Rinse-free hand wash for reducing absenteeism among preschool and school children

BACKGROUND

Illness-related absenteeism is an important problem among preschool and school children for low-, middle- and high- income countries. Appropriate hand hygiene is one commonly investigated and implemented strategy to reduce the spread of illness and subsequently the number of days spent absent. Most hand hygiene strategies involve washing hands with soap and water, however this is associated with a number of factors that act as a barrier to its use, such as requiring running water, and the need to dry hands after cleaning. An alternative method involves washing hands using rinse-free hand wash. This technique has a number of benefits over traditional hand hygiene strategies and may prove to be beneficial in reducing illness-related absenteeism in preschool and school children.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effectiveness of rinse-free hand washing for reducing absenteeism due to illness in preschool and school children compared to no hand washing, conventional hand washing with soap and water or other hand hygiene strategies. 2. To determine which rinse-free hand washing products are the most effective (if head-to-head comparisons exist), and what effect additional strategies in combination with rinse-free hand washing have on the outcomes of interest.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 12 other databases and three clinical trial registries. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies and made direct contact with lead authors of studies to collect additional information as required. No date or language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, comparing rinse-free hand wash in any form (hand rub, hand sanitizer, gel, foam etc.) with conventional hand washing using soap and water, other hand hygiene programs (such as education alone), or no intervention. The population of interest was children aged between two and 18 years attending preschool (childcare, day care, kindergarten, etc.) or school (primary, secondary, elementary, etc.). Primary outcomes included child or student absenteeism for any reason, absenteeism due to any illness and adverse skin reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following standard Cochrane methods, two review authors (out of ZM, CT, CL, CS, TB), independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Absences were extracted as the number of student days absent out of total days. This was sometimes reported with the raw numbers and other times as an incidence rate ratio (IRR), which we also extracted. For adverse event data, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs) and present these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis and followed the GRADE approach to establish certainty in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 19 studies with 30,747 participants. Most studies were conducted in the USA (eight studies), two were conducted in Spain, and one each in China, Colombia, Finland, France, Kenya, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sweden, and Thailand. Six studies were conducted in preschools or day-care centres (children aged from birth to < five years), with the remaining 13 conducted in elementary or primary schools (children aged five to 14 years). The included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in several domains, most-notably across the domains of performance and detection bias due to the difficulty to blind those delivering the intervention or those assessing the outcome. Additionally, every outcome of interest was graded as low or very low certainty of evidence, primarily due to high risk of bias, as well as imprecision of the effect estimates and inconsistency between pooled data. For the outcome of absenteeism for any reason, the pooled estimate for rinse-free hand washing was an IRR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates there may be little to no difference between groups. For absenteeism for any illness, the pooled IRR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (13 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (16 days absent per 1000). For the outcome of absenteeism for acute respiratory illness, the pooled IRR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), which indicates that rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (33 days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (42 days absent per 1000). When evaluating absenteeism for acute gastrointestinal illness, the pooled estimate found an IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence), which indicates rinse-free hand washing may reduce absenteeism (six days absent per 1000) compared to those in the 'no rinse-free' group (eight days absent per 1000). There may be little to no difference between rinse-free hand washing and 'no rinse-free' group regarding adverse skin reactions with a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.32; 3 studies, 4365 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Broadly, compliance with the intervention appeared to range from moderate to high compliance (9 studies, 10,749 participants; very-low certainty evidence); narrativley, no authors reported substantial issues with compliance. Overall, most studies that included data on perception reported that teachers and students perceived rinse-free hand wash positively and were willing to continue its use (3 studies, 1229 participants; very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review may have identified a small yet potentially beneficial effect of rinse-free hand washing regimes on illness-related absenteeism. However, the certainty of the evidence that contributed to this conclusion was low or very low according to the GRADE approach and is therefore uncertain. Further research is required at all levels of schooling to evaluate rinse-free hand washing regimens in order to provide more conclusive, higher-certainty evidence regarding its impact. When considering the use of a rinse-free hand washing program in a local setting, there needs to be consideration of the current rates of illness-related absenteeism and whether the small beneficial effects seen here will translate into a meaningful reduction across their settings.

Home fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders for health and nutrition in children under two years of age

BACKGROUND

Vitamin and mineral deficiencies, particularly those of iron, vitamin A, and zinc, affect more than two billion people worldwide. Young children are highly vulnerable because of rapid growth and inadequate dietary practices. Multiple micronutrient powders (MNPs) are single-dose packets containing multiple vitamins and minerals in powder form, which are mixed into any semi-solid food for children six months of age or older. The use of MNPs for home or point-of-use fortification of complementary foods has been proposed as an intervention for improving micronutrient intake in children under two years of age. In 2014, MNP interventions were implemented in 43 countries and reached over three million children. This review updates a previous Cochrane Review, which has become out-of-date.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and safety of home (point-of-use) fortification of foods with MNPs on nutrition, health, and developmental outcomes in children under two years of age. For the purposes of this review, home fortification with MNP refers to the addition of powders containing vitamins and minerals to semi-solid foods immediately before consumption. This can be done at home or at any other place that meals are consumed (e.g. schools, refugee camps). For this reason, MNPs are also referred to as point-of-use fortification.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases. We also searched four trials registers, contacted relevant organisations and authors of included studies to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies, and searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with individual randomisation or cluster-randomisation. Participants were infants and young children aged 6 to 23 months at the time of intervention, with no identified specific health problems. The intervention consisted of consumption of food fortified at the point of use with MNP formulated with at least iron, zinc, and vitamin A, compared with placebo, no intervention, or use of iron-containing supplements, which is standard practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We reported categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (33,147 children) conducted in low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where anaemia is a public health problem. Twenty-six studies with 27,051 children contributed data. The interventions lasted between 2 and 44 months, and the powder formulations contained between 5 and 22 nutrients. Among the 26 studies contributing data, 24 studies (26,486 children) compared the use of MNP versus no intervention or placebo; the two remaining studies compared the use of MNP versus an iron-only supplement (iron drops) given daily. The main outcomes of interest were related to anaemia and iron status. We assessed most of the included studies at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We considered some studies to be at high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding. Most studies were funded by government programmes or foundations; only two were funded by industry. Home fortification with MNP, compared with no intervention or placebo, reduced the risk of anaemia in infants and young children by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; 16 studies; 9927 children; moderate-certainty evidence) and iron deficiency by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.56; 7 studies; 1634 children; high-certainty evidence). Children receiving MNP had higher haemoglobin concentrations (MD 2.74 g/L, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.53; 20 studies; 10,509 children; low-certainty evidence) and higher iron status (MD 12.93 μg/L, 95% CI 7.41 to 18.45; 7 studies; 2612 children; moderate-certainty evidence) at follow-up compared with children receiving the control intervention. We did not find an effect on weight-for-age (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07; 10 studies; 9287 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Few studies reported morbidity outcomes (three to five studies each outcome) and definitions varied, but MNP did not increase diarrhoea, upper respiratory infection, malaria, or all-cause morbidity. In comparison with daily iron supplementation, the use of MNP produced similar results for anaemia (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1 study; 145 children; low-certainty evidence) and haemoglobin concentrations (MD -2.81 g/L, 95% CI -10.84 to 5.22; 2 studies; 278 children; very low-certainty evidence) but less diarrhoea (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; 1 study; 262 children; low-certainty of evidence). However, given the limited quantity of data, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Reporting of death was infrequent, although no trials reported deaths attributable to the intervention. Information on side effects and morbidity, including malaria and diarrhoea, was scarce. It appears that use of MNP is efficacious among infants and young children aged 6 to 23 months who are living in settings with different prevalences of anaemia and malaria endemicity, regardless of intervention duration. MNP intake adherence was variable and in some cases comparable to that achieved in infants and young children receiving standard iron supplements as drops or syrups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home fortification of foods with MNP is an effective intervention for reducing anaemia and iron deficiency in children younger than two years of age. Providing MNP is better than providing no intervention or placebo and may be comparable to using daily iron supplementation. The benefits of this intervention as a child survival strategy or for developmental outcomes are unclear. Further investigation of morbidity outcomes, including malaria and diarrhoea, is needed. MNP intake adherence was variable and in some cases comparable to that achieved in infants and young children receiving standard iron supplements as drops or syrups.

Caregiver involvement in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors

BACKGROUND

Poor diet and insufficient physical activity are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Developing healthy diet and physical activity behaviors early in life is important as these behaviors track between childhood and adulthood. Parents and other adult caregivers have important influences on children's health behaviors, but whether their involvement in children's nutrition and physical activity interventions contributes to intervention effectiveness is not known.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess effects of caregiver involvement in interventions for improving children's dietary intake and physical activity behaviors, including those intended to prevent overweight and obesity • To describe intervention content and behavior change techniques employed, drawing from a behavior change technique taxonomy developed and advanced by Abraham, Michie, and colleagues (Abraham 2008; Michie 2011; Michie 2013; Michie 2015) • To identify content and techniques related to reported outcomes when such information was reported in included studies SEARCH METHODS: In January 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases, and three trials registers. We also searched the references lists of relevant reports and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both, with children aged 2 to 18 years as active participants and at least one component involving caregivers versus the same interventions but without the caregiver component(s). We excluded interventions meant as treatment or targeting children with pre-existing conditions, as well as caregiver-child units residing in orphanages and school hostel environments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials with approximately 12,192 children in eligible intervention arms. With the exception of two studies, all were conducted in high-income countries, with more than half performed in North America. Most studies were school-based and involved the addition of healthy eating or physical education classes, or both, sometimes in tandem with other changes to the school environment. The specific intervention strategies used were not always reported completely. However, based on available reports, the behavior change techniques used most commonly in the child-only arm were "shaping knowledge," "comparison of behavior," "feedback and monitoring," and "repetition and substitution." In the child + caregiver arm, the strategies used most commonly included additional "shaping knowledge" or "feedback and monitoring" techniques, as well as "social support" and "natural consequences." We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias for at least one design factor. Seven trials did not contribute any data to analyses. The quality of reporting of intervention content varied between studies, and there was limited scope for meta-analysis. Both validated and non-validated instruments were used to measure outcomes of interest. Outcomes measured and reported differed between studies, with 16 studies contributing data to the meta-analyses. About three-quarters of studies reported their funding sources; no studies reported industry funding. We assessed the quality of evidence to be low or very low. Dietary behavior change interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component Seven studies compared dietary behavior change interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (mean difference [MD] -0.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.25 to 0.41, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence) or from sodium intake (MD -0.12 g/d, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12, 1 study, n = 207; low-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for children's combined fruit and vegetable intake, sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake, or physical activity levels, nor for adverse effects of interventions. Physical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component Six studies compared physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's total physical activity (MD 0.20 min/h, 95% CI -1.19 to 1.59, 1 study, n = 54; low-quality evidence) or moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.04, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.49, 2 studies, n = 80; moderate-quality evidence). No trial in this comparison reported data for percentage of children's total energy intake from saturated fat, sodium intake, fruit and vegetable intake, or SSB intake, nor for adverse effects of interventions. Combined dietary and physical activity interventions with a caregiver component versus interventions without a caregiver component Ten studies compared dietary and physical activity interventions with and without a caregiver component. At the end of the intervention, we detected a small positive impact of a caregiver component on children's SSB intake (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.12, 3 studies, n = 651; moderate-quality evidence). We did not detect a difference between intervention arms in children's percentage of total energy intake from saturated fat (MD 0.06%, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.80, 2 studies, n = 216; very low-quality evidence), sodium intake (MD 35.94 mg/d, 95% CI -322.60 to 394.47, 2 studies, n = 315; very low-quality evidence), fruit and vegetable intake (MD 0.38 servings/d, 95% CI -0.51 to 1.27, 1 study, n = 134; very low-quality evidence), total physical activity (MD 1.81 min/d, 95% CI -15.18 to 18.80, 2 studies, n = 573; low-quality evidence), or MVPA (MD -0.05 min/d, 95% CI -18.57 to 18.47, 1 study, n = 622; very low-quality evidence). One trial indicated that no adverse events were reported by study participants but did not provide data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to support the inclusion of caregiver involvement in interventions to improve children's dietary intake or physical activity behavior, or both. For most outcomes, the quality of the evidence is adversely impacted by the small number of studies with available data, limited effective sample sizes, risk of bias, and imprecision. To establish the value of caregiver involvement, additional studies measuring clinically important outcomes using valid and reliable measures, employing appropriate design and power, and following established reporting guidelines are needed, as is evidence on how such interventions might contribute to health equity.

