SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Confidence”

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.

284 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

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

Teaching Acute Coronary Syndrome High-Risk ECG Interpretation and Clinical Decision-Making Through FOAMed Videos and Podcast Versus Print-Based Materials Among Emergency Care Providers: Randomized Controlled Mixed Methods Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate interpretation of high-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS) electrocardiograms (ECGs) is essential for early diagnosis and timely reperfusion, yet substantial deficits persist across health care professions. Digital self-learning formats such as FOAMed (Free Open Access Medical Education) are widely used, but their effectiveness has rarely been evaluated for complex, high-risk ACS ECG patterns. Existing ECG education studies often focus on students or single professional groups and established ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) criteria, leaving newer guideline-recognized STEMI equivalents, selected emerging occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI)-related patterns, and interprofessional emergency care underrepresented. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of FOAMed podcast and videos versus traditional print-based materials for teaching high-risk ACS ECG patterns and related clinical decision-making in emergency providers. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, interprofessional, controlled mixed methods trial across 5 training sites in Germany. Paramedics, prehospital emergency physicians, and emergency department clinicians received either a FOAMed multimedia module or print-based materials through concealed allocation; deviations from the intended 1:1 ratio resulted from participant no-shows. The intervention consisted of a 30-minute supervised self-learning session. In total, 103 participants were allocated to FOAMed (n=45) or print-based materials (n=58). Two coprimary outcomes were assessed: ECG interpretation accuracy and text-based ACS clinical decision-making. Secondary outcomes included subjective confidence, learning experience, and exploratory qualitative free-text responses. Outcome assessment was automated and blinded; mixed ANOVA was the primary analysis. The study was not prospectively registered because it assessed educational outcomes in health care professionals rather than patient health outcomes. RESULTS: All 103 participants completed the study. Both groups improved, with greater gains in the FOAMed group: ECG interpretation increased from 55% to 65.5% and text-based ACS clinical decision-making from 45% to 68%, versus 57% to 60% and from 47% to 63%, respectively, in the print-based group. Effect sizes were η²=0.055 for ECG interpretation and η²=0.044 for clinical decision-making. Exploratory subgroup analyses provided no evidence of differential effects across age, gender, or professional background and were likely underpowered. Qualitative responses (46 and 37 entries) provided contextual insights into perceived clarity, engagement, and practical relevance supporting the quantitative findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study is innovative in directly comparing a curated FOAMed multimedia module with selected print-based materials in an interprofessional emergency care population. It differs from existing research by focusing on subtle, emerging ischemic patterns and evaluating realistic, time-limited self-learning formats. The findings provide evidence that curated FOAMed resources can produce greater short-term improvements in ECG interpretation and text-based ACS clinical decision-making than traditional print-based materials in this setting. Although implications for clinical performance remain hypothetical, concise, high-quality digital modules may represent a practical supplement to structured continuing education in emergency care.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Contact tracing for hepatitis C: perspectives of people with experience of substance use and hepatitis C on intervention acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a major cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the UK, the principal risk factor for HCV is injecting drug use. The introduction of direct acting anti-virals (DAA's) have transformed HCV care, with cure rates of over 95%. However, HCV is often asymptomatic, and reinfection is a concern. Modelling and real-life studies demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for finding people who have acquired HCV through injecting drug use. However, it is not used routinely in the UK. This qualitative study was undertaken to assess the acceptability of a contact tracing approach to identify people who have injected drugs with an index patient recently diagnosed with HCV. METHODS: Twelve people with lived or living experience of injecting drug use and an HCV diagnosis were interviewed using semi-structured interview topic guides. Participants were purposefully selected according to the inclusion criteria and to ensure there was an even spread of male and female participants. Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, incorporating seven components (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity cost, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) was used to analyse data from interview transcripts. RESULTS: A sample of 12 people who inject drugs in the UK indicated that a contact tracing approach was acceptable across two components of Sekhon's acceptability framework: affective attitude and ethicality. Participants broadly found the idea of tracing people who may be at risk of contracting HCV acceptable, and the approach aligned with their value systems. A contact tracing approach would help alleviate concerns about putting other people's lives at risk through HCV transmission and was seen as a 'sensible' way of finding people at risk. However, there were caveats to this acceptability. Contact tracing approaches delivered by mainstream health, or governmental organisations increased burden, opportunity costs and perceived effectiveness of a contact tracing approach for HCV, particularly within contexts of exclusion and criminalisation of people who inject drugs. Burden and opportunity costs were also affected by individual experiences and risks of violence, sexual violence and abuse. There was a lack of knowledge of contact tracing approaches amongst respondents, leading to a lack of intervention coherence and misunderstandings of what contact tracing was and how it would work. Trusted relationships with NGOs and HCV specialist nurses reduced burden and increased confidence and ability (self-efficacy) to engage with a contact tracing approach. CONCLUSION: People who inject drugs broadly perceive contact tracing as an acceptable method of finding people who are at risk of HCV. However, this acceptability is based on specific modes of delivery through trusted organisations. Findings further highlight the importance of naming and describing contact tracing approaches appropriately, as well as assessing and mitigating against potential risk to index patients, to increase self-efficacy and capacity to engage. Considering these findings, the potential for expanding existing contact tracing approaches should be explored to ensure the UK reaches and maintains its elimination targets.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

