesity Medications for Weight Loss Maintenance in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-obesity medications (AOMs) for long-term weight maintenance following initial weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 October 2025. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AOMs with placebo during the weight-maintenance phase in adults with overweight or obesity after initial weight loss achieved through lifestyle, dietary, surgical or pharmacological interventions. Outcomes included anthropometric indices, cardiometabolic measures, safety endpoints, quality of life and neuropsychiatric adverse events. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were pooled for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively, using fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261293040). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs comprising 4915 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, AOM therapy during the weight-maintenance phase was associated with prevention of weight regain and additional improvements in anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes. AOMs led to further reductions in body weight (BW, WMD: -8.68 kg, 95% CI: -13.25 to -4.11), waist circumference (WC, WMD: -7.16 cm, 95% CI: -10.34 to -3.98) and body mass index (BMI, WMD: -3.58 kg/m2, 95% CI: -5.69 to -1.46). Additional benefits were observed for triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with AOMs, whereas serious adverse events were not significantly increased. Neuropsychiatric adverse events were generally comparable between groups, and available quality-of-life measures favoured AOM treatment. CONCLUSIONS: AOM therapy during the weight-maintenance phase can help prevent weight regain, provide further reductions in body weight and improve cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with overweight or obesity. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with AOMs, whereas serious adverse events were not significantly increased. Further long-term trials are needed to clarify optimal treatment strategies and safety.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact of oxytocin discontinuation on fetal heart rate and uterine contractility: A pre-specified ancillary analysis embedded within a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Oxytocin is widely used to augment uterine contractions during labor. However, its use has been associated with fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities and neonatal morbidity, which may be reduced by discontinuing oxytocin during labor. We aimed to assess the impact of oxytocin discontinuation at the onset of the active phase of labor on FHR patterns and uterine contractility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is a pre-specified ancillary analysis of the STOPOXY trial, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled superiority trial conducted in 21 French maternity units between January 2020 and January 2022, which aimed to assess the impact of oxytocin discontinuation during active labor on neonatal morbidity. Participants who received oxytocin before 4 cm dilation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxytocin discontinuation or oxytocin continuation. For the present analysis, we included women from the per-protocol discontinuation group of the parent trial. Inclusion was restricted to the six centers with electronic cardiotocography storage where valid cardiotocography recordings were available for at least 1 h before and 1 h after oxytocin discontinuation. Using a paired before-and-after design, FHR parameters (classified according to FIGO criteria) and uterine activity were compared during the 60 min preceding versus the 60 min following oxytocin discontinuation by independent obstetricians blinded to neonatal outcomes. Changes in FHR pattern were categorized as no change, improvement, or deterioration. RESULTS: 284 women fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Following oxytocin discontinuation, mean FHR increased (135 vs. 137.5 bpm; p < 0.002) and FHR variability significantly changed (p = 0.010), with a lower rate of reduced variability (3.9% vs. 2.5%) and a higher rate of normal variability (48.2% vs. 53.3%). The proportion of tracings with decelerations significantly decreased (64.1% vs. 48.6%; p < 0.001). Uterine activity decreased, with fewer uterine contractions (4.0 vs. 3.5 contractions per 10 min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women receiving oxytocin during early labor, discontinuation at the onset of the active phase was associated with improved FHR patterns and reduced uterine activity, suggesting a lower fetal stress and tachysystole. Further studies are needed to assess whether these changes affect labor management or maternal experience.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Intravenous lidocaine reduces the propofol EC50 for loss of consciousness and intraoperative anesthetic consumption in gynecological laparoscopy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine reduces propofol requirements and procedure-related adverse events. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to test whether intravenous lidocaine would reduce the effect-site concentration of propofol required to achieve loss of consciousness and decrease propofol consumption during total intravenous anesthesia in gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg·kg-¹ bolus) followed by continuous infusion or an equal volume of saline. Propofol was administered via target-controlled infusion starting at an effect-site concentration of 3.5 μg/mL. The concentration was then adjusted in steps of 0.5 μg/mLaccording to Dixon's up-and-down sequential method: decreased if loss of consciousness was achieved, or increased if not. Loss of consciousness was defined as loss of response to verbal commands. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was calculated using the Dixon's up-and-down method. General anesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil, guided by state entropy (target 40-60) and surgical pleth index (target 20-50). Drug consumption was normalized to anesthesia duration and body weight. RESULTS: The estimated EC50 of propofol for inducing loss of consciousness was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the saline group (3.32 μg/mL, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.04-3.59 vs. 3.89 μg/mL, 95% CI: 3.50-4.28). Under the study protocol, the lidocaine group also required less propofol (8.62 mg·kg-1·h-1, 95% CI: 8.10-9.15 vs. 9.89 mg·kg-1·h-1, 95% CI: 9.05-10.73) and less remifentanil (0.23 μg·kg-1·min-1, 95% CI: 0.21-0.24 vs. 0.27 μg·kg-1·min-1, 95% CI: 0.24-0.30) compared with the saline group. CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine reduced the propofol EC50 for Loss of Consciousness (LOC) and decreased intraoperative propofol and remifentanil consumptions in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. These findings suggest a propofol- and opioid-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in this setting, although confirmation in larger multicenter trials is needed.

