Community animal health services for improving household wealth and health status of low income farmers.

BACKGROUND: Community animal health services in low-income countries aim to improve the health of animals and directly improve the wealth and health or livelihood of their owners. These services have been promoted by aid organizations since the 1970s. OBJECTIVES: To summarize reliable research of community animal health services on indicators for household wealth and health. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (July 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2002), AGRIS (1975 to July 2005), Science Citation Index (2000 to July 2005), STN SIGLE database (1976 to 2002), and AGRICOLA (19 July 2005). We contacted relevant researchers and organizations, and also checked the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies comparing community animal health services with no community animal health services or with an alternative animal health service. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed randomized controlled trials or controlled before-and-after studies that use standard pragmatic outcomes are needed to evaluate the positive results reported by observational studies.

Low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The main treatment for tuberculosis is antituberculous drugs. Low level laser therapy is used as an adjunct to antituberculous drugs, predominantly in the former Soviet Union and India. OBJECTIVES: To compare low level laser therapy plus antituberculous drugs with antituberculous drugs alone for treating tuberculosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (December 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMBASE (1974 to December 2005), CINAHL (1982 to December 2005), Science Citation Index (1945 to December 2005), PEDro (1929 to December 2005), the Central Medical Library of Moscow catalogue (1988 to June 2005), the internet, and reference lists of articles. We contacted relevant organizations and researchers for the original version. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials comparing low level laser therapy plus antituberculous drugs with antituberculous drugs alone in people with tuberculosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial (130 participants) conducted in India met the inclusion criteria. This trial was poorly reported, with no information on the generation of allocation sequence or allocation concealment. The trial report did not provide details on the group that each of the participants were randomized into or which group those participants that left the trial were from. This precluded the use of its data on time to sputum conversion and other outcome measures for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis is still not supported by reliable evidence. Researchers need to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials to justify the continued participation of volunteers for studies of this experimental intervention.

Low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The main treatment for tuberculosis is antituberculous drugs. Low energy laser therapy is used as an adjunct to antituberculous drugs, predominantly in the former Soviet Union and India. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of low level laser therapy for treating tuberculosis in randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. To seek information about potential benefits or harms from observational studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (up to June 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2001), EMBASE (1988 to December 2001), CINAHL (up to November 2001), PEDro (up to November 2001), the Science Citation Index (up to December 2001), National Centre for Science Information at the Indian Institute of Science (15 April 2002), electronic catalogue of the Central Medical Library (Moscow; 1988 to January 2002), the internet using 'Google' (21 January 2002), and reference lists of articles. We contacted relevant organizations and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: (1) Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing low level laser therapy with no low level laser therapy in people with tuberculosis. We also conducted a subsidiary analysis of of the potential benefits and harms from observational studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from the studies. MAIN RESULTS: No randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the review. The potential benefits and harms from 29 observational studies involving over 3500 people are described. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We have not identified any well designed trials using low level laser therapy (LLLT) to treat tuberculosis. Therefore, the use of LLLT to treat tuberculosis is not supported by reliable evidence.

Community animal health services for improving household wealth and health status of low-income farmers.

Community animal health services (CAHS) have been promoted since the 1970s by aid organizations in low-income countries to improve the health of animals. They are also thought to improve directly the wealth and health or livelihood of their owners. We have systematically searched for observational studies of basic preventive and curative animal health services provided by a community animal health worker in communities in low-income countries. The objective was to summarize the available research on the effects of CAHS on indicators for household wealth and health. Studies for inclusion were assessed independently according to predefined eligibility criteria, the methodological quality of the studies examined, and data extracted. Fourteen studies of varying methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. The results were unclear in four studies, and in the remaining studies it was difficult to summarize the results because they reported different outcomes. However, the studies report that CAHS has a considerable potential for improving human health and wealth as well as animal health and productivity. Given the amount of money and time invested in this area, these observations need to be confirmed in the context of a well-designed study using standard pragmatic outcomes.

Community animal health services for improving household wealth and health status of low income farmers.

BACKGROUND: Community animal health services in low income countries aim to improve the health of animals. They are thought to directly improve the wealth and health or livelihood of their owners. These services have been promoted since the 1970s by aid organizations. OBJECTIVES: To summarize reliable research of community animal health services on indicators for household wealth and health. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (up to May 2002); the AGRIS database (January 1975 to April 2002); STN SIGLE database (January 1976 to 2002); CAB database (January 1973 to January 2002); AGRICultural OnLine Access (US National Agricultural Library; accessed 30 April 2002); MEDLINE (PubMed; 1966 to April 2002); the Science Citation Index (2000 to April 2002); and checked the reference lists of articles. We searched 24 relevant web sites and contacted 22 organizations between July and September 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individual, cluster and quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled before and after studies: comparing community animal health services with no community animal health services, or with an alternative animal health service. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria. Subsidiary analysis of excluded studies indicate a need for methodological rigor in evaluating programmes. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: No studies met the inclusion criteria. Reports that draw on observational data show insufficient rigor to conclude benefit. Given the amount of money and time invested in this area, these observations need to be confirmed by well-designed trials using pragmatic outcomes.