Equivalent schedules of intradermal fractional dose versus intramuscular full dose of inactivated polio vaccine for prevention of poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis is a debilitating and deadly infection. Despite exponential growth in medical science, there is still no cure for the disease, which is caused by three types of wild polioviruses: types 1, 2, and 3. According to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), wild poliovirus is still in circulation in three countries, and fresh cases have been reported even in the year 2018. Due to the administration of live vaccines, the risk for vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) is high in areas that are free from wild polioviruses. This is evident based on the fact that VDPV caused 20 outbreaks between 2000 and 2011. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization favoured the inclusion of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the global immunisation schedule. IPV can be delivered in two ways: intramuscularly and intradermally. IPV was previously administered intramuscularly, but shortages in vaccine supplies, coupled with the higher costs of the vaccines, led to the innovation of delivering a fractional dose (one-fifth) of IPV intradermally. However, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an intradermal, fractional dose of IPV compared to an intramuscular, full dose of IPV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in equivalent immunisation schedules using fractional-dose IPV given via the intradermal route versus full-dose IPV given via the intramuscular route.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases, and two trial registers up to February 2019. We also searched the GPEI website and scanned the bibliographies of key studies and reviews in order to identify any additional published and unpublished trials in this area not captured by our electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of healthy individuals of any age who are eligible for immunisation with IPV, comparing intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV to intramuscular full-dose IPV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs involving a total of 7292 participants, both children (n = 6402) and adults (n = 890). Nine studies were conducted in middle-income countries, three studies in high-income countries, and only one study in a low-income country. Five studies did not report methods of randomisation, and one study failed to conceal the allocations. Eleven studies did not blind participants, and six studies did not blind outcome assessments. Two studies had high attrition rates, and one study selectively reported the results. Three studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Paralytic poliomyelitis. No study reported data on this outcome. Seroconversion rates. These were significantly higher for all three types of wild poliovirus for children given intramuscular full-dose IPV after a single primary dose and two primary doses, but only significantly higher for type two wild poliovirus given intramuscularly after three primary doses: • dose one (six studies): poliovirus type 1 (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.41; 2570 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60; 2567 children); poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30; 2571 children); • dose two (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33; 981 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60; 853 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22; 855 children); and • dose three (three studies): poliovirus type 1 (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.15; 973 children); poliovirus type 2 (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.63; 973 children); and poliovirus type 3 (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 973 children). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low or very low for seroconversion rate (after a single, two, or three primary doses) for all three poliovirus types due to significant risk of bias, heterogeneity, and indirectness in applicability/generalisability. Geometric mean titres. No study reported mean antibody titres. Median antibody titres were higher for intramuscular full-dose IPV (7 studies with 4887 children); although these studies also reported a rise in antibody titres in the intradermal group, none reported the duration for which the titres remained high. Any vaccine-related adverse event. Five studies (2217 children) reported more adverse events, such as fever and redness, in the intradermal group, whilst two studies (1904 children) reported more adverse events in the intramuscular group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that intramuscular full-dose IPV may result in a slight increase in seroconversion rates for all three types of wild poliovirus, compared with intradermal fractional-dose IPV. We are uncertain whether intradermal fractional-dose (one-fifth) IPV has better protective effects and causes fewer adverse events in children than intramuscular full-dose IPV.

Beginning reading interventions for children and adolescents with intellectual disability

BACKGROUND

Historically, students with intellectual disability were not expected to learn to read, and thus were excluded from reading instruction. Over the past decades, societal expectations for this group of learners have changed in that children and adolescents with intellectual disability are now expected to be provided with, and benefit from, literacy instruction. This shift in societal expectations has also led to an increase in research examining effective interventions for increasing beginning reading skills for students with intellectual disability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for teaching beginning reading skills to children and adolescents with intellectual disability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2019: CENTRAL; MEDLINE, including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, 13 other databases, and two trials registers. We contacted authors of included studies, examined reference lists, and used Google Scholar to search for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (including trials that use quasi-random methods of allocation such as date of birth), involving children and adolescents with intellectual disability (defined as an intelligence quotient (IQ) two standard deviations or more below the population mean) between the ages of 4 and 21 years, that evaluated the efficacy of a beginning reading intervention compared to a control intervention, including no treatment control, wait-list control, treatment as usual, attention control, or alternate non-reading instruction control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts yielded by the search against the inclusion criteria, and extracted data from each trial using a piloted data extraction form to collect information about the population, intervention, randomization methods, blinding, sample size, outcome measures, follow-up duration, attrition and handling of missing data, and methods of analysis. When data were missing, one review author contacted the study authors to request additional information. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of each included study and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (a systematic method for rating the certainty of evidence in meta-analyses). We conducted random-effect meta-analyses, with inverse-variance weighting to combine effect sizes for each of our primary and secondary outcomes. We presented effect sizes as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies involving 352 children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities that met the inclusion criteria. All studies provided the intervention in school settings. Four studies were conducted in the USA, one in Canada, and two in the UK. Three studies were funded by grants from the US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; one study by the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network and the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation; and three studies did not indicate a funding source. We identified some concerns with risk of bias, mainly due to the difficulty of blinding of participants and personnel, and the lack of blinding of outcome assessors. Meta-analyses of the data demonstrated small-to-moderate effects of beginning reading interventions delivered to children and adolescents with intellectual disability across four dependent variables. We found medium effect sizes in favor of the beginning reading interventions for the primary outcomes of phonologic awareness (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.86; 4 studies, 178 participants; moderate-quality evidence), word reading (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.03; 5 studies, 220 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and decoding (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; 5 studies, 230 participants; low-quality evidence). The studies reported no adverse events. We also found a moderate effect for the secondary outcomes of oral reading fluency (SMD 0.65, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.42; 2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence) and language skills (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.54; 3 studies, 222 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from this review provide evidence that beginning reading interventions that include elements of phonologic awareness, letter sound instruction, and decoding, delivered to children and adolescents with intellectual disability, are associated with small-to-moderate improvements in phonologic awareness, word reading, decoding, expressive and receptive language, and oral reading fluency. These findings are aligned with previously conducted studies that examined the effects of reading interventions for people without intellectual disability.

Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis

BACKGROUND

Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.

Parent training programmes for managing infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic has an effect on both infants and their parents, who become exhausted and concerned as they attempt to comfort their child. Common approaches have focused upon physical treatments to reduce symptoms, with inconclusive evidence as to their effectiveness. An alternative approach seeks to provide training, support and psychological interventions for parents. This approach is known as parent training programmes. Programmes can include soothing techniques, advice on feeding or normalisation material in any form. The teaching format can vary including face-to-face courses, online learning, printed materials, home visits and remote support and counselling. Here, we aim to collate the evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions and examine their effectiveness at reducing infantile colic symptoms and parental anxiety levels, and their safety.

OBJECTIVES

1. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing colic in infants under four months of age. 2. To identify the educational content and attributes of such published programmes.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers. We also handsearched conference abstracts, inspected the references of included studies and contacted leaders in the field for more trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of any form of parental training programmes, alone or in combination, versus another intervention(s) or control, on infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias within the included studies. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search found 6064 records from which we selected 20 for full-text review. From these, we identified seven studies with 1187 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All of the studies included infants under the age of four months suffering from infantile colic. Four studies were conducted in the USA, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands and one in Iran. Four studies stated their funding sources, which included national research institutes, foundations and nutritional companies. Five studies assessed parent training versus a control group that received reassurance or routine care; and of these, one study was three-armed and also examined the effectiveness of using a specialised baby seat. One study examined parent training programmes against a milk-exclusion diet and one study assessed a parent training programme versus the same parent training programme plus swaddling. The duration of the interventions varied, with the shortest being six days and the longest being three months. Generally, most studies had low participant numbers and were at high risk of bias, prone to selection bias, performance bias, and the placebo effect. We could not complete the planned qualitative analysis (objective 2) due to lack of data in study reports and no further information being supplied by authors on request. Instead, we completed a descriptive content analysis with the limited information available. The parent training interventions were found to focus on one or a combination of the following: soothing techniques for crying infants (six studies); general care advice, including sleep (four studies); feeding advice (two studies); stress reduction and empathic programme for parents (two studies); and positive play interaction advice (one study). One study taught 'kangaroo care', a specific form of skin-to-skin cuddling. The control groups consisted of reassurance (two studies), advice to rock the infant in the crib (one study), or no intervention (two studies). Parent training versus control We conducted a meta-analysis using data from three studies (157 infants) that assessed the primary outcome of 'crying time at completion of study period'. Parent training was more effective than control: mean difference (MD) -113.58 m/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -144.19 m/d to -82.96 m/d; low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and some concerns with risk of bias). Parent training versus specialised baby seat One study (38 participants) found no difference in mean crying time at completion between the parent training group and the specialised baby seat group, but did not report specific figures. Parent training versus a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula One study (20 participants) comparing parent training with a milk-exclusion/soy milk formula found crying time at completion of the study to be 2.03 hours versus 1.08 hours, respectively. Parent training versus parent training plus swaddling One study (398 participants) comparing parental training with the same intervention plus training on how to swaddle an infant did not report separate data for each group. No adverse effects were reported, but these were not explicitly reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of parent training programmes for managing infantile colic. Despite a single meta-analysis showing that parent training may reduce crying times for infants, compared to control, the certainty of the evidence was low. Evidence for other comparisons was sparse. We were unable to identify comprehensively the educational content and attributes of the included programmes due to a lack of information in study reports. Further RCTs are needed: they should define interventions clearly to ensure replicability, address all appropriate outcome measures, and minimise risk of bias in order to assess definitively the role of parent training programmes in managing infantile colic.

Video feedback for parental sensitivity and attachment security in children under five years

BACKGROUND

Children who are securely attached to at least one parent are able to be comforted by that parent when they are distressed and explore the world confidently by using that parent as a 'secure base'. Research suggests that a secure attachment enables children to function better across all aspects of their development. Promoting secure attachment, therefore, is a goal of many early interventions. Attachment is mediated through parental sensitivity to signals of distress from the child. One means of improving parental sensitivity is through video feedback, which involves showing a parent brief moments of their interaction with their child, to strengthen their sensitivity and responsiveness to their child's signals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of video feedback on parental sensitivity and attachment security in children aged under five years who are at risk for poor attachment outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, nine other databases and two trials registers. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies, relevant systematic reviews, and several relevant websites SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that assessed the effects of video feedback versus no treatment, inactive alternative intervention, or treatment as usual for parental sensitivity, parental reflective functioning, attachment security and adverse effects in children aged from birth to four years 11 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 22 studies from seven countries in Europe and two countries in North America, with a total of 1889 randomised parent-child dyads or family units. Interventions targeted parents of children aged under five years, experiencing a wide range of difficulties (such as deafness or prematurity), or facing challenges that put them at risk of attachment issues (for example, parental depression). Nearly all studies reported some form of external funding, from a charitable organisation (n = 7) or public body, or both (n = 18). We considered most studies as being at low or unclear risk of bias across the majority of domains, with the exception of blinding of participants and personnel, where we assessed all studies as being at high risk of performance bias. For outcomes where self-report measures were used, such as parental stress and anxiety, we rated all studies at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. Parental sensitivity. A meta-analysis of 20 studies (1757 parent-child dyads) reported evidence of that video feedback improved parental sensitivity compared with a control or no intervention from postintervention to six months' follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.49, moderate-certainty evidence). The size of the observed impact compares favourably to other, similar interventions. Parental reflective functioning. No studies reported this outcome. Attachment security. A meta-analysis of two studies (166 parent-child dyads) indicated that video feedback increased the odds of being securely attached, measured using the Strange Situation Procedure, at postintervention (odds ratio 3.04, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.67, very low-certainty evidence). A second meta-analysis of two studies (131 parent-child dyads) that assessed attachment security using a different measure (Attachment Q-sort) found no effect of video feedback compared with the comparator groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events. Eight studies (537 parent-child dyads) contributed data at postintervention or short-term follow-up to a meta-analysis of parental stress, and two studies (311 parent-child dyads) contributed short-term follow-up data to a meta-analysis of parental anxiety. There was no difference between intervention and comparator groups for either outcome. For parental stress the SMD between video feedback and control was -0.09 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.09, low-certainty evidence), while for parental anxiety the SMD was -0.28 (95% CI -0.87 to 0.31, very low-certainty evidence). Child behaviour. A meta-analysis of two studies (119 parent-child dyads) at long-term follow-up found no evidence of the effectiveness of video feedback on child behaviour (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.42, very low-certainty evidence). A moderator analysis found no evidence of an effect for the three prespecified variables (intervention type, number of feedback sessions and participating carer) when jointly tested. However, parent gender (both parents versus only mothers or only fathers) potentially has a statistically significant negative moderation effect, though only at α (alpha) = 0.1 AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that video feedback may improve sensitivity in parents of children who are at risk for poor attachment outcomes due to a range of difficulties. There is currently only little, very low-certainty evidence regarding the impact of video feedback on attachment security, compared with control: results differed based on the type of measure used, and follow-up was limited in duration. There is no evidence that video feedback has an impact on parental stress or anxiety (low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Further evidence is needed regarding the longer-term impact of video feedback on attachment and more distal outcomes such as children's behaviour (very low-certainty evidence). Further research is needed on the impact of video-feedback on paternal sensitivity and parental reflective functioning, as no study measured these outcomes. This review is limited by the fact that the majority of included parents were mothers.

Botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy

BACKGROUND

Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of physical disabilities in children in high-income countries. Spasticity is the most common motor disturbance in CP. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is considered the first-line treatment for focal spasticity in people with CP.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BoNT-A compared to other treatments used in the management of lower limb spasticity in children with CP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, four other databases, and two trial registers in October 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews and contacted experts in the field. We did not apply any date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of children with CP, aged between birth and 19 years, treated with BoNT-A injections in the lower limb muscles compared to other interventions. The primary outcomes were gait analysis and function. The secondary outcomes were joint range of motion, quality of life, satisfaction, spasticity, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE. A third review author arbitrated in case of disagreements. We conducted meta-analyses of available data whenever possible, analysing dichotomous data with risk ratios (RR), and continuous data with mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We considered a 5% significance level for all analyses.Whenever possible, we analysed outcomes at the time points at which they were assessed: short term (2 to 8 weeks); medium term (12 to 16 weeks); and long term (> 24 weeks).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 randomised controlled trials assessing 1508 participants. Most studies included ambulatory patients with more than one motor type of CP, and with a mean age of between three and seven years. There was a slight predominance of males.Studies compared BoNT-A in the lower limb muscles to usual care or physiotherapy (14 studies), placebo or sham (12 studies), serial casting (4 studies), or orthoses (1 study).We rated studies as at high or unclear risk of bias mainly due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment.BoNT-A versus usual care or physiotherapyBoNT-A might improve overall gait scores at medium-term follow-up (MD 2.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.05; 1 study, 40 children; very low-quality evidence) and is moderately effective at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; 2 studies, 123 children) and medium-term (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 4 studies, 191 children) follow-up (all very low-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (very low-quality evidence).The proportion of adverse events in the BoNT-A group was 0.37 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.66; I² = 95%; very low-quality evidence). No adverse events were reported in the control group.BoNT-A versus placebo or shamBoNT-A improves overall gait scores at short-term (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37, P = 0.006; 4 studies, 261 assessments) and medium-term (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, P < 0.001; 3 studies, 248 assessments) follow-up, and may improve peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance (MD 15.90 degrees, 95% CI 4.87 to 26.93, P = 0.005; 1 study, 19 children) and in swing (MD 10.20 degrees, 95% CI 4.01 to 16.39, P = 0.001; 1 study, 19 children) at short-term follow-up (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than placebo or sham at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.83, P = 0.42; 4 studies, 305 children) or long-term (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.35, P = 0.76; 2 studies, 91 children) follow-up, but has a small positive effect at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01; 5 studies, 327 children) (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves passive ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in the rate of adverse events at short-term follow-up (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.93, P = 0.21; 12 studies, 918 children; moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus serial castingThere was no difference between groups for overall gait scores at short-term (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.66 to 1.66); medium-term (MD 0.65, 95% CI -1.21 to 2.51); or long-term (MD 0.46, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.25) follow-up in one study with 18 children (moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improved instrumented gait analysis only in terms of ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact (MD 6.59 degrees, 95% CI 1.39 to 11.78, P = 0.01; 2 studies, 47 children). There was no difference between groups for peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance and swing, and gait speed at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than serial casting at improving function, ankle range of motion, and spasticity at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not associated with a higher risk of adverse events than serial casting (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 11.03; 3 studies, 64 children; low-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus orthosesThere was no difference between groups for function at medium-term follow-up (MD 11.14, 95% CI -0.05 to 22.33; 1 study, 43 children), but BoNT-A is more effective than orthoses at improving hip range of motion and hip adductors spasticity (all very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most of the outcomes analysed. We found limited evidence that BoNT-A is more effective than placebo or a non-placebo control at improving gait, joint range of motion, satisfaction, and lower limb spasticity in children with CP, whereas the results for function were contradictory. The rate of adverse events with BoNT-A is similar to placebo. BoNT-A is not more effective than ankle serial casting to treat ankle contractures for any of the assessed outcomes, but is more effective than orthotics at improving range of motion and spasticity.

Families and Schools Together (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their families

BACKGROUND

Parents and carers have a major influence on children's learning and development from birth, through the school years, and into adulthood. Parental contributions to education include providing a secure environment in which to learn, providing intellectual stimulation, transmitting social norms and values, shaping the child's resilience through fostering literacy and problem-solving, and encouraging personal and social aspiration. Increasingly, providers of formalised education are recognising the primary role of parents, carers, and the wider family, as well as peers and the environment, in shaping children's education, health, and life experiences.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) programme in improving outcomes among children and their families.

SEARCH METHODS

Between October 2018 and December 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 11 additional databases, and three trial registers. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reports and reviews, contacted the programme developer and independent researchers, and searched relevant websites to identify other eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of FAST, relative to waiting list, usual or alternative services, or no intervention, on outcomes for children (aged from birth to completion of compulsory education) and their families.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently evaluated the records retrieved from the search for relevance. One review author (JV) extracted data from eligible studies with a second independent review author (AF, DK, or SL). Review authors consulted with one another to resolve disagreements. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We presented results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) because all outcomes were continuously scaled, and we accompanied these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 completed RCTs, most of which were relatively recent (2007 or later) and were conducted with at least some involvement from the intervention developer or the FAST organisation. Nine of the 10 trials were from the USA; the other was from the UK. Children were young (five to nine years old; mean age approximately six years), and therefore, whilst not so named in the reports, evaluations consisted of what is sometimes referred to as 'Kids FAST' and sometimes 'Elementary Level FAST'). Among the USA-based studies, at least 62% of participants were members of a racial/ethnic minority group (most commonly, African American or Latino). FAST was usually delivered in schools after the school day. Trials lasted about eight weeks and usually examined the effects of FAST relative to no additional intervention. Most studies were funded by agencies in the US federal government. We judged the certainty of evidence in the included studies to be moderate or low for the main review outcomes. Failure to include all families in outcome analyses (attrition) and possible bias in recruitment of families into the trials were the main limitations in the evidence.We included over 9000 children and their families in at least one meta-analysis. The follow results relate to meta-analyses of data at long-term follow-up.Primary outcomesFour studies (approximately 6276 children) assessed child school performance at long-term follow-up. The effect size was very small, and the CI did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects if viewed from an individual perspective (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.08). We assessed the certainty of evidence for this outcome as moderate. No studies assessed child adverse events, parental substance use, or parental stress.Secondary outcomesParent reports of child internalising behaviour (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.17; 4 RCTs, approximately 908 children; low-certainty evidence) and family relationships (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; 4 RCTs, approximately 2569 children; moderate-certainty evidence) also yielded CIs that did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects.The CI for parent reports of child externalising behaviour, however, did include effects that, if real, were possibly large enough to be important (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05; 4 RCTs, approximately 754 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given these results, it is hard to support the assertion that assignment to FAST is associated with important positive outcomes for children and their parents.

A realist review of which advocacy interventions work for which abused women under what circumstances

BACKGROUND

Intimate partner abuse (including coercive control, physical, sexual, economic, emotional and economic abuse) is common worldwide. Advocacy may help women who are in, or have left, an abusive intimate relationship, to stop or reduce repeat victimisation and overcome consequences of the abuse. Advocacy primarily involves education, safety planning support and increasing access to different services. It may be stand-alone or part of other services and interventions, and may be provided within healthcare, criminal justice, social, government or specialist domestic violence services. We focus on the abuse of women, as interventions for abused men require different considerations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess advocacy interventions for intimate partner abuse in women, in terms of which interventions work for whom, why and in what circumstances.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, 12 other databases, two trials registers and two relevant websites. The search had three phases: scoping of articles to identify candidate theories; iterative recursive search for studies to explore and fill gaps in these theories; and systematic search for studies to test, confirm or refute our explanatory theory.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Empirical studies of any advocacy or multi-component intervention including advocacy, intended for women aged 15 years and over who were experiencing or had experienced any form of intimate partner abuse, or of advocates delivering such interventions, or experiences of women who were receiving or had received such an intervention. Partner abuse encompasses coercive control in the absence of physical abuse. For theory development, we included studies that did not strictly fit our original criteria but provided information useful for theory development.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently extracted data, with double assessment of 10% of the data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We adopted RAMESES (Realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards) standards for reporting results. We applied a realist approach to the analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 98 studies (147 articles). There were 88 core studies: 37 focused on advocates (4 survey-based, 3 instrument development, 30 qualitative focus) and seven on abused women (6 qualitative studies, 1 survey); 44 were experimental intervention studies (some including qualitative evaluations). Ten further studies (3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 intervention process evaluation, 1 qualitative study, 2 mixed methods studies, 2 surveys of women, and 1 mixed methods study of women and staff) did not fit the original criteria but added useful information, as befitting a realist approach. Two studies are awaiting classification and three are ongoing.Advocacy interventions varied considerably in contact hours, profession delivering and setting.We constructed a conceptual model from six essential principles based on context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns.We have moderate and high confidence in evidence for the importance of considering both women's vulnerabilities and intersectionalities and the trade-offs of abuse-related decisions in the contexts of individual women's lives. Decisions should consider the risks to the woman's safety from the abuse. Whether actions resulting from advocacy increase or decrease abuse depends on contextual factors (e.g. severity and type of abuse), and the outcomes the particular advocacy intervention is designed to address (e.g. increasing successful court orders versus decreasing depression).We have low confidence in evidence regarding the significance of physical dependencies, being pregnant or having children. There were links between setting (high confidence), and potentially also theoretical underpinnings of interventions, type, duration and intensity of advocacy, advocate discipline and outcomes (moderate and low confidence). A good therapeutic alliance was important (high confidence); this alliance might be improved when advocates are matched with abused women on ethnicity or abuse experience, exercise cultural humility, and remove structural barriers to resource access by marginalised women. We identified significant challenges for advocates in inter-organisational working, vicarious traumatisation, and lack of clarity on how much support to give a woman (moderate and high confidence). To work effectively, advocates need ongoing training, role clarity, access to resources, and peer and institutional support.Our provisional model highlights the complex way that factors combine and interact for effective advocacy. We confirmed the core ingredients of advocacy according to both women and advocates, supported by studies and theoretical considerations: education and information on abuse; rights and resources; active referral and liaising with other services; risk assessment and safety planning. We were unable to confirm the impact of complexity of the intervention (low confidence). Our low confidence in the evidence was driven mostly by a lack of relevant studies, rather than poor-quality studies, despite the size of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm the core ingredients of advocacy and suggest its use rests on sound theoretical underpinnings. We determined the elements of a good therapeutic alliance and how it might be improved, with a need for particular considerations of the factors affecting marginalised women. Women's goals from advocacy should be considered in the contexts of their personal lives. Women's safety was not necessarily at greatest risk from staying with the abuser. Potentially, if undertaken for long enough, advocacy should benefit an abused woman in terms of at least one outcome providing the goals are matched to each woman's needs. Some outcomes may take months to be determined. Where abuse is severe, some interventions may increase abuse. Advocates have a challenging role and must be supported emotionally, through provision of resources and through professional training, by organisations and peers.Future research should consider the different principles identified in this review, and study outcomes should be considered in relation to the mechanisms and contexts elucidated. More longitudinal evidence is needed. Single-subject research designs may help determine exactly when effect no longer increases, to determine the duration of longitudinal work, which will likely differ for vulnerable and marginalised women. Further work is needed to ascertain how to tailor advocacy interventions to cultural variations and rural and resource-poor settings. The methods used in the included studies may, in some cases, limit the applicability and completeness of the data reported. Economic analyses are required to ascertain if resources devoted to advocacy interventions are cost-effective in healthcare and community settings.

Social skills training for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 5 to 18 years

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children is associated with hyperactivity and impulsivity, attention problems, and difficulties with social interactions. Pharmacological treatment may alleviate the symptoms of ADHD but this rarely solves difficulties with social interactions. Children with ADHD may benefit from interventions designed to improve their social skills. We examined the benefits and harms of social skills training on social skills, emotional competencies, general behaviour, ADHD symptoms, performance in school of children with ADHD, and adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of social skills training in children and adolescents with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 4 other databases and two trials registers.We also searched online conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field for information about unpublished or ongoing randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our searches by language, year of publication, or type or status of publication, and we sought translation of the relevant sections of non-English language articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials investigating social skills training versus either no intervention or waiting-list control, with or without pharmacological treatment of both comparison groups of children and adolescents with ADHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5 software and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed bias according to domains for systematic errors. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 randomised clinical trials described in 45 reports. The trials included a total of 2690 participants aged between five and 17 years. In 17 trials, participants were also diagnosed with various comorbidities.The social skills interventions were described as: 1) social skills training, 2) cognitive behavioural therapy, 3) multimodal behavioural/psychosocial therapy, 4) child life and attention skills treatment, 5) life skills training, 6) the "challenging horizon programme", 7) verbal self-instruction, 8) meta-cognitive training, 9) behavioural therapy, 10) behavioural and social skills treatment, and 11) psychosocial treatment. The control interventions were no intervention or waiting list.The duration of the interventions ranged from five weeks to two years. We considered the content of the social skills interventions to be comparable and based on a cognitive-behavioural model. Most of the trials compared child social skills training or parent training combined with medication versus medication alone. Some of the experimental interventions also included teacher consultations.More than half of the trials were at high risk of bias for generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment. No trial reported on blinding of participants and personnel. Most of the trials did not report on differences between groups in medication for comorbid disorders. We used all eligible trials in the meta-analyses, but downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low or very low.We found no clinically relevant treatment effect of social skills interventions on the primary outcome measures: teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22; 11 trials, 1271 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.05); teacher-rated emotional competencies at end of treatment (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.68; two trials, 129 participants; I2 = 74%; P = 0.96); or on teacher-rated general behaviour (SMD -0.06 (negative value better), 95% CI -0.19 to 0.06; eight trials, 1002 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.33). The effect on the primary outcome, teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment, corresponds to a MD of 1.22 points on the social skills rating system (SSRS) scale (95% CI 0.09 to 2.36). The minimal clinical relevant difference (10%) on the SSRS is 10.0 points (range 0 to 102 points on SSRS).We found evidence in favour of social skills training on teacher-rated core ADHD symptoms at end of treatment for all eligible trials (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05; 14 trials, 1379 participants; I2= 69%; P = 0.02), but the finding is questionable due to lack of support from sensitivity analyses, high risk of bias, lack of clinical significance, high heterogeneity, and low certainty.The studies did not report any serious or non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review suggests that there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD. We may need more trials that are at low risk of bias and a sufficient number of participants to determine the efficacy of social skills training versus no training for ADHD. The evidence base regarding adolescents is especially weak.

Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) for home-based nutritional rehabilitation of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to five years of age

BACKGROUND

Management of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in children comprises two potential phases: stabilisation and rehabilitation. During the initial stabilisation phase, children receive treatment for dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, intercurrent infections and other complications. In the rehabilitation phase (applicable to children presenting with uncomplicated SAM or those with complicated SAM after complications have been resolved), catch-up growth is the main focus and the recommended energy and protein requirements are much higher. In-hospital rehabilitation of children with SAM is not always desirable or practical - especially in rural settings - and home-based care can offer a better solution. Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) is a widely used option for home-based rehabilitation, but the findings of our previous review were inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of home-based RUTF used during the rehabilitation phase of SAM in children aged between six months and five years on recovery, relapse, mortality and rate of weight gain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in October 2018: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and three trials registers. We ran separate searches for cost-effectiveness studies, contacted researchers and healthcare professionals in the field, and checked bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where children aged between six months and five years with SAM were, during the rehabilitation phase, treated at home with RUTF compared to an alternative dietary approach, or with different regimens and formulations of RUTF compared to each other. We assessed recovery, deterioration or relapse and mortality as primary outcomes; and rate of weight gain, time to recovery, anthropometrical changes, cognitive development and function, adverse outcomes and acceptability as secondary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened for eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of those included, independently and in duplicate. Where data allowed, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis using Review Manager 5, and investigated substantial heterogeneity through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. For the main outcomes, we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE, and presented results in a 'Summary of findings' table per comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 eligible studies (n = 7976; effective sample size = 6630), four of which were cluster trials. Eight studies were conducted in Malawi, four in India, and one apiece in Kenya, Zambia, and Cambodia. Six studies received funding or donations from industry whereas eight did not, and one study did not report the funding source.The overall risk of bias was high for six studies, unclear for three studies, and low for six studies. Among the 14 studies that contributed to meta-analyses, none (n = 5), some (n = 5) or all (n = 4) children were stabilised in hospital prior to commencement of the study. One small study included only children known to be HIV-infected, another study stratified the analysis for 'recovery' according to HIV status, while the remaining studies included HIV-uninfected or untested children. Across all studies, the intervention lasted between 8 and 16 weeks. Only five studies followed up children postintervention (maximum of six months), and generally reported on a limited number of outcomes.We found seven studies with 2261 children comparing home-based RUTF meeting the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for nutritional composition (referred to in this review as standard RUTF) with an alternative dietary approach (effective sample size = 1964). RUTF probably improves recovery (risk ratio (RR) 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.54; 6 studies, 1852 children; moderate-quality evidence), and may increase the rate of weight gain slightly (mean difference (MD) 1.12 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.96; 4 studies, 1450 children; low-quality evidence), but we do not know the effects on relapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 4 studies, 1505 children; very low-quality evidence) and mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.16; 4 studies, 1505 children; very low-quality evidence).Two quasi-randomised cluster trials compared standard, home-based RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements with a similar RUTF but given as a supplement to the usual diet (213 children; effective sample size = 210). Meta-analysis showed that standard RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements may improve recovery (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; low-quality evidence) and reduce relapse (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.85; low-quality evidence), but the effects are unknown for mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.04; very low-quality evidence) and rate of weight gain (MD 1.21 g/kg/day, 95% CI - 0.74 to 3.16; very low-quality evidence).Eight studies randomised 5502 children (effective sample size = 4456) and compared standard home-based RUTF with RUTFs of alternative formulations (e.g. using locally available ingredients, containing less or no milk powder, containing specific fatty acids, or with added pre- and probiotics). For recovery, it made little or no difference whether standard or alternative formulation RUTF was used (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 studies, 4188 children; high-quality evidence). Standard RUTF decreases relapse (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 6 studies, 4188 children; high-quality evidence). However, it probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; 7 studies, 4309 children; moderate-quality evidence) and may make little or no difference to the rate of weight gain (MD 0.11 g/kg/day, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.54; 6 studies, 3807 children; low-quality evidence) whether standard or alternative formulation RUTF is used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to alternative dietary approaches, standard RUTF probably improves recovery and may increase rate of weight gain slightly, but the effects on relapse and mortality are unknown. Standard RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements may improve recovery and relapse compared to a similar RUTF given as a supplement to the usual diet, but the effects on mortality and rate of weight gain are not clear. When comparing RUTFs with different formulations, the current evidence does not favour a particular formulation, except for relapse, which is reduced with standard RUTF. Well-designed, adequately powered, pragmatic RCTs with standardised outcome measures, stratified by HIV status, and that include diarrhoea as an outcome, are needed.

Preventive lipid-based nutrient supplements given with complementary foods to infants and young children 6 to 23 months of age for health, nutrition, and developmental outcomes

BACKGROUND

One nutritional intervention advocated to prevent malnutrition among children is lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS). LNS provide a range of vitamins and minerals, but unlike most other micronutrient supplements, LNS also provide energy, protein and essential fatty acids. Alternative recipes and formulations to LNS include fortified blended foods (FBF), which are foods fortified with vitamins and minerals, and micronutrient powders (MNP), which are a combination of vitamins and minerals, OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of preventive LNS given with complementary foods on health, nutrition and developmental outcomes of non-hospitalised infants and children six to 23 months of age, and whether or not they are more effective than other foods (including FBF or MNP).This review did not assess the effects of LNS as supplementary foods or therapeutic foods in the management of moderate and severe acute malnutrition.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 21 other databases and two trials registers for relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies and other experts in the area for any ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the impact of LNS plus complementary foods given at point-of-use (for any dose, frequency, duration) to non-hospitalised infants and young children aged six to 23 months in stable or emergency settings and compared to no intervention, other supplementary foods (i.e. FBF), nutrition counselling or multiple micronutrient supplements or powders for point-of-use fortification of complementary foods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for relevance and, for those studies included in the review, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data as the interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables,.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified a total of 8124 records, from which we included 17 studies (54 papers) with 23,200 children in the review. The included studies reported on one or more of the pre-specified primary outcomes, and five studies included multiple comparison groups.Overall, the majority of trials were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other sources of bias, but at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. Using the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as low or moderate.LNS+complementary feeding compared with no intervention Thirteen studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with no intervention. LNS plus complementary feeding reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting by 7% (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.98; nine studies, 13,372 participants; moderate-quality evidence), severe stunting by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; five studies, 6151 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; eight studies; 13,172 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate underweight by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; eight studies, 13,073 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and anaemia by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; five studies, 2332 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no impact of LNS plus complementary feeding on severe wasting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.46; three studies, 2329 participants) and severe underweight (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13; two studies, 1729 participants). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; three studies, 3382 participants).LNS+complementary feeding compared with FBF Five studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with other FBF, including corn soy blend and UNIMIX. We pooled four of the five studies in meta-analyses and found that, when compared to other FBF, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; three studies, 2828 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; two studies, 2290 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and moderate underweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; two studies, 2280 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and FBF for severe stunting (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.42; two studies, 729 participants; low-quality evidence), severe wasting (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.81; two studies, 735 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and severe underweight (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.25; one study, 173 participants; low-quality evidence).LNS+complementary feeding compared with MNP Four studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with MNP. We pooled data from three of the four studies in meta-analyses and found that compared to MNP, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate underweight (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; two studies, 2004 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and anaemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; two studies, 557 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and MNP for moderate stunting (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; three studies, 2365 participants) and moderate wasting (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; two studies, 2004 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest that LNS plus complementary feeding compared to no intervention is effective at improving growth outcomes and anaemia without adverse effects among children aged six to 23 months in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in Asia and Africa, and more effective if provided over a longer duration of time (over 12 months). Limited evidence also suggests that LNS plus complementary feeding is more effective than FBF and MNP at improving growth outcomes.

WITHDRAWN: Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that peptides from gluten and casein may have a role in the origins of autism and that the physiology and psychology of autism might be explained by excessive opioid activity linked to these peptides. Research has reported abnormal levels of peptides in the urine and cerebrospinal fluid of people with autism.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of gluten and/or casein free diets as an intervention to improve behaviour, cognitive and social functioning in individuals with autism.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: CENTRAL(The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), PsycINFO (1971 to April 2007), EMBASE (1974 to April 2007), CINAHL (1982 to April 2007), ERIC (1965 to 2007), LILACS (1982 to April 2007), and the National Research register 2007 (Issue1). Review bibliographies were also examined to identify potential trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving programmes which eliminated gluten, casein or both gluten and casein from the diets of individuals diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Abstracts of studies identified in searches of electronic databases were assessed to determine inclusion by two independent authors The included trials did not share common outcome measures and therefore no meta-analysis was possible. Data are presented in narrative form.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small RCTs were identified (n = 35). No meta-analysis was possible. There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003). In addition three outcomes showed no significant difference between the treatment and control group and we were unable to calculate mean differences for ten outcomes because the data were skewed. No outcomes were reported for disbenefits including harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Research has shown of high rates of use of complementary and alternative therapies (CAM) for children with autism including gluten and/or casein exclusion diets. Current evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor. Large scale, good quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

Constraint-induced movement therapy in children with unilateral cerebral palsy

BACKGROUND

Unilateral cerebral palsy (CP) is a condition that affects muscle control and function on one side of the body. Children with unilateral CP experience difficulties using their hands together secondary to disturbances that occur in the developing fetal or infant brain. Often, the more affected limb is disregarded. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) aims to increase use of the more affected upper limb and improve bimanual performance. CIMT is based on two principles: restraining the use of the less affected limb (for example, using a splint, mitt or sling) and intensive therapeutic practice of the more affected limb.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) in the treatment of the more affected upper limb in children with unilateral CP.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, OTseeker, five other databases and three trials registers. We also ran citation searches, checked reference lists, contacted experts, handsearched key journals and searched using Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs or clinically controlled trials implemented with children with unilateral CP, aged between 0 and 19 years, where CIMT was compared with a different form of CIMT, or a low dose, high-dose or dose-matched alternative form of upper-limb intervention such as bimanual intervention. Primarily, outcomes were bimanual performance, unimanual capacity and manual ability. Secondary outcomes included measures of self-care, body function, participation and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to eliminate ineligible studies. Five review authors were paired to extract data and assess risk of bias in each included study. GRADE assessments were undertaken by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials (1264 participants), published between 2004 and 2018. Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 105 (mean 35). Mean age was 5.96 years (standard deviation (SD) 1.82), range three months to 19.8 years; 53% male and 47% participants had left hemiplegia. Fifty-seven outcome measures were used across studies. Average length of CIMT programs was four weeks (range one to 10 weeks). Frequency of sessions ranged from twice weekly to seven days per week. Duration of intervention sessions ranged from 0.5 to eight hours per day. The mean total number of hours of CIMT provided was 137 hours (range 20 to 504 hours). The most common constraint devices were a mitt/glove or a sling (11 studies each).We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high across the studies.

KEY RESULTS

Primary outcomes at primary endpoint (immediately after intervention)CIMT versus low-dose comparison (e.g. occupational therapy)We found low-quality evidence that CIMT was more effective than a low-dose comparison for improving bimanual performance (mean difference (MD) 5.44 Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA) units, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37 to 8.51).CIMT was more effective than a low-dose comparison for improving unimanual capacity (Quality of upper extremity skills test (QUEST) - Dissociated movement MD 5.95, 95% CI 2.02 to 9.87; Grasps; MD 7.57, 95% CI 2.10 to 13.05; Weight bearing MD 5.92, 95% CI 2.21 to 9.6; Protective extension MD 12.54, 95% CI 8.60 to 16.47). Three studies reported adverse events, including frustration, constraint refusal and reversible skin irritations from casting.CIMT versus high-dose comparison (e.g. individualised occupational therapy, bimanual therapy)When compared with a high-dose comparison, CIMT was not more effective for improving bimanual performance (MD -0.39 AHA Units, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.36). There was no evidence that CIMT was more effective than a high-dose comparison for improving unimanual capacity in a single study using QUEST (Dissociated movement MD 0.49, 95% CI -10.71 to 11.69; Grasp MD -0.20, 95% CI -11.84 to 11.44). Two studies reported that some children experienced frustration participating in CIMT.CIMT versus dose-matched comparison (e.g. Hand Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy, bimanual therapy, occupational therapy)There was no evidence of differences in bimanual performance between groups receiving CIMT or a dose-matched comparison (MD 0.80 AHA units, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.38).There was no evidence that CIMT was more effective than a dose-matched comparison for improving unimanual capacity (Box and Blocks Test MD 1.11, 95% CI -0.06 to 2.28; Melbourne Assessment MD 1.48, 95% CI -0.49 to 3.44; QUEST Dissociated movement MD 6.51, 95% CI -0.74 to 13.76; Grasp, MD 6.63, 95% CI -2.38 to 15.65; Weightbearing MD -2.31, 95% CI -8.02 to 3.40) except for the Protective extension domain (MD 6.86, 95% CI 0.14 to 13.58).There was no evidence of differences in manual ability between groups receiving CIMT or a dose-matched comparison (ABILHAND-Kids MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18). From 15 studies, two children did not tolerate CIMT and three experienced difficulty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence for all conclusions was low to very low. For children with unilateral CP, there was some evidence that CIMT resulted in improved bimanual performance and unimanual capacity when compared to a low-dose comparison, but not when compared to a high-dose or dose-matched comparison. Based on the evidence available, CIMT appears to be safe for children with CP.

Probiotics to prevent infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I² = 72%.A random-effects meta-analysis of all six studies (1851 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.21; low-certainty evidence; I² not calculable (only four serious events for one comparison, two in each group: meconium plug obstruction, patent ductus arteriosus and neonatal hepatitis).A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (707 participants) found a mean difference (MD) of -32.57 minutes per day (95% CI -55.60 to -9.54; low-certainty evidence; I² = 93%) in crying time at study end in favour of probiotics.A subgroup analysis of the most studied agent, Lactobacillus reuteri, showed a reduction of 44.26 minutes in daily crying with a random-effects model (95% CI -66.6 to -21.9; I² = 92%), in favour of probiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.