[Tafluprost/timolol fixed-dose combination versus tafluprost monotherapy for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a preservative-free tafluprost/timolol maleate fixed-dose combination compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial conducted across 25 centers, including the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, from January 2019 to November 2022. Patients diagnosed with OAG or OHT who required enhanced intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction after a 4-week washout period were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1∶1 to receive either tafluprost/timolol or tafluprost once daily for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP (the average of measurements at 8:00, 10:00, and 16:00) at Month 3. Secondary endpoints included IOP changes at individual time points and the proportion of responders achieving predefined IOP reduction thresholds. Safety was assessed via the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was employed for the primary endpoint; superiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was<0 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa). Continuous variables in secondary endpoints were compared using ANCOVA, and responder rates were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 219 patients were enrolled (tafluprost/timolol group: n=110; tafluprost group: n=109). The primary efficacy analysis set included 215 patients (tafluprost/timolol: n=107; tafluprost: n=108). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The majority of patients were male [127 (59.1%)] with a mean age of (44.80±15.71) years at screening. At Month 3, the mean diurnal IOP reduction from baseline was (6.56±3.44) mmHg in the tafluprost/timolol group and (5.36±2.94) mmHg in the tafluprost group. After adjusting for baseline IOP, the between-group difference was -1.312 mmHg (95%CI: -2.010 to -0.696); as the upper limit was<0 mmHg, tafluprost/timolol demonstrated superior IOP-lowering efficacy to tafluprost. Responder rates for IOP reductions of≥15%,≥25%, and≥30% were significantly higher in the tafluprost/timolol group (P=0.016, 0.028, and 0.032, respectively). The incidence of ocular AEs was 20.0% (22/110) in the tafluprost/timolol group and 26.6% (29/109) in the tafluprost group. The most common AE was conjunctival hyperemia, occurring in 2.7% (3/110) and 8.3% (9/109) of the groups, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with preservative-free tafluprost monotherapy, the tafluprost/timolol combination provides significantly greater IOP reduction in patients with OAG and OHT, while maintaining a favorable safety profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Assessment and CommuniCation ExcelLEnce foR sAfe paTient outcomEs (ACCELERATE): A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a nurse-led assessment and handover communication intervention on patient adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to experience harm from undetected deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. We aimed to implement and evaluate an organisational, ward-level nurse-led assessment and communication intervention to proactively reduce patient adverse events. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised Trial over 12-months was conducted at three metropolitan hospitals. Our intervention comprised a comprehensive, systematic patient assessment at shift commencement; a structured patient-centred bedside nurse-to-nurse clinical handover; and multidisciplinary communication consisting of nurse participation in medical ward rounds. Evidence-based implementation strategies informed intervention delivery to nine clusters (20-35 bed-wards with ≥70% permanent nurses) over three sequential 14-week steps. Routinely collected patient-level data were used to measure intervention effect. The primary outcome was a composite measure of medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls; and stage 2-4 pressure injuries. Secondary outcomes were: individual measures of the primary outcome; nurse-reported perceptions of safety culture; organisational readiness to change; barriers to physical assessment; staff engagement; and patient-reported experience measures of safety and overall hospital experience. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, hospital, pre/post intervention, and Trial step (fortnight), with random effects for ward and patient. RESULTS: There were 13,753 eligible admissions. No change was observed in the primary composite outcome measure (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.99 [0.77, 1.28]; p = 0.95). There was no significant difference in medical emergency team calls (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.75, 1.39]; p = 0.91); unplanned intensive care unit admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.35 [0.57, 3.20]; p = 0.50) and falls (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.96, 2.45]; p = 0.07). However, stage 2-4 pressure injuries significantly decreased by 41% (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.38, 0.93]; p = 0.02); a significant absolute effect improvement of 0.8% ([95% CI: 0.3%-1.3%], p < 0.01). There were statistically significant improvements in nurses' overall perceptions of Safety Attitudes (Pre: 74.6, Post: 79.7; p = 0.02), and the Organisational Readiness to Change subscales of, leader culture (Pre: 3.73, Post 3.91; p = 0.02), leadership behaviour (Pre: 3.85, Post: 4.11; p = 0.03), and general resources (Pre: 3.06, Post: 3.30; p = 0.03). A statistically significant decrease in Barriers to Physical Assessment (Pre: 2.48, Post: 2.24; p <0.001) and in six of seven sub-scales was observed. Patients' overall Measure of Safety remained high, but unchanged (Pre: 3.94 Post: 3.92; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The ACCELERATE Trial demonstrated that nurse-driven initiatives, emphasising structured physical assessments by nurses, patient-centred clinical handovers, and multidisciplinary communication, significantly: reduced pressure injuries; decreased nurses' perceived barriers to performing physical assessments; and improved leadership behaviour, communication, and ward safety culture perceptions. Results highlight the transformative potential of this approach, which now warrants testing at scale for broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000265875.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of six weeks of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation with and without creatine monohydrate on cognitive function and markers of health in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) supplementation has been reported to increase brain creatine content more effectively than creatine monohydrate (CrM). However, the effects on cognitive function are unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this proof-of-concept exploratory clinical trial was to determine whether GAA supplementation with and without CrM affects cognitive function and/or markers of health. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, and counterbalanced manner, 58 healthy and active adults (33 females, 35.5 ± 14 years, 76.2 ± 14 kg) ingested a PLA (PLA, 2 × 6 g/d maltodextrin), GAA (2 × 1 g/d) + PLA (2 × 5 g/d), or GAA (2 × 1 g/d) + CrM (2 × 5 g/d) for six weeks. The participants donated fasting blood samples and completed a battery of tests and questionnaires assessing various aspects of function, mood, stress, sleep quality, and markers of health at baseline and after six weeks of supplementation. Data were analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM) multivariate and univariate with repeated measures, and mean changes from baseline with 95% confidence intervals, and Chi-squared analysis, and considered significant when the probability of error was 0.05 or less, and approaching significance (p > 0.05-p < 0.10). RESULTS: GAA supplementation tended to improve overall reaction time (-241.8 ms [-533, 50], p = 0.10) while significant interaction effects were observed in overall reaction time (p = 0.031-330 ms [-629, -31]) and YES reaction time (-290 ms [-484, -96], p = 0.004) while recalled correct reaction time (-178 ms [-374, 21], p = 0.078) and recalled correct YES (7.4 % [-1, 15.8], p = 0.084) approached significance compared to PLA. Limited to no effects were observed on the Delayed Picture Recognition Task Test, Digit Vigilance Task Test, Corsi Block Task Test, or Stroop Color-Word Task Test. The amount of time engaged in moderate physical activity was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the GAA group compared to PLA. Participants in the GAA group reported a lower frequency of controlling irritations (p = 0.036), and feeling like difficulties are mounting (p = 0.053) on the Perceived Stress Scale. Some positive and potentially undesirable effects were observed in sleep quality assessments. The quality of life assessment revealed that participants in the GAA group reported less frequent feelings of