Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Unless medically contraindicated, cataract surgery is usually performed under local (regional) anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia involves the blockage of a nerve subserving a given part of the body. It involves infiltration of the area around the nerve with local anaesthetic. The two main approaches in the eye are retrobulbar and peribulbar. There is debate over whether the peribulbar approach provides more effective, safer anaesthesia for cataract surgery than retrobulbar block. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of peribulbar anaesthesia (PB) compared to retrobulbar anaesthesia (RB) on pain scores, ocular akinesia, patient acceptability and ocular and systemic complications. SEARCH METHODS: In the previous version of our review, we searched the databases until December 2007. In this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (March 2015); MEDLINE (1960 to March 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to March 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing peribulbar anaesthesia and retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional information, study methodology and missing data. We carried out a descriptive narrative of results as the included studies used varied methods for reporting the outcomes. We performed a subgroup analysis for globe akinesia. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials involving 1438 participants. Three of the six trials had adequate sequence generation while all the trials had unclear allocation concealment There was no evidence of any difference in pain perception during surgery with either retrobulbar or peribulbar anaesthesia. Both were largely effective. There was no evidence of any difference in complete akinesia or the need for further injections of local anaesthetic. Conjunctival chemosis was more common after peribulbar block (relative risk (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 3.05) and lid haematoma was more common after retrobulbar block (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.88). Retrobulbar haemorrhage was uncommon and occurred only once, in a patient who had a retrobulbar block. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little to choose between peribulbar and retrobulbar block in terms of anaesthesia and akinesia during surgery measuring acceptability to patients, need for additional injections and development of severe complications. Severe local or systemic complications were rare for both types of block.

Face washing promotion for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma remains a major cause of avoidable blindness among underprivileged populations in many developing countries. It is estimated that about 146 million people have active trachoma and nearly six million people are blind due to complications associated with repeat infections. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of face washing promotion for the prevention of active trachoma in endemic communities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (January 1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (accessed 10 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 January 2015.To identify further relevant trials we checked the reference lists of the included trials. Also, we used the Science Citation Index to search for references to publications that cited the trials included in the review. We contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared face washing with no treatment or face washing combined with antibiotics against antibiotics alone. Trial participants were residents of endemic trachoma communities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial authors for additional information when needed. Two trials met our inclusion criteria; but we did not conduct meta-analysis due to methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included two cluster-RCTs, which provided data from 2447 participants. Both trials were conducted in areas endemic to trachoma: Northern Australia and Tanzania. The follow-up period was three months in one trial and 12 months in the other; both trials had about 90% participant follow-up at final visit. Overall the quality of the evidence is uncertain due to the trials not reporting many design methods and the differences in outcomes reported between trials.Face washing combined with topical tetracycline was compared with topical tetracycline alone in three pairs of villages in one trial. The trial found that face washing combined with topical tetracycline reduced 'severe' active trachoma compared with topical tetracycline alone at 12 months (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.97); however, the trial did not find any important difference between the intervention and control villages in reducing other types of active trachoma (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59). Intervention villages had a higher prevalence of clean faces than the control villages among children with severe trachoma (adjusted OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.59) and any trachoma (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72) at 12 months follow-up. The second trial compared eye washing to no treatment or to topical tetracycline alone or to a combination of eye washing and tetracycline drops in children with follicular trachoma. At three months, the trial found no evidence of benefit of eye washing alone or in combination with tetracycline eye drops in reducing follicular trachoma amongst children with follicular trachoma (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; one trial, 1143 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that face washing combined with topical tetracycline may be effective in reducing severe active trachoma and in increasing the prevalence of clean faces at one year follow-up. Current evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of face washing alone or in combination with topical tetracycline in reducing active or severe trachoma.

Ivermectin for onchocercal eye disease (river blindness).