Effectiveness of provision of animal-source foods for supporting optimal growth and development in children 6 to 59 months of age

BACKGROUND

Adequate nutrients early in life promote cognitive development and are critical for proper growth and functioning. The effect of individual nutrients consumed through food is often not the same as consuming the same nutrients in supplementary form due to 'food synergy', the biological and chemical interrelations that occur between nutrients. Animal-source foods, such as eggs, meat, fish, and dairy, are energy dense and contain multiple micronutrients and essential fatty acids with high bioavailability. The benefits of animal-source foods may include higher food synergy relative to fortified foods as well as decreasing dependence on external suppliers of fortified foods.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of animal-source foods compared to any other feeding interventions or no intervention in improving growth and developmental outcomes in children aged 6 to 59 months.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 18 other databases, and three trials registers up to August 2018. We also contacted authors and known experts in the field for assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished data, and searched the reference lists of included studies and reviews, and websites of relevant organizations, for other studies that may not have been captured by our electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of any duration, where children between 5 months and 59 months (6 years) of age were provided with an animal-source food (e.g. consumption of milk, meat, or eggs), prepared with any cooking method, compared with any intervention or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility using prespecified criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Study characteristicsWe included 6 studies that analyzed data from 3036 children aged 5 to 50 months. The studies were conducted in China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Pakistan, the USA, and Zambia, and lasted between 5 and 12 months. Three studies were funded, in part, by government entities; one study was supported by a nonprofit organization. Two studies did not report a funding source.Three studies compared the effects of feeding an animal-source food with a fortified (iron or iron and zinc), or unfortified cereal; two used a control group with no intervention; one compared a meat-based diet to a dairy-based diet. The types of animal-source foods tested included yogurt, eggs, cheese, lyophilized (freeze-dried) beef product, ground and frozen pork, puréed and jarred beef with gravy or pork, and powdered whey protein.We judged four studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; three studies because they were funded by an industry with a plausible interest in the outcome of the intervention; and one study because there was insufficient information to assess five of the seven bias 'Risk of bias' domains. We judged two of the six studies to be at high risk of bias overall; one study because there was significant baseline imbalance in length-for-age z scores (LAZ) between groups and evidence of selective reporting; the other study because there there was both a significant baseline imbalance in LAZ and weight-for-age z scores (WAZ) between groups, and a large-scale social media campaign that may have influenced care received at home in the control group.Key resultsAnimal-source foods versus cereal-based foods or no interventionFive studies (2972 children) measured change in linear growth with either height-for-age z scores (HAZ) or LAZ. Three studies (592 children) reported a significant increase in HAZ and LAZ in the intervention group compared to the control group. Two studies (2380 children) reported a decline in LAZ in both groups. In one study (1062 children) there was no difference between the groups in the rate of decline; in the other (1318 children) the decrease in LAZ was significantly smaller in the intervention group.Five studies (2972 children) measured weight gain using WAZ. Three studies (592 children) reported a significant increase in WAZ in the intervention group compared to the control group. In two studies (2380 children), WAZ decreased in both groups. In one of these studies (1318 children), the decrease in the intervention group was significantly smaller than in the control group. In the other study (1062 children), there was no difference between the groups.Three studies (1612 children) reported impacts on all-cause morbidity, but metrics were inconsistent between studies. One study with yogurt (402 children) reported a significant reduction in duration and incidence of diarrhea and upper respiratory infections in the intervention group. One study with eggs (148 children) reported a significant increase in the incidence of diarrhea in the intervention group, but this may have been due to cultural associations with eggs and gastrointestional problems. There were no other significant differences in fever, respiratory infections, or skin conditions between groups. The third study (1062 children) found no differences between intervention and control groups across morbidity measures.No studies reported data on anemia.Meat-based diet versus dairy-based dietOne study (64 children) measured change in LAZ and WAZ in infants fed either a meat-based diet or dairy-based diet. There was a significant increase in LAZ among infants consuming the meat-based diet and a significant decrease in LAZ among infants consuming a dairy-based diet. WAZ increased in both groups, with no significant difference between groups.The study did not assess all-cause morbidity or anemia.Quality of the evidenceWe rated the quality of the evidence as very low overall due to baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, high heterogeneity in meta-analysis, and imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and inconsistent direction of effects. We have little confidence in the results; further research is likely to change the estimate of magnitude and direction of treatment effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the limited quality of the evidence, we are uncertain of the effects of the provision of animal-source food versus cereal products or no intervention on the growth or development of children. More adequately powered trials with deliberately selected animal-source foods are needed.

Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers

BACKGROUND

The reading skills of 16% of children fall below the mean range for their age, and 5% of children have significant and severe reading problems. Phonics training is one of the most common reading treatments used with poor readers, particularly children.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the effect of phonics training and explore the impact of various factors, such as training duration and training group size, that might moderate the effect of phonics training on literacy-related skills in English-speaking poor readers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases, and three trials registers up to May 2018. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that used randomisation, quasi-randomisation, or minimisation to allocate participants to a phonics intervention group (phonics training only or phonics training plus one other literacy-related skill) or a control group (no training or non-literacy training). Participants were English-speaking poor readers with word reading one standard deviation below the appropriate level for their age (children, adolescents, and adults) or one grade or year below the appropriate level (children only), for no known reason. Participants had no known comorbid developmental disorder, or physical, neurological, or emotional problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with 923 participants in this review. Studies took place in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. Six of the 14 included studies were funded by government agencies and one was funded by a university grant. The rest were funded by charitable foundations or trusts. Each study compared phonics training alone, or in conjunction with one other reading-related skill, to either no training (i.e. treatment as usual) or alterative training (e.g. maths). Participants were English-speaking children or adolescents, of low and middle socioeconomic status, whose reading was one year, one grade, or one standard deviation below the level expected for their age or grade for no known reason. Phonics training varied between studies in intensity (up to four hours per week), duration (up to seven months), training group size (individual and small groups), and delivery (human and computer). We measured the effect of phonics training on seven primary outcomes (mixed/regular word reading accuracy, non-word reading accuracy, irregular word reading accuracy, mixed/regular word reading fluency, non-word reading fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling). We judged all studies to be at low risk of bias for most risk criteria, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.There was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' accuracy for reading real and novel words that follow the letter-sound rules (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.90; 11 studies, 701 participants), and their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; 10 studies, 682 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that phonics training probably improved English-speaking poor readers' fluency for reading words that followed the letter-sounds rules (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.72; 4 studies, 224 participants), and non-word reading fluency (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68; 3 studies, 188 participants), as well as their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.39; 4 studies, 294 participants). In addition, there was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' spelling (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.01; 3 studies, 158 participants), but only slightly improve their reading comprehension (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.62; 5 studies, 343 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Phonics training appears to be effective for improving literacy-related skills, particularly reading fluency of words and non-words, and accuracy of reading irregular words. More studies are needed to improve the precision of outcomes, including word and non-word reading accuracy, reading comprehension, spelling, letter-sound knowledge, and phonological output. More data are also needed to determine if phonics training in English-speaking poor readers is moderated by factors such as training type, intensity, duration, group size, or administrator.

Community-based supplementary feeding for food insecure, vulnerable and malnourished populations - an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Supplementary feeding may help food insecure and vulnerable people by optimising the nutritional value and adequacy of the diet, improving quality of life and improving various health parameters of disadvantaged families. In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the problems supplementary feeding aims to address are entangled with poverty and deprivation, the programmes are expensive and delivery is complicated.

OBJECTIVES

1. To summarise the evidence from systematic reviews of supplementary feeding for food insecure, vulnerable and malnourished populations, including children under five years of age, school-aged children, pregnant and lactating women, people with HIV or tuberculosis (or both), and older populations.2. To describe and explore the effects of supplementary feeding given to people in these groups, and to describe the range of outcomes between reviews and range of effects in the different groups.

METHODS

In January 2017, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase and nine other databases. We included systematic reviews evaluating community-based supplementary feeding, and concerning food insecure, vulnerable and malnourished populations. Two review authors independently undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We assessed review quality using the AMSTAR tool, and used GRADEpro 'Summary of findings' tables from each review to indicate the certainty of the evidence for the main comparisons. We summarised review findings in the text and reported the data for each outcome in additional tables. We also used forest plots to display results graphically.

MAIN RESULTS

This overview included eight systematic reviews (with last search dates between May 2006 and February 2016). Seven were Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions in pregnant women; children (aged from birth to five years) from LMIC; disadvantaged infants and young children (aged three months to five years); children with moderate acute malnutrition (MAM); disadvantaged school children; adults and children who were HIV positive or with active tuberculosis (with or without HIV). One was a non-Cochrane systematic review in older people with Alzheimer's disease. These reviews included 95 trials relevant to this overview, with the majority (74%) of participants from LMIC.The number of included participants varied between 91 and 7940 adults, and 271 and more than 12,595 children. Trials included a wide array of nutritional interventions that varied in duration, frequency and format, with micronutrients often reported as cointerventions. Follow-up ranged from six weeks to two years; three trials investigated outcomes at four to 17 years of age. All reviews were rated as high quality (AMSTAR score between eight and 11). The GRADE certainty ratings ranged from very low to moderate for individual comparisons, with the evidence often comprising only one or two small trials, thereby resulting in many underpowered analyses (too small to detect small but important differences). The main outcome categories reported across reviews were death, anthropometry (adults and children) and other markers of nutritional status, disease-related outcomes, neurocognitive development and psychosocial outcomes, and adverse events.Mortality data were limited and underpowered in meta-analysis in all populations (children with MAM, in children with HIV, and in adults with tuberculosis) with the exception of balanced energy and protein supplementation in pregnancy, which may have reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.94; 5 trials, 3408 women). Supplementation in pregnancy also improved infant birth weight (mean difference (MD) 40.96 g, 95% CI 4.66 to 77.26; 11 trials, 5385 participants) and reduced risk of infants born small-for-gestational age (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; 7 trials, 4408 participants). These effects did not translate into demonstrable long-term benefits for children in terms of growth and neurocognitive development in the one to two trials reporting on longer-term outcomes. In one study (505 participants), high-protein supplementation was associated with increased risk of small-for-gestational age babies.Effects on growth in children were mixed. In children under five years of age from LMIC, one review found that supplementary feeding had a little or no effect on child growth; however, a more recent review in a similar population found that those who received food supplementation gained an average of 0.12 kg more in weight (MD 0.12 kg, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18; 9 trials, 1057 participants) and 0.27 cm more in height (MD 0.27 cm, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.48; 9 trials, 1463 participants) than those who were not supplemented. Supplementary food was generally more effective for younger children (younger than two years of age) and for those who were poorer or less well-nourished. In children with MAM, the provision of specially formulated food improved their weight, weight-for-height z scores and other key outcomes such as recovery rate (by 29%), as well as reducing the number of participants dropping out (by 70%). In LMIC, school meals seemed to lead to small benefits for children, including improvements in weight z scores, especially in children from lower-income countries, height z scores, cognition or intelligence quotient tests, and maths and spelling performance.Supplementary feeding in adults who were HIV positive increased the daily energy and protein intake compared to nutritional counselling alone. Supplementation led to an initial improvement in weight gain or body mass index but did not seem to confer long-term benefit.In adults with tuberculosis, one small trial found a significant benefit on treatment completion and sputum conversion rate. There were also significant but modest benefits in terms of weight gain (up to 2.60 kg) during active tuberculosis.The one study included in the Alzheimer's disease review found that three months of daily oral nutritional supplements improved nutritional outcomes in the intervention group.There was little or no evidence regarding people's quality of life, adherence to treatment, attendance at clinic or the costs of supplementary feeding programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the current evidence base included, supplementary food effects are modest at best, with inconsistent and limited mortality evidence. The trials reflected in the reviews mostly reported on short-term outcomes and across the whole of the supplementation trial literature it appears important outcomes, such as quality of life and cost of programmes, are not systematically reported or summarised.

Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children

BACKGROUND

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has an estimated prevalence of around 1.7% of the population. People with ASD often also have language difficulties, and about 25% to 30% of children with ASD either fail to develop functional language or are minimally verbal. The ability to communicate effectively is an essential life skill, and difficulties with communication can have a range of adverse outcomes, including poorer academic achievement, behavioural difficulties and reduced quality of life. Historically, most studies have investigated communication interventions for ASD in verbal children. We cannot assume the same interventions will work for minimally verbal children with ASD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase as well as 12 other databases and three trials registers in November 2017. We also checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, contacting experts in the field as well as authors of identified studies about other potentially relevant ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of communication-focused interventions for children (under 12 years of age) diagnosed with ASD and who are minimally verbal (fewer than 30 functional words or unable to use speech alone to communicate), compared with no treatment, wait-list control or treatment as usual.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes two RCTs (154 children aged 32 months to 11 years) of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children compared with a control group (treatment as usual). One RCT used a verbally based intervention (focused playtime intervention; FPI) administered by parents in the home, whereas the other used an alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) intervention (Picture Exchange Communication System; PECS) administered by teachers in a school setting.The FPI study took place in the USA and included 70 participants (64 boys) aged 32 to 82 months who were minimally verbal and had received a diagnosis of ASD. This intervention focused on developing coordinated toy play between child and parent. Participants received 12 in-home parent training sessions for 90 minutes per session for 12 weeks, and they were also invited to attend parent advocacy coaching sessions. This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the MIND Institute Research Program and a Professional Staff Congress-City University of New York grant. The PECS study included 84 minimally verbal participants (73 boys) aged 4 to 11 years who had a formal diagnosis of ASD and who were not using PECS beyond phase 1 at baseline. All children attended autism-specific classes or units, and most classes had a child to adult ratio of 2:1. Teachers and parents received PECS training (two-day workshop). PECS consultants also conducted six half-day consultations with each class once per month over five months. This study took place in the UK and was funded by the Three Guineas Trust.Both included studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least four of the seven 'Risk of bias' categories, with a lack of blinding for participants and personnel being the most problematic area. Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, imprecision (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals) and because there was only one trial identified per type of intervention (i.e. verbally based or AAC).Both studies focused primarily on communication outcomes (verbal and non-verbal). One of the studies also collected information on social communication. The FPI study found no significant improvement in spoken communication, measured using the expressive language domain of the Mullen Scale of Early Learning expressive language, at postintervention. However, this study found that children with lower expressive language at baseline (less than 11.3 months age-equivalent) improved more than children with better expressive language and that the intervention produced expressive language gains in some children. The PECS study found that children enrolled in the AAC intervention were significantly more likely to use verbal initiations and PECS symbols immediately postintervention; however, gains were not maintained 10 months later. There was no evidence that AAC improved frequency of speech, verbal expressive vocabulary or children's social communication or pragmatic language immediately postintervention. Overall, neither of the interventions (PECS or FPI) resulted in maintained improvements in spoken or non-verbal communication in most children.Neither study collected information on adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that verbally based and ACC interventions improve spoken and non-verbal communication in minimally verbal children with ASD. A substantial number of studies have investigated communication interventions for minimally verbal children with ASD, yet only two studies met inclusion criteria for this review, and we considered the overall quality of the evidence to be very low. In the study that used an AAC intervention, there were significant gains in frequency of PECS use and verbal and non-verbal initiations, but not in expressive vocabulary or social communication immediately postintervention. In the study that investigated a verbally based intervention, there were no significant gains in expressive language postintervention, but children with lower expressive language at the beginning of the study improved more than those with better expressive language at baseline. Neither study investigated adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes. Future RCTs that compare two interventions and include a control group will allow us to better understand treatment effects in the context of spontaneous maturation and will allow further comparison of different interventions as well as the investigation of moderating factors.

