Individual and Work-Related Characteristics Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination Status among Ohio Nurses.

Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine by nurses lags behind that of other health care professionals with minimal empirical evidence to understand this phenomenon. In this secondary analysis, we examined nurses' individual and work-related characteristics and their association with COVID-19 vaccination status. Alumni of three Ohio nursing colleges and members of a professional organization were invited to complete questionnaires from June through August 2021. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between nurse characteristics and vaccination status. Among 844 respondents, 754 (80.30%) had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Older age, having a bachelor's degree or higher, and working in critical care were associated with vaccination. Providing direct care for COVID-19 patients in the last 7 days and a higher perception of one's work being affected by COVID-19 were significantly associated with being vaccinated, whereas prior COVID-19 infection was inversely associated with vaccination status. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses is influenced by a host of factors related to virus knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions. Awareness of these factors can aid the development of interventions to increase nurses' acceptance of vaccines.

Nursing Ethics Education: Thinking, Feeling, and Technology.

Health care ethics education has focused on the four principles approach. Although relevant and important, this dimension is insufficient on its own. Emotional, cultural, spiritual, and relational aspects of ethics must also be addressed. Ethics cases are important in ethics education but should include everyday ethics scenarios that can be messy and emotional. Such situations occur regularly in nursing practice, making microethics particularly relevant to nurses. Art, songs, film, and literature provide stories that allow exploration of everyday ethics. Technology can facilitate this and promote ethics comportment, but more work is needed to demonstrate how best to do this.

Moral Injury, Nurse Well-being, and Resilience Among Nurses Practicing During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine relationships between moral injury (MI), well-being, and resilience among staff nurses and nurse leaders practicing during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic. BACKGROUND: Attention to MI among health professionals, including nurses, increased in 2021, particularly related to the pandemic. Few studies examined MI, well-being, and resilience; even fewer provided implications for leadership/management. METHODS: The sample included 676 RNs practicing in Ohio. The electronic survey included assessments of MI, well-being, and resilience distributed via the Ohio Nurses Association and the schools of nursing alumni Listservs. RESULTS: There was a significant association between MI and negative well-being and negative association between MI and resilience. Differences were observed between staff nurses and leaders. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study relating MI, resilience, and well-bring among nurses and nurse leaders during the pandemic. There is a need for additional research to further our understanding about nurses' health and well-being during the pandemic and beyond.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. METHODS: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics and outcomes of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in humans: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%-99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%-23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%-17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%-17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.83-1.03 × 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54-45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

Why research ethics should add retrospective review.

Research ethics is an integral part of research, especially that involving human subjects. However, concerns have been expressed that research ethics has come to be seen as a procedural concern focused on a few well-established ethical issues that researchers need to address to obtain ethical approval to begin their research. While such prospective review of research is important, we argue that it is not sufficient to address all aspects of research ethics. We propose retrospective review as an important complement to prospective review. We offer two arguments to support our claim that prospective review is insufficient. First, as currently practiced, research ethics has become for some a 'tick box' exercise to get over the 'hurdle' of ethics approval. This fails to capture much of what is important in ethics and does not promote careful reflection on the ethical issues involved. Second, the current approach tends to be rules-based and we argue that research ethics should go beyond this to develop people's capacity to be sensitive to the relevant moral features of their research, their ethical decision-making skills and their integrity. Retrospective review of a project's ethical issues, and how they were addressed, could help to achieve those aims better. We believe that a broad range of stakeholders should be involved in such retrospective review, including representatives of ethics committees, participating communities and those involved in the research. All stakeholders could then learn from others' perspectives and experiences. An open and transparent assessment of research could help to promote trust and understanding between stakeholders, as well as identifying areas of agreement and disagreement and how these can be built upon or addressed. Retrospective review also has the potential to promote critical reflection on ethics and help to develop ethical sensitivity and integrity within the research team. Demonstrating this would take empirical evidence and we suggest that any such initiatives should be accompanied by research into their effectiveness. Our article concludes with a discussion of some possible objections to our proposal, and an invitation to further debate and discussion.

Ethics and Floods: A Systematic Review.