BACKGROUND: It is believed that ivermectin (a microfilaricide) could prevent blindness due to onchocerciasis. However, when given to everyone in communities where onchocerciasis is common, the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye are uncertain and data on whether the drug prevents visual loss are unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual impairment and visual field loss in onchocercal eye disease. The secondary aim was to assess the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye in onchocerciasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with at least one year of follow-up comparing ivermectin with placebo or no treatment. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in endemic onchocercal communities with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted study authors for additional information. As trials varied in design and setting, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The review included four trials: two small studies (n = 398) in which people with onchocercal infection were given one dose of ivermectin or placebo and followed up for one year; and two larger community-based studies (n = 4941) whereby all individuals in selected communities were treated every six or 12 months with ivermectin or placebo, whether or not they were infected, and followed for two to three years. The studies provide evidence that treating people who have onchocerciasis with ivermectin reduces the number of microfilariae in their skin and eye(s) and reduces the number of punctate opacities. There was weaker evidence that ivermectin reduced the risk of chorioretinitis. The studies were too small and of too short a duration to provide evidence for an effect on sclerosing keratitis, iridocyclitis, optic nerve disease or visual loss. One community-based study in communities mesoendemic for the savannah strain of O.volvulus provided evidence that annual mass treatment with ivermectin reduces the risk of new cases of optic nerve disease and visual field loss. The other community-based study of mass biannual treatment of ivermectin in communities affected by the forest strain of O.volvulus demonstrated reductions in microfilarial load, punctate keratitis and iridocyclitis but not sclerosing keratitis, chorioretinitis, optic atrophy or visual impairment. The study was underpowered to estimate the effect of ivermectin on visual impairment and other less frequent clinical signs. The studies included in this review reported some adverse effects, in particular an increased risk of postural hypotension in people treated with ivermectin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence for prevention of visual impairment and blindness should not be interpreted to mean that ivermectin is not effective, however, clearly this is a key question that remains unanswered. The main evidence for a protective effect of mass treatment with ivermectin on visual field loss and optic nerve disease comes from communities mesoendemic for the savannah strain of O.volvulus. Whether these findings can be applied to communities with different endemicity and affected by the forest strain is unclear. Serious adverse effects were rarely reported. None of the studies, however, were conducted in areas where people are infected with Loa loa (loiasis).

Needling for encapsulated trabeculectomy filtering blebs.

BACKGROUND: Encapsulation of a filtering bleb following trabeculectomy may lead to elevation of intraocular pressure, prompting further medical or surgical intervention. It has been suggested that needling of an encapsulated bleb may be effective in re-establishing drainage and lowering intraocular pressure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of needling encapsulated blebs on intraocular pressure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 14 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised in which bleb needling was compared with any form of antiglaucoma medication in people with encapsulated trabeculectomy blebs. The primary outcome was mean intraocular pressure measured in millimetres of mercury at day one, one week, one month and at last available follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: One trial, which randomised 25 eyes to either needling or medical treatment, met the inclusion criteria. At one day post-treatment, mean intraocular pressure was lower in the needling group (16.28 mmHg, standard deviation 5.9) than the medical group (19.45 mmHg, standard deviation 3.75). The difference was not statistically significant. At all other follow-up points, mean intraocular pressure was consistently higher in the needling group than the medical group, although the differences were not statistically significant. However, only one needled bleb remained successful at the end of follow-up compared to 10 out of the 11 blebs managed conservatively. This difference was statistically highly significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from one small trial suggests that needling of encapsulated trabeculectomy blebs is not better than medical treatment in reducing intraocular pressure.

Face washing promotion for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma remains a major cause of avoidable blindness among underprivileged populations in many developing countries. It is estimated that about 146 million people have active trachoma and nearly six million people are blind due to complications associated with repeat infections. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of face washing on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic communities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 1950 to September 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 2 September 2011. We checked the reference list of the included trials to identify further relevant trials. We used the Science Citation Index to search for references that cite the studies that are included in the review. We also contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, comparing face washing with no treatment or face washing combined with antibiotics against antibiotics alone. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in endemic trachoma communities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Two clinically heterogeneous trials are included, therefore a meta-analysis was considered inappropriate. MAIN RESULTS: This review included two trials with data from a total of 2560 participants. Face washing combined with topical tetracycline was compared to topical tetracycline alone in three pairs of villages in one trial. The trial found a statistically significant effect for face washing combined with topical tetracycline in reducing 'severe' active trachoma compared to topical tetracycline alone. No statistically significant difference was observed between the intervention and control villages in reducing ('non-severe') active trachoma. The prevalence of clean faces was higher in the intervention villages than the control villages and this was statistically significant. Another trial compared eye washing to no treatment or to topical tetracycline alone or to a combination of eye washing and tetracycline drops in children with follicular trachoma. The trial found no statistically significant benefit of eye washing alone or in combination with tetracycline eye drops in reducing follicular trachoma amongst children with follicular trachoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that face washing combined with topical tetracycline can be effective in reducing severe trachoma and in increasing the prevalence of clean faces. Current evidence does not however support a beneficial effect of face washing alone or in combination with topical tetracycline in reducing active trachoma.