Parent-mediated interventions for promoting communication and language development in young children with Down syndrome

BACKGROUND

Communication and language development are areas of particular weakness for young children with Down syndrome. Caregivers' interaction with children influences language development, so many early interventions involve training parents how best to respond to their children and provide appropriate language stimulation. Thus, these interventions are mediated through parents, who in turn are trained and coached in the implementation of interventions by clinicians. As the interventions involve a considerable commitment from clinicians and families, we undertook this review to synthesise the evidence of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of parent-mediated interventions for improving communication and language development in young children with Down syndrome. Other outcomes are parental behaviour and responsivity, parental stress and satisfaction, and children's non-verbal means of communicating, socialisation and behaviour.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and 14 other databases. We also searched three trials registers, checked the reference lists of relevant reports identified by the electronic searches, searched the websites of professional organizations, and contacted their staff and other researchers working in the field to identify other relevant published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared parent-mediated interventions designed to improve communication and language versus teaching/treatment as usual (TAU) or no treatment or delayed (wait-listed) treatment, in children with Down syndrome aged between birth and six years. We included studies delivering the parent-mediated intervention in conjunction with a clinician-mediated intervention, as long as the intervention group was the only group to receive the former and both groups received the latter.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 45 children aged between 29 months and six years with Down syndrome. Two studies compared parent-mediated interventions versus TAU; the third compared a parent-mediated plus clinician-mediated intervention versus a clinician-mediated intervention alone. Treatment duration varied from 12 weeks to six months. One study provided nine group sessions and four individualised home-based sessions over a 13-week period. Another study provided weekly, individual clinic-based or home-based sessions lasting 1.5 to 2 hours, over a six-month period. The third study provided one 2- to 3-hour group session followed by bi-weekly, individual clinic-based sessions plus once-weekly home-based sessions for 12 weeks. Because of the different study designs and outcome measures used, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis.We judged all three studies to be at high risk of bias in relation to blinding of participants (not possible due to the nature of the intervention) and blinding of outcome assessors, and at an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment. We judged one study to be at unclear risk of selection bias, as authors did not report the methods used to generate the random sequence; at high risk of reporting bias, as they did not report on one assessed outcome; and at high risk of detection bias, as the control group had a cointervention and only parents in the intervention group were made aware of the target words for their children. The sample sizes of each included study were very small, meaning that they are unlikely to be representative of the target population.The findings from the three included studies were inconsistent. Two studies found no differences in expressive or receptive language abilities between the groups, whether measured by direct assessment or parent reports. However, they did find that children in the intervention group could use more targeted vocabulary items or utterances with language targets in certain contexts postintervention, compared to those in the control group; this was not maintained 12 months later. The third study found gains for the intervention group on total-language measures immediately postintervention.One study did not find any differences in parental stress scores between the groups at any time point up to 12 months postintervention. All three studies noted differences in most measures of how the parents talked to and interacted with their children postintervention, and in one study most strategies were maintained in the intervention group at 12 months postintervention. No study reported evidence of language attrition following the intervention in either group, while one study found positive outcomes on children's socialisation skills in the intervention group. One study looked at adherence to the treatment through attendance data, finding that mothers in the intervention group attended seven out of nine group sessions and were present for four home visits. No study measured parental use of the strategies outside of the intervention sessions.A grant from the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) funded one study. Another received partial funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Department of Education in the USA. The remaining study did not specify any funding sources.In light of the serious limitations in methodology, and the small number of studies included, we considered the overall quality of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low. This means that we have very little confidence in the results, and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effects of parent-mediated interventions for improving the language and communication of children with Down syndrome. We found only three small studies of very low quality. This review highlights the need for well-designed studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the effectiveness of parent-mediated interventions. Trials should use valid, reliable and similar measures of language development, and they should include measures of secondary outcomes more distal to the intervention, such as family well-being. Treatment fidelity, in particular parental dosage of the intervention outside of prescribed sessions, also needs to be documented.

Dietary modifications for infantile colic

BACKGROUND

Infantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. This condition appears to be more frequent in the first six weeks of life (prevalence range of 17% to 25%), depending on the specific location reported and definitions used, and it usually resolves by three months of age. The aetiopathogenesis of infantile colic is unclear but most likely multifactorial. A number of psychological, behavioural and biological components (food hypersensitivity, allergy or both; gut microflora and dysmotility) are thought to contribute to its manifestation. The role of diet as a component in infantile colic remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dietary modifications for reducing colic in infants less than four months of age.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase , 17 other databases and 2 trials registers. We also searched Google, checked and handsearched references and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of dietary modifications, alone or in combination, for colicky infants younger than four months of age versus another intervention or placebo. We used specific definitions for colic, age of onset and the methods for performing the intervention. We defined 'modified diet' as any diet altered to include or exclude certain components.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was duration of crying, and secondary outcomes were response to intervention, frequency of crying episodes, parental/family quality of life, infant sleep duration, parental satisfaction and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1121 infants (balanced numbers of boys and girls) aged 2 to 16 weeks. All studies were small and at high risk of bias across multiple design factors (e.g. selection, attrition). The studies covered a wide range of dietary interventions, and there was limited scope for meta-analysis. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Low-allergen maternal diet versus a diet containing known potential allergens: one study (90 infants) found that 35/47 (74%) of infants responded to a low-allergen maternal diet, compared with 16/43 (37%) of infants on a diet containing known potential allergens.Low-allergen diet or soy milk formula versus dicyclomine hydrochloride: one study (120 infants) found that 10/15 (66.6%) breastfed babies responded to dicyclomine hydrochloride, compared with 24/45 (53.3%) formula-fed babies. There was little difference in response between breastfed babies whose mother changed their diet (10/16; 62.5%) and babies who received soy milk formula (29/44; 65.9%).Hydrolysed formula versus standard formula: two studies (64 infants) found no difference in duration of crying, reported as a dichotomous outcome: risk ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 5.10; very low-quality evidence. The author of one study confirmed there were no adverse effects. One study (43 infants) reported a greater reduction in crying time postintervention with hydrolysed formula (104 min/d, 95% CI 55 to 155) than with standard formula (3 min/d, 95% CI -63 to 67).Hydrolysed formula versus another hydrolysed formula: one study (22 infants) found that two types of hydrolysed formula were equally effective in resolving symptoms for babies who commenced with standard formula (Alimentum reduced crying to 2.21 h/d (standard deviation (SD) 0.40) and Nutramigen to 2.93 h/d (SD 0.70)).Hydrolysed formula or dairy- and soy-free maternal diet versus addition of parental education or counselling: one study (21 infants) found that crying time decreased to 2.03 h/d (SD 1.03) in the hydrolysed or dairy- and soy-free group compared with 1.08 h/d (SD 0.7) in the parent education or counselling group, nine days into the intervention.Partially hydrolysed, lower lactose, whey-based formulae containing oligosaccharide versus standard formula with simethicone: one study (267 infants) found that both groups experienced a decrease in colic episodes (secondary outcome) after seven days (partially hydrolysed formula: from 5.99 episodes (SD 1.84) to 2.47 episodes (SD 1.94); standard formula: from 5.41 episodes (SD 1.88) to 3.72 episodes (SD 1.98)). After two weeks the difference between the two groups was significant (partially hydrolysed: 1.76 episodes (SD 1.60); standard formula: 3.32 episodes (SD 2.06)). The study author confirmed there were no adverse effects.Lactase enzyme supplementation versus placebo: three studies (138 infants) assessed this comparison, but none reported data amenable to analysis for any outcome. There were no adverse effects in any of the studies.Extract of Foeniculum vulgare, Matricariae recutita, and Melissa officinalis versus placebo: one study (93 infants) found that average daily crying time was lower for infants given the extract (76.9 min/d (SD 23.5), than infants given placebo (169.9 min/d (SD 23.1), at the end of the one-week study. There were no adverse effects.Soy protein-based formula versus standard cows' milk protein-based formula: one study (19 infants) reported a mean crying time of 12.7 h/week (SD 16.4) in the soy formula group versus 17.3 h/week (SD 6.9) in the standard cows' milk group, and that 5/10 (50%) responded in the soy formula group versus 0/9 (0%) in the standard cows' milk group.Soy protein formula with polysaccharide versus standard soy protein formula: one study (27 infants) assessed this comparison but did not provide disaggregated data for the number of responders in each group after treatment.No study reported on our secondary outcomes of parental or family quality of life, infant sleep duration per 24 h, or parental satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, evidence of the effectiveness of dietary modifications for the treatment of infantile colic is sparse and at significant risk of bias. The few available studies had small sample sizes, and most had serious limitations. There were insufficient studies, thus limiting the use of meta-analysis. Benefits reported for hydrolysed formulas were inconsistent.Based on available evidence, we are unable to recommend any intervention. Future studies of single interventions, using clinically significant outcome measures, and appropriate design and power are needed.

Lipid-based nutrient supplements for maternal, birth, and infant developmental outcomes

BACKGROUND

Ready-to-use lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) are a highly nutrient-dense supplement, which could be a good source of macro- and micronutrients for pregnant women who need to supplement their nutrient intake.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of LNS for maternal, birth and infant outcomes in pregnant women. Secondary objectives were to explore the most appropriate composition, frequency and duration of LNS administration.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 22 other databases and two trials registers for any published and ongoing studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and we contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field to identify any studies we may have missed, including any unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared LNS given in pregnancy to no intervention, placebo, iron folic acid (IFA), multiple micronutrients (MMN) or nutritional counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in 8018 pregnant women. All four studies took place in stable community settings in low- and middle-income countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Malawi. None were in emergency settings. The oldest trial was published in 2009. Of the four included studies, one compared LNS to IFA, one compared LNS to MMN, and two compared LNS to both IFA and MMN.We considered the included studies to be of medium to high quality, and we rated the quality of the evidence as moderate using the GRADE approach.LNS versus IFAMaternal outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups as regards maternal gestational weight gain per week (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 1.36; 2 studies, 3539 participants). One study (536 participants) showed a two-fold increase in the prevalence of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the IFA group, but no difference between the groups as regards adverse effects. There was no difference between the two groups for maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.41; 3 studies, 5628 participants).Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for low birth weight (LBW) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 3 studies, 4826 participants), though newborns in the LNS group had a slightly higher mean birth weight (mean difference (MD) 53.28 g, 95% CI 28.22 to 78.33; 3 studies, 5077 participants) and birth length (cm) (MD 0.24 cm, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; 3 studies, 4986 participants). There was a reduction in the proportion of infants who were small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; 3 studies, 4823 participants) and had newborn stunting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94; 2 studies, 4166 participants) in the LNS group, but no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for preterm delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4924 participants), stillbirth (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.48; 3 studies, 5575 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.51). The current evidence for child developmental outcomes is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.LNS versus MMNMaternal outcomes: one study (662 participants) showed no difference between the LNS and MMN groups as regards gestational weight gain per week or adverse effects. Another study (557 participants) showed an increased risk of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the MMN group.Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and MMN groups for LBW (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 3 studies, 2404 participants), birth weight (MD 23.67 g, 95% CI -10.53 to 57.86; 3 studies, 2573 participants), birth length (MD 0.20 cm, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.42; 3 studies, 2567 participants), SGA (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 3 studies, 2393 participants), preterm delivery (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; 3 studies, 2630 participants), head circumference z score (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 2 studies, 1549 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; 1 study, 1175 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review suggest that LNS supplementation has a slight, positive effect on weight at birth, length at birth, SGA and newborn stunting compared to IFA. LNS and MMN were comparable for all maternal, birth and infant outcomes. Both IFA and MMN were better at reducing maternal anaemia when compared to LNS. We did not find any trials for LNS given to pregnant women in emergency settings.Readers should interpret the beneficial findings of the review with caution since the evidence comes from a small number of trials, with one-large scale study (conducted in community settings in Bangladesh) driving most of the impact. In addition, effect sizes are too small to propose any concrete recommendation for practice.

Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.

