Subject(s)
Albendazole/therapeutic use , Anticestodal Agents/therapeutic use , Cardiomyopathies/drug therapy , Echinococcosis/drug therapy , Mediastinal Cyst/drug therapy , Pericardium/drug effects , Cardiomyopathies/diagnostic imaging , Cardiomyopathies/parasitology , Echinococcosis/diagnostic imaging , Echinococcosis/parasitology , Humans , Male , Mediastinal Cyst/diagnostic imaging , Mediastinal Cyst/parasitology , Middle Aged , Pericardium/diagnostic imaging , Pericardium/parasitology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Contexto: O Ministério da Saúde do Brasil anunciou, em março de 2018, uma expansão das políticas para práticas integrativas em saúde dentro do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), incorporando 10 novos tipos de práticas integrativas à lista de procedimentos disponíveis no sistema público de saúde brasileiro. Objetivo: Identificar, sintetizar e avaliar criticamente evidências de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane sobre as novas práticas de medicina integrativa inseridas no SUS. Métodos: Revisão de revisões sistemáticas conduzida pela Disciplina de Medicina Baseada em Evidências, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de SaÌo Paulo (Unifesp), sobre as seguintes intervenções: apiterapia, aromaterapia, bioenergética, constelação familiar, terapia de florais, cromoterapia, geoterapia, hipnoterapia, imposição de mãos e ozonioterapia. Resultados: Foram incluídas 16 revisões sistemáticas: 4 sobre apiterapia, 4 sobre aromaterapia, 6 sobre hipnoterapia e 2 sobre ozonioterapia. Não foram encontradas revisões sistemáticas Cochrane referentes aos temas bioenergética, constelação familiar, cromoterapia, geoterapia, terapia de florais ou imposição de mãos. A única evidência de alta qualidade encontrada nessas revisões foi sobre o potencial benefício da apiterapia, especificamente para o uso de curativos de mel para cura parcial de feridas por queimadura, para redução de tosse entre crianças com tosse aguda e para prevenção de reações alérgicas a picadas de insetos. Conclusão: Exceto por alguns usos específicos da apiterapia (mel para lesões por queimadura e para tosse aguda e do veneno de abelhas para reações alérgicas às picadas de insetos), o uso das 10 práticas integrativas recentemente incorporadas ao SUS não é embasado por evidências de revisões sistemáticas Cochrane.
Subject(s)
Review , Evidence-Based Medicine , Evidence-Based Practice , Integrative Medicine , Clinical Decision-MakingABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Integrative Medicine/methods , Review Literature as Topic , Apitherapy/methods , Aromatherapy/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Hypnosis/methods , Ozone/therapeutic useABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Review Literature as Topic , Integrative Medicine/methods , Ozone/therapeutic use , Aromatherapy/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Apitherapy/methods , Hypnosis/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Probiotics have been used for a range of clinical situations and their use is strongly encouraged by the media worldwide. This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews about the preventive effects of probiotics in clinical practice. 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: We included all Cochrane reviews on any probiotics when they were used as preventive interventions and compared with no intervention, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. RESULTS: 17 Cochrane systematic reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were summarized in this report. None of the reviews included in the present study provided high-quality evidence for any outcome. The benefits from use of probiotics included decreased incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea; decreased incidence of upper respiratory tract infections and duration of episodes; decreased need for antibiotics and absences from school due to colds; and decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Probiotics seem to decrease the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus, birthweight, risk of vaginal infection and incidence of eczema. CONCLUSION: Despite the marketing and the benefits associated with probiotics, there is little scientific evidence supporting the use of probiotics. None of the reviews provided any high-quality evidence for prevention of illnesses through use of probiotics. More trials are needed to gain better knowledge of probiotics and to confirm when their use is beneficial and cost-effective.
Subject(s)
Diarrhea , Probiotics , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Incidence , PregnancyABSTRACT
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Probiotics have been used for a range of clinical situations and their use is strongly encouraged by the media worldwide. This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews about the preventive effects of probiotics in clinical practice. 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: We included all Cochrane reviews on any probiotics when they were used as preventive interventions and compared with no intervention, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. RESULTS: 17 Cochrane systematic reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were summarized in this report. None of the reviews included in the present study provided high-quality evidence for any outcome. The benefits from use of probiotics included decreased incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea; decreased incidence of upper respiratory tract infections and duration of episodes; decreased need for antibiotics and absences from school due to colds; and decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Probiotics seem to decrease the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus, birthweight, risk of vaginal infection and incidence of eczema. CONCLUSION: Despite the marketing and the benefits associated with probiotics, there is little scientific evidence supporting the use of probiotics. None of the reviews provided any high-quality evidence for prevention of illnesses through use of probiotics. More trials are needed to gain better knowledge of probiotics and to confirm when their use is beneficial and cost-effective.