Humans↗

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↗

PubMed2026

Restrictive vs Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of the TRAIN Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Anemia is a prevalent condition among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, the optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to initiate red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) is not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess which of 2 different Hb thresholds for guiding RBCT in patients with anemia and TBI is associated with a more favorable neurological outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of the Transfusion Strategies in Acute Brain Injured Patients multicentric randomized clinical trial, conducted in 72 intensive care units across 22 countries between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. Follow-up was completed June 30, 2023. Only patients with TBI were included in the present analysis, conducted from February to May 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Liberal (transfusion at Hb <9 g/dL [to convert to g/L, multiply by 10.0]) vs restrictive (transfusion at Hb <7 g/dL) RBCT strategy over a maximum of 28 days. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the occurrence of unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1 to 5 (overall range, 1-8, with higher scores indicating more favorable outcome) at 180 days. In addition, 14 prespecified serious adverse events, including infection and cerebral ischemia, were assessed. Data were analyzed using both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles. RESULTS: Of 486 patients who presented with TBI (mean [SD] age, 46.8 [17.6] years; 347 [71.4%] male), 475 were included in the primary outcome analysis: 236 were randomized to the liberal transfusion strategy group and 239 to the restrictive transfusion strategy group. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. In total, 534 RBCTs were administered in the liberal transfusion strategy group, compared with 246 RBCTs in the restrictive group. At 180 days after randomization, 138 patients (58.5%) in the liberal group had unfavorable neurological outcome compared with 161 patients (67.4%) in the restrictive group (relative risk [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-1.00]; P = .047; fragility index = 1). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of secondary outcomes (eg, 28-day mortality: 42 of 240 [17.5%] vs 51 of 244 [20.9%]; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.58-1.21]; P = .34) or serious adverse events (eg, RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.88-1.43]; P = .34 for infection and RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.40-1.90]; P = .72 for cerebral ischemia). After adjustment for several confounders, being randomized to the liberal group was associated with a lower observed probability of unfavorable neurological outcome (odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.38-0.94]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, a liberal RBCT strategy was associated with a lower risk than a restrictive RBCT strategy of unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days among patients with TBI. These findings should be interpreted with caution in light of the inherent uncertainty of the estimate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02968654.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Hypoxaemia and mortality in children with lower respiratory infection in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemic lower respiratory infections (LRIs) are a leading cause of childhood mortality, with the highest burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Hypoxaemia-low peripheral capillary oxyhaemoglobin saturation (SpO2)-is a marker of severity, and WHO recommends hospitalisation and oxygen administration for patients with SpO2 <90%. We aimed to update estimates from a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis examining the association between hypoxaemia and mortality among children with LRIs in LMICs by incorporating studies published over the subsequent decade and evaluating mortality risk across multiple SpO2 thresholds. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed studies published between Jan 1, 2015, and June 18, 2025, with combined terms related to pneumonia, children, mortality, and LMICs. We also included selected earlier studies through citation checking. Eligible studies reported associations between hypoxaemia and mortality in children younger than 5 years with LRIs in LMICs. We excluded case reports and case series with fewer than five deaths, studies focused exclusively on the neonatal period, and those limited to children with specific comorbidities or to postoperative patients, for consistency with the original review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Eligible studies were combined with those from the original review and analysed using random-effects models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) by hypoxaemia threshold subgroup. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023433946). FINDINGS: We identified 7734 records; 26 new studies met inclusion criteria and were combined with 18 from the original review. The 44 studies were published between 1993 and 2024 and were primarily from Africa (25 [57%] of 44) or Asia (19 [43%]); some studies spanned multiple locations. Data from 33 studies including 155 633 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. Hypoxaemia of any threshold was associated with higher odds of LRI mortality (OR 4·36 [95% CI 3·52-5·39]) compared with no hypoxaemia. For SpO2 <90% versus 90-100%, OR for death was 4·75 (95% CI 3·42-6·58). For SpO2 90-94% versus 95-100%, mortality risk was more than twice as high (OR 2·27 [95% CI 1·22-4·25]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 64-85% across analyses), and eight (24%) of 33 studies in the primary meta-analysis had a high overall risk of bias; however, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low or moderate risk of bias yielded similar results. INTERPRETATION: SpO2 <90% strongly predicts mortality in children with LRIs in LMICs. Children with SpO2 90-94% also have elevated risk, suggesting that paediatric LRI and pneumonia treatment algorithms should consider management at this hypoxaemia threshold. FUNDING: None.