What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about new practices on integrative medicine?

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ten integrative practices that were recently added to the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). METHODS: Review of Cochrane SRs on the following interventions were identified, summarized and critically assessed: apitherapy, aromatherapy, bioenergetics, family constellation, flower therapy, chromotherapy, geotherapy, hypnotherapy, hand imposition or ozone therapy. RESULTS: We included a total of 16 SRs: 4 on apitherapy, 4 on aromatherapy, 6 on hypnotherapy and 2 on ozone therapy. No Cochrane SR was found regarding bioenergetics, family constellation, chromotherapy, clay therapy, flower therapy or hand imposition. The only high-quality evidence was in relation to the potential benefit of apitherapy, specifically regarding some benefits from honey dressings for partial healing of burn wounds, for reduction of coughing among children with acute coughs and for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. CONCLUSION: Except for some specific uses of apitherapy (honey for burn wounds and for acute coughs and bee venom for allergic reactions to insect stings), the use of ten integrative practices that have recently been incorporated into SUS does not seem to be supported by evidence from Cochrane SRs.

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about non-surgical interventions for urinary incontinence in women?

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a highly prevalent condition that impacts self-esteem and overall quality of life. Many non-surgical treatment options are available, ranging from pharmacological approaches to pelvic exercises. We aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding these non-surgical interventions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP). METHODS: A sensitive search was conducted to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors. RESULTS: We included 20 Cochrane systematic reviews: 4 assessing methods of vesical training, 3 evaluating pharmacological interventions, 4 studying pelvic floor muscle training approaches and 9 aimed at other alternatives (such as urethral injections, weighted vaginal cone use, acupuncture, biostimulation and radiofrequency therapy). The reviews found that the evidence regarding the benefits of these diverse interventions ranged in quality from low to high. CONCLUSIONS: This review included 20 Cochrane systematic reviews that provided evidence (of diverse quality) for non-pharmacological interventions for patients with urinary incontinence. Moderate to high quality of evidence was found favoring the use of pelvic floor muscle training among women with urinary incontinence. To establish solid conclusions for all the other comparisons, further studies of good methodological quality are needed.