Diagnostic tests for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preschool children

BACKGROUND

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally diagnosed condition. It is defined by impairments in social communication or the presence of restricted or repetitive behaviours, or both. Diagnosis is made according to existing classification systems. In recent years, especially following publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA 2013), children are given the diagnosis of ASD, rather than subclassifications of the spectrum such as autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified. Tests to diagnose ASD have been developed using parent or carer interview, child observation, or a combination of both.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives1. To identify which diagnostic tools, including updated versions, most accurately diagnose ASD in preschool children when compared with multi-disciplinary team clinical judgement.2. To identify how the best of the interview tools compare with CARS, then how CARS compares with ADOS.a. Which ASD diagnostic tool - among ADOS, ADI-R, CARS, DISCO, GARS, and 3di - has the best diagnostic test accuracy?b. Is the diagnostic test accuracy of any one test sufficient for that test to be suitable as a sole assessment tool for preschool children?c. Is there any combination of tests that, if offered in sequence, would provide suitable diagnostic test accuracy and enhance test efficiency?d. If data are available, does the combination of an interview tool with a structured observation test have better diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. fewer false-positives and fewer false-negatives) than either test alone?As only one interview tool was identified, we modified the first three aims to a single aim (Differences between protocol and review): This Review evaluated diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Specificity is the most important factor for diagnosis; however, both sensitivity and specificity are of interest in this Review because there is an inherent trade-off between these two factors.Secondary objectives1. To determine whether any diagnostic test has greater diagnostic test accuracy for age-specific subgroups within the preschool age range.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and the reference lists of all included publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Publications had to: 1. report diagnostic test accuracy for any of the following six included diagnostic tools: Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised (ADI-R), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorder (DISCO), Developmental, Dimensional, and Diagnostic Interview (3di), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - Generic (ADOS), and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS); 2. include children of preschool age (under six years of age) suspected of having an ASD; and 3. have a multi-disciplinary assessment, or similar, as the reference standard.Eligible studies included cohort, cross-sectional, randomised test accuracy, and case-control studies. The target condition was ASD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardised forms. A third review author settled disagreements. We assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised). We conducted separate univariate random-effects logistical regressions for sensitivity and specificity for CARS and ADI-R. We conducted meta-analyses of pairs of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate random-effects methods for ADOS.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Review, we included 21 sets of analyses reporting different tools or cohorts of children from 13 publications, many with high risk of bias or potential conflicts of interest or a combination of both. Overall, the prevalence of ASD for children in the included analyses was 74%.For versions and modules of ADOS, there were 12 analyses with 1625 children. Sensitivity of ADOS ranged from 0.76 to 0.98, and specificity ranged from 0.20 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity was 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97), and the summary specificity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88).For CARS, there were four analyses with 641 children. Sensitivity of CARS ranged from 0.66 to 0.89, and specificity ranged from 0.21 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for CARS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91), and the summary specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.96).For ADI-R, there were five analyses with 634 children. Sensitivity for ADI-R ranged from 0.19 to 0.75, and specificity ranged from 0.63 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for the ADI-R was 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71), and the summary specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95).Studies that compared tests were few and too small to allow clear conclusions.In two studies that included analyses for both ADI-R and ADOS, tests scored similarly for sensitivity, but ADOS scored higher for specificity. In two studies that included analyses for ADI-R, ADOS, and CARS, ADOS had the highest sensitivity and CARS the highest specificity.In one study that explored individual and additive sensitivity and specificity of ADOS and ADI-R, combining the two tests did not increase the sensitivity nor the specificity of ADOS used alone.Performance for all tests was lower when we excluded studies at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We observed substantial variation in sensitivity and specificity of all tests, which was likely attributable to methodological differences and variations in the clinical characteristics of populations recruited.When we compared summary statistics for ADOS, CARS, and ADI-R, we found that ADOS was most sensitive. All tools performed similarly for specificity. In lower prevalence populations, the risk of falsely identifying children who do not have ASD would be higher.Now available are new versions of tools that require diagnostic test accuracy assessment, ideally in clinically relevant situations, with methods at low risk of bias and in children of varying abilities.

Parent-mediated communication interventions for improving the communication skills of preschool children with non-progressive motor disorders

BACKGROUND

Children with motor disorders can have difficulties in producing accurate and consistent movements for speech, gesture or facial expression (or a combination of these), making their communication difficult to understand. Parents may be offered training to help recognise and interpret their child's signals and to stimulate their children's development of new communication skills.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of parent-mediated communication interventions, compared to no intervention, treatment as usual or clinician-mediated interventions, for improving the communication skills of preschool children up to five years of age who have non-progressive motor disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and three trials registers in July 2017. We also searched the reference lists of relevant papers and reviews, and contacted experts working in the field to find unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that used randomised or quasi-randomised designs; compared a parent-mediated communication intervention with no treatment, treatment as usual or clinician-mediated therapy; and included children with non-progressive motor disorders up to five years of age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included two randomised controlled trials involving 38 children (20 boys, 18 girls), aged 15 to 96 months, and their mothers. All children had developmental disabilities; 10 had motor disorders, but it was unclear if these motor disorders affected their gestural, vocal or verbal communication. Mothers attended eight group training sessions over 11 to 12 weeks and received two or three home visits. Outcomes were assessed immediately after training. We found no report of longer-term follow-up. One study took place at an intervention centre in Canada and the other in South Korea.Both studies recruited small numbers of participants from single centres. Since it is not possible to blind participants attending or therapists providing training to group allocation, we considered both studies to be at high risk of performance bias. We also rated one study at high risk of attrition bias, and both studies at low risk of reporting bias.There was very low-quality evidence for all outcomes assessed. There was no evidence of an effect of training for children's initiation of conversation or engagement in joint attention during interaction with their mothers. Mothers who received training became more responsive to their children's communication, but there were no differences in the extent to which they controlled conversation by directing their children. Missing data meant that we were unable to evaluate the effects of training on children's frequency of communication, frequency of spoken language in conversation, speech production, or receptive or expressive language development. There were no effects on maternal stress. We found no reports of the effects of parent training on children's use of individual communication skills, such as asking questions or providing information, on their generic participation or adverse outcomes. Neither did we find reports of mothers' satisfaction with treatment, its acceptability or their compliance with it.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only limited, very low quality evidence that parent-mediated communication interventions may be associated with improvements in interaction between mothers and their preschool children who have motor disorders. The indirectness of the study samples and high risk of bias in the included the studies significantly limits our confidence in the evidence, as do issues with study design and lack of detail in results. It is not clear if training has been tested with children whose motor disorders limit the consistency and accuracy of movements underpinning spoken or gestural communication. Some speech and language therapists currently provide communication training for parents. Further research, with larger numbers of children whose movement disorders affect their speech and gestures, coupled with detailed reporting of children's baseline skills, is needed to test whether communication training for parents can help them to promote the communication development of their young children with movement disorders.

De-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis induced aggression in adults

BACKGROUND

Aggression occurs frequently within health and social care settings. It can result in injury to patients and staff and can adversely affect staff performance and well-being. De-escalation is a widely used and recommended intervention for managing aggression, but the efficacy of the intervention as a whole and the specific techniques that comprise it are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of de-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis-induced aggression in adults in care settings, in both staff and service users.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and 14 other databases in September 2017, plus three trials registers in October 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors and authorities in the field to identify additional published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing de-escalation techniques with standard practice or alternative techniques for managing aggressive behaviour in adult care settings. We excluded studies in which participants had psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes just one cluster-randomised study of 306 older people with dementia and an average age of 86 years, conducted across 16 nursing homes in France. The study did not measure any of our primary or secondary outcomes but did measure behavioural change using three measurement scales: the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; 29-item scale), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; 12-item scale), and the Observation Scale (OS; 25-item scale). For the CMAI, the study reports a Global score (29 items rated on a seven-point scale (1 = never occurs to 7 = occurs several times an hour) and summed to give a total score ranging from 29 to 203) and mean scores (evaluable items (rated on the same 7-point scale) divided by the theoretical total number of items) for the following four domains: Physically Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as pacing (13 items); Verbally Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as repetition (four items); Physically Aggressive Behaviour, such as hitting (nine items); and Verbally Aggressive Behaviour, such as swearing (three items). Four of the five CMAI scales improved in the intervention group (Global: change mean difference (MD) -5.69 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.59 to -1.79; Physically Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.32 points, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.15; Verbally Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.44 points, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.19; and Verbally Aggressive: change MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.01). There was no difference in change scores on the Physically Aggressive scale (MD -0.08 points, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21). Using GRADE guidelines, we rated the quality of this evidence as very low due to high risk of bias and indirectness of the outcome measures. There were no differences in NPI or OS change scores between groups by the end of the study.We also identified one ongoing study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence means that uncertainty remains around the effectiveness of de-escalation and the relative efficacy of different techniques. High-quality research on the effectiveness of this intervention is therefore urgently needed.

Parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disability

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that the number of intellectually disabled people with children is increasing. Intellectual disabilities do not inevitably cause parenting difficulties, but it may impact on an individual's capacity to parent a child effectively. Children of parents with intellectual disabilities may be at increased risk of neglectful care, which could lead to health, developmental and behavioural problems, or increased risk of intellectual disability. Compared with other parents, those with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be involved in care proceedings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities designed to support parenting, parent-child relations, safe parenting or family environments, or to develop parenting skills.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2017, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and six other databases as well as two trials registers. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing parent training interventions for parents with intellectual disabilities with treatment as usual or a control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

As of July 2017, we identified four trials with 192 participants that met the review inclusion criteria. Participating parents were mostly mothers (seven fathers were included in two studies), and children's ages ranged from one month to six years and five months.One study was conducted in Australia, one in Canada, one in the Netherlands, and one in the USA. Each studied a different intervention and considered different outcomes. Three interventions were delivered at home, and one in a community venue (e.g. a church). Interventions varied in duration from seven weeks to 12 months. They included a range of practical childcare skills, home safety and developing parents' ability to respond sensitively to their children. Parents in the comparison groups included in the review received treatment as usual and most of these received the index intervention after the study was complete.One study was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services Research Grants Program; one by the Alabama Development Disabilities Council; one by the Best Practice Parenting Education Initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and the New South Wales Aging and Disability Department; and one by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.It was not possible for us to conduct a meta-analysis. The GRADE quality assessment varied from very low to moderate across the studies.Primary outcomesNo study reported on the 'attainment of specific parenting skill targets'.'Safe home practices' and 'understanding of child health': one study (30 parents, very low-quality evidence) reported some improvements in parents' knowledge of life-threatening emergencies, ability to recognise dangers, and identify precautions, in favour of the intervention group. It also found limited, very low-quality evidence that parent training improved parents' ability to understand child health, implement precautions, use medicines safely, recognise child illness and symptoms, and seek medical advice (i.e. visit the doctor). Another study (22 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved attainment of skills related to childcare and safety, in favour of the intervention group.Secondary outcomes'Parent-child interaction': one study (40 mothers, very low-quality evidence) reported improved maternal-child interaction following parent training at 12 months follow-up. Another study (83 mothers, 2 fathers, moderate-quality evidence) reported that inclusion in the intervention group led to a steeper decline in parenting stress related to the child compared to the control group.'Parents' retention of child': one study (22 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported that before joining the programme nine of 11 (82%) families with a previous child had had the child removed from their care by child protection authorities due to maternal maltreatment, compared with only four of 22 (19%) families after participating in the programme (only one of these four mothers had also had a previous child removed).No study reported data on: 'return to independent care of child' or 'lifting of child-related court order'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some very low-quality evidence that some parents, mainly mothers, with intellectual disabilities are able to provide adequate parenting if they are given appropriate training and support to learn the parenting skills they need. However, there are few studies exploring how interventions might work, for whom and in what circumstances. In particular, there have been few studies that include fathers with intellectual disabilities, or that explore the views of parents themselves.There is a need for larger RCTs of parenting interventions, with longer follow-up, before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of parent training for this group of parents.

Pharmacological treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children with comorbid tic disorders

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.

Interventions for childhood apraxia of speech

BACKGROUND

Childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) affects a child's ability to produce sounds and syllables precisely and consistently, and to produce words and sentences with accuracy and correct speech rhythm. It is a rare condition, affecting only 0.1% of the general population. Consensus has been reached that three core features have diagnostic validity: (1) inconsistent error production on both consonants and vowels across repeated productions of syllables or words; (2) lengthened and impaired coarticulatory transitions between sounds and syllables; and (3) inappropriate prosody (ASHA 2007). A deficit in motor programming or planning is thought to underlie the condition. This means that children know what they would like to say but there is a breakdown in the ability to programme or plan the fine and rapid movements required to accurately produce speech. Children with CAS may also have impairments in one or more of the following areas: non-speech oral motor function, dysarthria, language, phonological production impairment, phonemic awareness or metalinguistic skills and literacy, or combinations of these. High-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking on interventions for CAS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of interventions targeting speech and language in children and adolescents with CAS as delivered by speech and language pathologists/therapists.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and seven trial registers up to April 2017. We searched the reference lists of included reports and requested information on unpublished trials from authors of published studies and other experts as well as information groups in the areas of speech and language therapy/pathology and linguistics.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs of children aged 3 to 16 years with CAS diagnosed by a speech and language pathologist/therapist, grouped by treatment types.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (FL, AM) independently assessed titles and abstracts identified from the searches and obtained full-text reports of all potentially relevant articles and assessed these for eligibility. The same two authors extracted data and conducted the 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments. One review author (EM) tabulated findings from excluded observational studies (Table 1).

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes only one RCT, funded by the Australian Research Council; the University of Sydney International Development Fund; Douglas and Lola Douglas Scholarship on Child and Adolescent Health; Nadia Verrall Memorial Scholarship; and a James Kentley Memorial Fellowship. This study recruited 26 children aged 4 to 12 years, with mild to moderate CAS of unknown cause, and compared two interventions: the Nuffield Dyspraxia Programme-3 (NDP-3); and the Rapid Syllable Transitions Treatment (ReST). Children were allocated randomly to one of the two treatments. Treatments were delivered intensively in one-hour sessions, four days a week for three weeks, in a university clinic in Australia. Speech pathology students delivered the treatments in the English language. Outcomes were assessed before therapy, immediately after therapy, at one month and four months post-therapy. Our review looked at one-month post-therapy outcomes only.We judged all core outcome domains to be low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by one level to moderate due to imprecision, given that only one RCT was identified. Both the NDP-3 and ReST therapies demonstrated improvement at one month post-treatment. A number of cases in each cohort had recommenced usual treatment by their speech and language pathologist between one month and four months post-treatment (NDP-3: 9/13 participants; ReST: 9/13 participants). Hence, maintenance of treatment effects to four months post-treatment could not be analysed without significant potential bias, and thus this time point was not included for further analysis in this review.There is limited evidence that, when delivered intensively, both the NDP-3 and ReST may effect improvement in word accuracy in 4- to 12-year-old children with CAS, measured by the accuracy of production on treated and non-treated words, speech production consistency and the accuracy of connected speech. The study did not measure functional communication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that, when delivered intensively, both the NDP-3 and ReST may effect improvement in word accuracy in 4- to 12-year-old children with CAS, measured by the accuracy of production on treated and non-treated words, speech production consistency and the accuracy of connected speech. The study did not measure functional communication. No formal analyses were conducted to compare NDP-3 and ReST by the original study authors, hence one treatment cannot be reliably advocated over the other. We are also unable to say whether either treatment is better than no treatment or treatment as usual. No evidence currently exists to support the effectiveness of other treatments for children aged 4 to 12 years with idiopathic CAS without other comorbid neurodevelopmental disorders. Further RCTs replicating this study would strengthen the evidence base. Similarly, further RCTs are needed of other interventions, in other age ranges and populations with CAS and with co-occurring disorders.