being worn out (p = 0.068) and that their health was excellent (p = 0.092) while those in the GAA + CrM group reported more frequent limitations when bending, kneeling, or stooping (p = 0.053), more often feeling full of life (p = 0.081), and less frequency in feeling downhearted and depressed (p = 0.066). No clinically meaningful changes were observed in blood markers or self-reported side effects among the groups. CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with GAA (2 g/d) and the combination of CrM (10 g/d + GAA 2 g/d) for six weeks improved delayed verbal episodic recognition memory and retrieval speed and some measures of perceived stress, sleep quality, and quality of life. However, most cognitive tests were not affected, particularly when comparing the GAA to the PLA group; there were some inconsistencies in the findings, and several differences only approached significance. Additional research is needed before conclusions can be drawn. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN68542582.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of time-restricted eating on markers of glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes (fasting blood glucose of 5.6-6.9 mmol/l or HbA1c of 39-47 mmol/mol [5.7-6.4%]) or type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose ≥7 mmol/l or HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%]). METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 August 2025. Moreover, forward and backward citation searches were performed. Eligible studies were RCTs in adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, lasting ≥2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (≤12 h eating window) with a non-time-restricted control diet. Studies involving pregnancy, other fasting regimens, or non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Data were pooled as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random-effects generic inverse variance models in Cochrane Review Manager Web, and results are presented as forest plots. The certainty of evidence was defined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology, and risk of bias was estimated by using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Out of 2043 records identified through the database search, as well as 1249 from forward and backward citation searches, ten RCTs including 599 participants were included. The mean length of the studies was 4 months, and the eating windows ranged from 4 to 10 h per day. The pooled meta-analysis showed no overall effect of TRE on HbA1c (-3.33 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.87, 0.20 (-0.30% points; -0.63, 0.02); p=0.06, moderate certainty). Nevertheless, following stratification by subgroups, TRE resulted in a reduction in HbA1c of 0.93 mmol/mol (-1.70, -0.17 [-0.09% points; -0.16, -0.02]; p=0.02) in individuals with prediabetes but not in individuals with type 2 diabetes (-4.68 mmol/mol; -10.08, 0.72 (-0.43% points; -0.92, 0.07); p=0.09). TRE reduced fasting blood glucose in the pooled analysis (-0.30 mmol/l; -0.53, -0.07; p<0.01, moderate certainty) as well as in the subgroup analyses in individuals with prediabetes (-0.14 mmol/l; -0.27, -0.01; p=0.03) and with type 2 diabetes (-0.48 mmol/l; -0.78, -0.17; p<0.01). Moreover, TRE lowered body weight by 1.6 kg (-2.2, -1.0; p<0.001) in the pooled analysis. The evidence was limited by imprecision arising from wide confidence intervals in some of the included studies, which may be due to small sample sizes. Lastly, the effects of TRE on markers of insulin sensitivity, beta cell function and continuous glucose monitoring measurements were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that TRE reduces fasting blood glucose but not HbA1c. The subgroup analyses revealed that TRE improved HbA1c and fasting glucose in individuals with prediabetes and improved fasting glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Future large-scale studies should investigate long-term effects of TRE in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024523591 FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Three authors (JS, A-DT, THA) are employed at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, a public hospital and research institution under the Capital Region of Denmark, partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

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

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

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↗