Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Netherlands. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Netherlands. Mostrar todas las entradas

20 febrero, 2013

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion in children

incipiente Otitis media acuta - Hyperämie
incipiente Otitis media acuta - Hyperämie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 2012 Sep 12;9:CD009163. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009163.pub2.

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion in children

Source

Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht,Utrecht, Netherlands. alicevanzon@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is characterised by an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear behind an intact tympanic membrane, without the symptoms or signs of acute infection. In approximately one in three children with OME, however, a bacterial pathogen is identified in the middle ear fluid. In most cases, OME causes mild hearing impairment of short duration. When experienced in early life and when episodes of (bilateral) OME persist or recur, the associated hearing loss may be significant and have a negative impact on speech development and behaviour. Since most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, only children with persistent middle ear effusion and associated hearing loss potentially require treatment. Previous Cochrane reviews have focused on the effectiveness of ventilation tube insertion, adenoidectomy, autoinflation, antihistamines, decongestants, and oral and topical intranasal steroids in OME. This review focuses on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with OME.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effects of antibiotics in children up to 18 years with OME.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 22 February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with placebo, no treatment or therapy of unproven effectiveness. Our primary outcome was complete resolution of OME at two to three months. Secondary outcomes included resolution of OME at other time points, hearing, language and speech, ventilation tube insertion and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently extracted data using standardised data extraction forms and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We presented dichotomous results as risk differences as well as risk ratios, with their 95% confidence intervals. If heterogeneity was greater than 75% we did not pool data.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 23 studies (3027 children) covering a range of antibiotics, participants, outcome measures and time points of evaluation. Overall, we assessed the studies as generally being at low risk of bias.Our primary outcome was complete resolution of OME at two to three months. The differences (improvement) in the proportion of children having such resolution (risk difference (RD)) in the five individual included studies ranged from 1% (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.12; not significant) to 45% (RD 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.65). Results from these studies could not be pooled due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity.Pooled analysis of data for complete resolution at more than six months was possible, with an increase in resolution of 13% (RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19).Pooled analysis was also possible for complete resolution at the end of treatment, with the following increases in resolution rates: 17% (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24) for treatment for 10 days to two weeks, 34% (RD 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.50) for treatment for four weeks, 32% (RD 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.47) for treatment for three months, and 14% (RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.24) for treatment continuously for at least six months.We were unable to find evidence of a substantial improvement in hearing as a result of the use ofantibiotics for otitis media with effusion; nor did we find an effect on the rate of ventilation tube insertion. We did not identify any trials that looked at speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life. Data on the adverse effects of antibiotic treatment reported in six studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. Increases in the occurrence of adverse events varied from 3% (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; not significant) to 33% (RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.44) in the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The results of our review do not support the routine use of antibiotics for children up to 18 years with otitis media witheffusion. The largest effects of antibiotics were seen in children treated continuously for four weeks and three months. Even when clear and relevant benefits of antibiotics have been demonstrated, these must be balanced against the potential adverse effects when making treatment decisions. Immediate adverse effects of antibiotics are common and the emergence of bacterial resistance has been causally linked to the widespread use ofantibiotics for common conditions such as otitis media.
PMID:
 
22972136
 
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Full Text: 

Enhanced by Zemanta

29 febrero, 2012

US seeks new review of easier-to-spread bird flu

English: This Map shows the Spread of H5N1/ Bi...
Image via Wikipedia
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com
Internet Blacklist Legislation Supporter! This company may be a supporter of the dangerous SOPA or PIPA legislation.

WASHINGTON — A scientist who created an easier-to-spread version of the bird flu said his work isn't as risky as people fear. The U.S. government is asking its biosecurity advisers to reconsider if the research should be made public.

Bird flu only occasionally sickens people, mostly after close contact with infected poultry, but it can be deadly when it does. Scientists have long feared it might mutate to spread more easily and thus spark a pandemic. Researchers in the Netherlands and Wisconsin were studying how that might happen when they created bird flu strains that at least some mammals — ferrets — can spread by coughing or sneezing.

The work triggered international controversy. U.S. health officials urged the details be kept secret so would-be terrorists couldn't copy the strains, and critics worried that a lab accident might allow deadly viruses to escape.

But contrary to public perceptions, the airborne bird flu didn't kill the ferrets, Dr. Ron Fouchier of the Netherlands' Erasmus University told a meeting of U.S. scientists Wednesday. In fact, he said those previously exposed to regular flu were protected from severe disease.

Fouchier said publishing the research would help other scientists monitor the so-called H5N1 bird flu for similar mutations in the wild, and to test vaccines and treatments.

A federal biosecurity panel first sounded the alarm about the research, concerned about the easier mammal-to-mammal spread. The U.S. is asking that panel to conduct another review of the two laboratories' work, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health said Wednesday. He said the board should hear some new data that came to light at a recent closed-door meeting of the World Health Organization, where international flu experts concluded the research eventually should be published.
Enhanced by Zemanta

27 febrero, 2012

Euthanasia

Legality of Euthanasia throughout the world
Image via Wikipedia




Euthanasia (from the Greek εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος,thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain andsuffering.
There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2]
Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants.[3] Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[4]
Euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics.[5]

Contents

  [hide

Enhanced by Zemanta