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-ɑ1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-α1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-ɑ1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-α1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-α1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-ɑ1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-ɑ1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-ɑ1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I² not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I² = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin‑α1 administration for any outcome (P ≥ 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-α1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Final-year nursing students' clinical practice experiences: a reflection study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the most impactful clinical practice experiences of final-year nursing students and the future-oriented actions developed in response to these experiences. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive qualitative design was used. Following reflection training in the internship practice course, 134 final-year nursing students were asked to describe the experience that affected them most during clinical practice. A total of 123 written reflections were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: near-miss events, incivility behaviors, and positive preceptoring roles. Negative experiences were mainly related to patients, relatives, and nurses and often led students to feel fear and inadequacy. Students reported action plans focused on effective communication, safe patient care, and becoming positive role models. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of supportive clinical learning environments and positive professional socialization during the transition from student to nurse. IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE: Nursing students worldwide may encounter incivility and near-miss events during clinical practice, potentially adversely affecting their learning experiences and professional development.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Clinical performance evaluation of single-shade versus multi-shade composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Composite resins are widely used as the material of choice for definitive restorations due to their ability to integrate functional and aesthetic aspects in dental rehabilitation. Recently, one-shade composite resins have been introduced to simplify the clinical workflow. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of a "chameleon effect" composite resin with that of a multi-shade composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions after 36 months of follow-up. METHODS: This study was a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with an equivalence design using a split-mouth approach. The sample consisted of 60 patients presenting at least two non-carious cervical lesions, totaling 120 restorations. Restorations were performed using two materials from the same commercial brand: Vittra Unique (one-shade group) and Vittra APS (multi-shade group). The clinical performance of the restorations was longitudinally evaluated according to the FDI criteria. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, while other clinical parameters were compared using the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: At baseline, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the evaluated biological, functional, and aesthetic parameters (p > 0.05). Both materials demonstrated clinically acceptable performance according to the FDI criteria, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 months, no significant differences were observed between the one-shade and the multi-shade composite resins in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This 36-month randomized clinical trial demonstrates that single-shade composite resins achieve structural durability and aesthetic integration equivalent to traditional multi-shade layering when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. This evidence validates a simplified, single-shade restorative workflow, significantly reducing chairside time and operator-dependent variables without compromising the clinical longevity.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Genomic insights into an optrA-carrying plasmid associated with linezolid resistance in clinical Enterococcus faecalis isolates, Argentina.

The spread of the transferable optrA gene poses an increasing threat to the clinical efficacy of oxazolidinones. Here, we characterized a novel optrA-carrying plasmid, pEfa-optrA-Arg, from a linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis clinical isolate from Argentina. The 68,653-bp conjugative plasmid harbored optrA together with multiple antimicrobial resistance genes and showed high similarity to a plasmid previously identified in a bovine isolate from Switzerland. pEfa-optrA-Arg, or a closely related variant, was also detected in E. faecalis isolates from several Argentinian hospitals, highlighting the role of horizontal gene transfer in the spread of antimicrobial resistance across human and animal reservoirs within the One Health continuum.

Enterococcus faecalis↗