Disaster ethics is a developing field of inquiry recognizing the wide variety of ethical issues confronting various professionals involved in planning for and responding to different types of disasters. This article explores how ethical issues related to floods are addressed in academic literature. The review involved analysis of publications on ethics and floods identified in a systematic literature search of electronic databases that included sociological, biomedical, and geophysical sources. The review methods were guided by the PRISMA Statement on systematic reviews, adapted to this topic area, and followed by a qualitative analysis of the included publications. All articles were analyzed using NVivo software version 11. The qualitative analysis showed that further research is needed on the ethical issues involved in flood disasters. Ethical guidelines are needed for flood planners and responders that are based on the consistent application of well-established ethical principles, values, and virtues to the specific circumstances arising with each flood. Flexibility is required in applying such approaches. The results suggest that interdisciplinary collaboration (sociological, biomedical, geophysical, engineering, and ethical) could contribute significantly to the development of ethics in floods. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:817-828).

How Should Clinicians Engage With Online Health Information?

Many adults, physicians, and medical students search the internet for health information. Open access has many benefits, but the variable quality of internet health information-ranging from evidence based to false-raises ethical concerns. Using Wikipedia as a case study, this article argues that everyone engaging with internet health information has ethical responsibilities. Those hosting and writing for health websites should ensure that information is evidence based, accurate, up to date, and readable and be transparent about conflicts of interest. Health care professionals, including medical students, have both ethical responsibilities to help patients avoid false or misleading health information and practical opportunities to improve the quality of internet health information. All users of such information-professionals and patients alike-should develop critical appraisal skills and apply them to internet health information to distinguish the good from the junk.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of shared decision-making (SMD) making published in 2013. Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus, healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting SDM for children with cancer. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources for the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1); PubMed (NLM) (1946 to February 2016); Embase (Ovid) (1974 to February 2016); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to February 2016); ERIC (ProQuest) (1966 to February 2016); PsycINFO (EBSCO) (1806 to February 2016); BIOSIS (Thomson Reuters) (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to February 2016); and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) (1952 to February 2016). In addition we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005 up to and including 2015): American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials on 29 February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: For this update, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. For this update, we included only RCTs and CCTs. Clearly more research is needed.

Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). METHODS: We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. RESULTS: Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines.

WITHDRAWN: Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic Touch (TT) is an alternative therapy that has gained popularity over the past two decades for helping wounds to heal. Practitioners enter a meditative state and pass their hands above the patient's body to find and correct any imbalances in the patient's 'life energy' or chi. Scientific instruments have been unable to detect this energy. The effect of TT on wound healing has been expounded in anecdotal publications. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review all relevant data to determine the effects of TT on healing acute wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2014, for this fifth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, which compared the effect of TT with a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment control were considered. Studies which used TT as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other therapies, were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (DO'M) determined the eligibility for inclusion of all trials in the review. Both authors conducted data extraction and evaluation of trial validity independently. Each trial was assessed using predetermined criteria. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this update. Four trials in people with experimental wounds were included. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two trials (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant increase in healing associated with TT, while one trial found significantly worse healing after TT and the other found no significant difference. All trials are at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no robust evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic Touch (TT) is an alternative therapy that has gained popularity over the past two decades for helping wounds to heal. Practitioners enter a meditative state and pass their hands above the patient's body to find and correct any imbalances in the patient's 'life energy' or chi. Scientific instruments have been unable to detect this energy. The effect of TT on wound healing has been expounded in anecdotal publications. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review all relevant data to determine the effects of TT on healing acute wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2014, for this fifth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, which compared the effect of TT with a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment control were considered. Studies which used TT as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other therapies, were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (DO'M) determined the eligibility for inclusion of all trials in the review. Both authors conducted data extraction and evaluation of trial validity independently. Each trial was assessed using predetermined criteria. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this update. Four trials in people with experimental wounds were included. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two trials (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant increase in healing associated with TT, while one trial found significantly worse healing after TT and the other found no significant difference. All trials are at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no robust evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic Touch (TT) is an alternative therapy that has gained popularity over the past two decades for helping wounds to heal. Practitioners enter a meditative state and pass their hands above the patient's body to find and correct any imbalances in the patient's 'life energy' or chi. Scientific instruments have been unable to detect this energy. The effect of TT on wound healing has been expounded in anecdotal publications. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review all relevant data to determine the effects of TT on healing acute wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2014, for this fifth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, which compared the effect of TT with a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment control were considered. Studies which used TT as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other therapies, were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (DO'M) determined the eligibility for inclusion of all trials in the review. Both authors conducted data extraction and evaluation of trial validity independently. Each trial was assessed using predetermined criteria. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this update. Four trials in people with experimental wounds were included. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two trials (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant increase in healing associated with TT, while one trial found significantly worse healing after TT and the other found no significant difference. All trials are at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no robust evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical, social and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (19 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum, which are covered by another Cochrane review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one trials involving 5449 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, chamomile, lemon oil, mint oil, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. There were no included studies of dietary and other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent, though three recent studies support ginger over placebo. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, Doxylamine-pyridoxoine and other anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes.We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Risk of bias was low related to performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias for most studies. Selection bias risk was unclear for many studies and almost half of the studies did not fully or clearly report all pre-specified outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, women and health professionals need clear guidance about effective and safe interventions, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support any particular intervention. This is not the same as saying that the interventions studied are ineffective, but that there is insufficient strong evidence for any one intervention. The difficulties in interpreting and pooling the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.

Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic Touch (TT) is an alternative therapy that has gained popularity over the past two decades for helping wounds to heal. Practitioners enter a meditative state and pass their hands above the patient's body to find and correct any imbalances in the patient's 'life energy' or chi. Scientific instruments have been unable to detect this energy. The effect of TT on wound healing has been expounded in anecdotal publications. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review all relevant data to determine the effects of TT on healing acute wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2014, for this fifth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, which compared the effect of TT with a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment control were considered. Studies which used TT as a stand-alone treatment, or as an adjunct to other therapies, were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author (DO'M) determined the eligibility for inclusion of all trials in the review. Both authors conducted data extraction and evaluation of trial validity independently. Each trial was assessed using predetermined criteria. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this update. Four trials in people with experimental wounds were included. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two trials (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant increase in healing associated with TT, while one trial found significantly worse healing after TT and the other found no significant difference. All trials are at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no robust evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical, social and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy previously published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (27 April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum, which are covered by another Cochrane review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials involving 5049 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, chamomile, lemon oil, mint oil, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. We identified no studies of dietary or other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent, though two recent studies support ginger over placebo. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, and anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes. We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, women and health professionals need clear guidance about effective and safe interventions, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support any particular intervention. This is not the same as saying that the interventions studied are ineffective, but that there is insufficient strong evidence for any one intervention. The difficulties in interpreting and pooling the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting shared decision-making (SDM) for children with cancer. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2012); PubMed (1946 to September 2012); EMBASE (1974 to September 2012); CINAHL (1982 to September 2012); PsycINFO (1806 to September 2012); BIOSIS (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ERIC (1966 to September 2012); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to September 2012); and Sociological Abstracts (1952 to September 2012). We searched for information about trials not registered in these resources, either published or unpublished, by searching the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005-2012):American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Cancer Conference (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM 2005-2011 as held every two years), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM).We searched the International Scientific and Technical Proceedings database (2005 to September 2012). We also searched Dissertation Abstracts (from 1980 to September 2012).We scanned the ISRCTN (International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number) register and the National Institute of Health (NIH) Register for ongoing trials at: www.controlled-trials.com and clinicaltrials.gov on the 1 October 2012. We contacted authors for further details. We also contacted experts in this field.We did not impose language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. The types of decisions included were: treatment, health care, and research participation decisions. The primary outcome was SDM as measured with any validated scale. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook the searches, and three review authors independently assessed the studies obtained. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be made on the effects of interventions to promote SDM for children with cancer aged four to 18 years. This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality quantitative research on interventions to promote participation in SDM for children with cancer. There are many potential reasons for the lack of SDM intervention studies with children. Attitudes towards children's participation are slowly changing in society and such changes may take time to be translated or adopted in healthcare settings. The priority may be on developing interventions that promote children's participation in communication interactions since information-sharing is a prerequisite for SDM. Restricting this review to RCTs was a limitation and extending the review to non-randomised studies (NRS) may have produced more evidence. We plan to expand the types of studies in future updates. Clearly more research is needed.