Environmental sanitary interventions for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma is a major cause of avoidable blindness. It is responsible for about six million blind people worldwide, mostly in the poor communities of developing countries. One of the major strategies advocated for the control of the disease is the application of various environmental sanitary measures to such communities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of environmental sanitary measures on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic areas. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1950 to September 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 September 2011. We checked the reference list of included trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted agencies, experts and researchers in trachoma control. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of environmental hygiene measures with no measure. These hygiene measures included fly control, provision of water and health education. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in the trachoma endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included trials. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Six trials met the inclusion criteria but we did not conduct meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with a total of 12,294 participants from 79 communities. Two studies that assessed insecticide spray as a fly control measure found that trachoma is reduced by at least 55% to 61% with this measure compared to no intervention. However, another study did not find insecticide spray to be effective in reducing trachoma. One study found that another fly control measure, latrine provision, reduced trachoma by 29.5% compared to no intervention; this was, however, not statistically significantly different and findings have not been confirmed by a more recent study. Another study revealed that health education reduced the incidence of trachoma. These findings were not confirmed by a second study, however, which found that a modest health education programme with modest water supply did not reduce trachoma. However, all the studies have some methodological concerns. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from two trials that insecticides are effective in reducing trachoma, however, this effect was not demonstrated in another trial that used insecticides. Two trials on latrine provision as a fly control measure have not demonstrated significant trachoma reduction. Health education had shown significant reduction of trachoma in one study but another study did not demonstrate similar findings. Generally there is a dearth of data to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of environmental sanitation in the control of trachoma.

Interventions to increase children's booster seat use: a review.

BACKGROUND: In children aged 4 to 8 years, booster seats are estimated to reduce by 59% the odds of sustaining clinically significant injuries during a motor vehicle crash, compared to using ordinary vehicle seat belts. Given the safety benefits of booster seats, public health and traffic safety agencies recommend their use for children aged 4 to 8 years traveling in motor vehicles, until the vehicle seat belt can fit them properly. Despite these benefits, booster seat use remains low. Interventions aimed at promoting the use of booster seats for children aged 4 to 8 years have been implemented, but there is little evidence regarding their effects. METHODS: The Cochrane methodology was used to assess the effects of interventions to increase booster seat use for children aged 4 to 8 years. The reviewers searched online databases, scanned reference lists, hand-searched journals, and contacted relevant agencies and researchers for both randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after evaluation studies. The search concluded in 2005 and was not restricted by publication status or language. RESULTS: The search yielded 1350 potential studies. Of these, five studies involving 3070 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were generally effective in increasing booster seat use among children aged 4 to 8 years. Education paired with incentive or distribution programs produced more consistent results than education-only interventions that targeted parents, children, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives or the distribution of free booster seats combined with education increase the use of booster seats.

Interventions to prevent HIV/AIDS among adolescents in less developed countries: are they effective?

The objective of this study was to summarize and critically assess the effects of interventions to prevent HIV/AIDS among adolescents in less developed countries. Reports of studies that evaluated interventions for preventing HIV/AIDS/STDs among persons aged 11-25 years were obtained from online computer databases, by searching conference proceedings and relevant journals, and by following up references cited in published reports. Studies were included if they investigated any educational, behavioral, psychosocial or other intervention that aimed to prevent or reduce HIV/AIDS/STD among persons aged 11-25 years in a less developed country. Only studies that included a control group, and which involved pre- and post-intervention assessments were included. Outcome measures included: (i) changes in safe sex practices (abstinence, condom use, limitation of sexual partners, avoidance of casual sex), (ii) knowledge about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention methods, (iii) perception of HIV/AIDS/STD risks, (iv) self-efficacy with regard to condom negotiation and refusal of sex, (v) uptake of voluntary counseling and testing (VCT), and (vi) reduction in incidence of HIV/AIDS/STDs. Studies were assessed in terms of intervention format (e.g., education, role-play, video), duration, and setting (school or community). Reported improvements in outcome measures in intervention versus control groups were assessed. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen of these were conducted in Africa and three in Latin America. Twelve of the sixteen studies were school-based, and four were community-based. The interventions reviewed were not resoundingly successful in achieving their goals of increasing knowledge of HIV/AIDS, altering attitudes, improving negotiation and communication skills, or in influencing positive behavior evidenced through consistent condom use, abstinence, or reducing the number of partners. Considering the importance of HIV/AIDS prevention among adolescents, design of evaluation studies of programs in less developed countries need to be improved. The use of randomized controlled trials or other rigorous approaches for evaluating population-based behavioral interventions (e.g., Solomon Four design) is recommended.