Educational interventions for improving primary caregiver complementary feeding practices for children aged 24 months and under

BACKGROUND

Although complementary feeding is a universal practice, the methods and manner in which it is practiced vary between cultures, individuals and socioeconomic classes. The period of complementary feeding is a critical time of transition in the life of an infant, and inappropriate complementary feeding practices, with their associated adverse health consequences, remain a significant global public health problem. Educational interventions are widely acknowledged as effective in promoting public health strategy, and those aimed at improving complementary feeding practices provide information about proper complementary feeding practices to caregivers of infants/children. It is therefore important to summarise evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions to improve the complementary feeding practices of caregivers of infants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the complementary feeding (weaning) practices of primary caregivers of children of complementary feeding age, and related health and growth outcomes in infants.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews to identify any additional studies. We did not limit the searches by date, language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing educational interventions to no intervention, usual practice, or educational interventions provided in conjunction with another intervention, so long as the educational intervention was only available in the experimental group and the adjunctive intervention was available to the control group. Study participants included caregivers of infants aged 4 to 24 months undergoing complementary feeding. Pregnant women who were expected to give birth and commence complementary feeding during the period of the study were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology and outcomes using a specifically-developed and piloted data extraction form. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs for continuous data. Where data permitted, we conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed the included studies for risk of bias and also assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (from 35 reports) with a total of 11,170 caregiver-infant pairs who were randomly assigned to receive an educational intervention delivered to the caregiver or usual care. Nineteen of the included studies were community-based studies while four were facility-based studies. In addition, 13 of the included studies were cluster-randomised while the others were individually randomised. Generally, the interventions were focused on the introduction of complementary feeding at the appropriate time, the types and amount of complementary foods to be fed to infants, and hygiene. Using the GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate, mostly due to inadequate allocation concealment and insufficient blinding.Educational interventions led to improvements in complementary feeding practices for age at introduction of complementary foods (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; 4 studies, 1738 children; moderate-quality evidence) and hygiene practices (average RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.55; 4 studies, 2029 participants; moderate-quality evidence). For duration of exclusive breastfeeding, pooled results were compatible with both a reduction and an increase in the outcome (average RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.22; 3 studies, 1544 children; very low-quality evidence). There was limited (low to very low-quality) evidence of an effect for all growth outcomes.Quality of evidenceThere is moderate to very low-quality evidence that educational interventions can improve complementary feeding practices but insufficient evidence to conclude that it impacts growth outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence that education improves complementary feeding practices.

Trihexyphenidyl for dystonia in cerebral palsy

BACKGROUND

Cerebral palsy occurs in up to 2.1 of every 1000 live births and encompasses a range of motor problems and movement disorders. One commonly occurring movement disorder amongst those with cerebral palsy is dystonia: sustained or intermittent involuntary muscle spasms and contractions that cause twisting, repetitive movements and abnormal postures. The involuntary contractions are often very painful and distressing and cause significant limitations to activity and participation.Oral medications are often the first line of medical treatment for dystonia. Trihexyphenidyl is one such medication that clinicians often use to treat dystonia in people with cerebral palsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of trihexyphenidyl in people with dystonic cerebral palsy, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains of impairment, activity and participation. We also assessed the type and incidence of adverse effects in people taking the drug.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and two trials registers in May 2017, and we checked reference lists and citations to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing oral trihexyphenidyl versus placebo for dystonia in cerebral palsy. We included studies in children and adults of any age with dystonic cerebral palsy, either in isolation or with the associated movement disorders of spasticity, ataxia, chorea, athetosis and/or hypotonia. We included studies regardless of whether or not the study authors specified the method used to diagnose dystonia in their study population. Primary outcomes were change in dystonia and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: activity, including mobility and upper limb function; participation in activities of daily living; pain; and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one study, which was set in Australia, that met the inclusion criteria. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial in 16 children (10 boys and 6 girls) with predominant dystonic cerebral palsy and a mean age of 9 years (standard deviation 4.3 years, range 2 to 17 years). We considered the trial to be at low risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other sources of bias. We rated the GRADE quality of the evidence as low.We found no difference in mean follow-up scores for change in dystonia as measured by the Barry Albright Dystonia Scale (BADS), which assesses eight body regions for dystonia on a 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe), resulting in a total score of 0 to 32. The BADS score was 2.67 points higher (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.55 to 7.90; low-quality evidence), that is, worse dystonia, in the treated group. Trihexyphenidyl may be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects (risk ratio 2.54, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.67; low-quality evidence).There was no difference in mean follow-up scores for upper limb function as measured by the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, which has four domains that collectively assess 36 items (each scored 1 or 2) and produces a total score of 0 to 100. The score in the treated group was 4.62 points lower (95% CI -10.98 to 20.22; low-quality evidence), corresponding to worse function, than in the control group. We found low-quality evidence for improved participation (as represented by higher scores) in the treated group in activities of daily living, as measured by three tools: 18.86 points higher (95% CI 5.68 to 32.03) for the Goal Attainment Scale (up to five functional goals scored on 5-point scale (-2 = much less than expected to +2 = much more than expected)), 2.91 points higher (95% CI 1.01 to 4.82) for the satisfaction subscale of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; satisfaction with performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not satisfied at all to 10 = extremely satisfied)), and 2.24 points higher (95% CI 0.64 to 3.84) for performance subscale of the COPM (performance in up to five problem areas scored on a 10-point scale (1 = not able to do to; 10 = able to do extremely well)).The study did not report on pain or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy for the outcomes of: change in dystonia, adverse effects, increased upper limb function and improved participation in activities of daily living. The study did not measure pain or quality of life. There is a need for larger randomised, controlled, multicentre trials that also examine the effect on pain and quality of life in order to determine the effectiveness of trihexyphenidyl for people with cerebral palsy.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)

BACKGROUND

The rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) increases the need for evidence-based behavioral treatments to lessen the impact of symptoms on children's functioning. At present, there are no curative or psychopharmacological therapies to effectively treat all symptoms of the disorders. Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) is a treatment based on the principles of applied behavior analysis. Delivered for multiple years at an intensity of 20 to 40 hours per week, it is one of the more well-established treatments for ASD. This is an update of a Cochrane review last published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of EIBI in increasing functional behaviors and skills, decreasing autism severity, and improving intelligence and communication skills for young children with ASD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 additional electronic databases and two trials registers in August 2017. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which EIBI was compared to a no-treatment or treatment-as-usual control condition. Participants must have been less than six years of age at treatment onset and assigned to their study condition prior to commencing treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We synthesized the results of the five studies using a random-effects model of meta-analysis, with a mean difference (MD) effect size for outcomes assessed on identical scales, and a standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size (Hedges' g) with small sample correction for outcomes measured on different scales. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (one RCT and four CCTs) with a total of 219 children: 116 children in the EIBI groups and 103 children in the generic, special education services groups. The age of the children ranged between 30.2 months and 42.5 months. Three of the five studies were conducted in the USA and two in the UK, with a treatment duration of 24 months to 36 months. All studies used a treatment-as-usual comparison group.Primary outcomesThere is low quality-evidence at post-treatment that EIBI improves adaptive behaviour (MD 9.58 (assessed using Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS) Composite; normative mean = 100, normative SD = 15), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.57 to 13.60, P < 0.0001; 5 studies, 202 participants), and reduces autism symptom severity (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.11, P = 0.14; 2 studies, 81 participants; lower values indicate positive effects) compared to treatment as usual.No adverse effects were reported across studies.Secondary outcomesThere is low-quality evidence at post-treatment that EIBI improves IQ (MD 15.44 (assessed using standardized IQ tests; scale 0 to 100, normative SD = 15), 95% CI 9.29 to 21.59, P < 0.001; 5 studies, 202 participants); expressive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90, P = 0.01; 4 studies, 165 participants) and receptive (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87, P = 0.001; 4 studies, 164 participants) language skills; and problem behaviour (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.24 to 0.07, P = 0.08; 2 studies, 67 participants) compared to treatment as usual.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak evidence that EIBI may be an effective behavioral treatment for some children with ASD; the strength of the evidence in this review is limited because it mostly comes from small studies that are not of the optimum design. Due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, there is a high risk of bias and we rated the overall quality of evidence as 'low' or 'very low' using the GRADE system, meaning further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.It is important that providers of EIBI are aware of the current evidence and use clinical decision-making guidelines, such as seeking the family's input and drawing upon prior clinical experience, when making recommendations to clients on the use EIBI. Additional studies using rigorous research designs are needed to make stronger conclusions about the effects of EIBI for children with ASD.

Cognitive-behavioural interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental condition characterised by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, along with deficits in executive function, emotional regulation and motivation. The persistence of ADHD in adulthood is a serious clinical problem.ADHD significantly affects social interactions, study and employment performance.Previous studies suggest that cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) could be effective in treating adults with ADHD, especially when combined with pharmacological treatment. CBT aims to change the thoughts and behaviours that reinforce harmful effects of the disorder by teaching people techniques to control the core symptoms. CBT also aims to help people cope with emotions, such as anxiety and depression, and to improve self-esteem.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cognitive-behavioural-based therapy for ADHD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and three trials registries. We also checked reference lists, handsearched congress abstracts, and contacted experts and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any form of CBT for adults with ADHD, either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with another treatment, versus one of the following: unspecific control conditions (comprising supportive psychotherapies, no treatment or waiting list) or other specific interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures suggested by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (700 participants), 13 of which were conducted in the northern hemisphere and 1 in Australia.Primary outcomes: ADHD symptomsCBT versus unspecific control conditions (supportive psychotherapies, waiting list or no treatment)- CBT versus supportive psychotherapies: CBT was more effective than supportive therapy for improving clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (1 study, 81 participants; low-quality evidence) but not for self-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.19; 2 studies, 122 participants; low-quality evidence; small effect size).- CBT versus waiting list: CBT led to a larger benefit in clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -2.03 to -0.41; 2 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence; large effect size). We also found significant differences in favour of CBT for self-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.50; 5 studies, 251 participants; moderate-quality evidence; large effect size).CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone: CBT with pharmacotherapy was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone for clinician-reported core symptoms (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.30; 2 studies, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence; large effect size), self-reported core symptoms (MD -7.42 points, 95% CI -11.63 points to -3.22 points; 2 studies, 66 participants low-quality evidence) and self-reported inattention (1 study, 35 participants).CBT versus other interventions that included therapeutic ingredients specifically targeted to ADHD: we found a significant difference in favour of CBT for clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.17; 2 studies, 97 participants; low-quality evidence; moderate effect size) and for self-reported ADHD symptom severity (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.01; 4 studies, 156 participants; low-quality evidence; small effect size).Secondary outcomesCBT versus unspecific control conditions: we found differences in favour of CBT compared with waiting-list control for self-reported depression (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; 5 studies, 258 participants; small effect size) and for self-reported anxiety (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.19; 4 studies, 239 participants; small effect size). We also observed differences in favour of CBT for self-reported state anger (1 study, 43 participants) and self-reported self-esteem (1 study 43 participants) compared to waiting list. We found no differences between CBT and supportive therapy (1 study, 81 participants) for self-rated depression, clinician-rated anxiety or self-rated self-esteem. Additionally, there were no differences between CBT and the waiting list for self-reported trait anger (1 study, 43 participants) or self-reported quality of life (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.71; 2 studies, 64 participants; small effect size).CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone: we found differences in favour of CBT plus pharmacotherapy for the Clinical Global Impression score (MD -0.75 points, 95% CI -1.21 points to -0.30 points; 2 studies, 65 participants), self-reported depression (MD -6.09 points, 95% CI -9.55 points to -2.63 points; 2 studies, 66 participants) and self-reported anxiety (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.08; 2 studies, 66 participants; moderate effect size). We also observed differences favouring CBT plus pharmacotherapy (1 study, 31 participants) for clinician-reported depression and clinician-reported anxiety.CBT versus other specific interventions: we found no differences for any of the secondary outcomes, such as self-reported depression and anxiety, and findings on self-reported quality of life varied across different studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence that cognitive-behavioural-based treatments may be beneficial for treating adults with ADHD in the short term. Reductions in core symptoms of ADHD were fairly consistent across the different comparisons: in CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone and in CBT versus waiting list. There is low-quality evidence that CBT may also improve common secondary disturbances in adults with ADHD, such as depression and anxiety. However, the paucity of long-term follow-up data, the heterogeneous nature of the measured outcomes, and the limited geographical location (northern hemisphere and Australia) limit the generalisability of the results. None of the included studies reported severe adverse events, but five participants receiving different modalities of CBT described some type of adverse event, such as distress and anxiety.

The Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) and Newborn Behavioral Observations (NBO) system for supporting caregivers and improving outcomes in caregivers and their infants

BACKGROUND

The first three years of a child's life are a key period of physical, physiological, cognitive and social development, and the caregiver-infant relationship in early infancy plays an important role in influencing these aspects of development. Specifically, caregiver attunement facilitates the move from coregulation to self-regulation; a parent's ability to understand their infant's behaviour as communication is a key part of this process. Early, brief interventions such as the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) or Neonatal Behavioral Observation (NBO) system are potential methods of improving outcomes for both infant and caregiver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the NBAS and NBO system for improving caregiver-infant interaction and related outcomes in caregivers and newborn babies. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the NBAS and NBO are more effective for particular groups of infants or parents, and to identify the factors associated with increased effectiveness (e.g. timing, duration, etc.).

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and four trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and we contacted the Brazelton Institute and searched its websites to identify any ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that had used at least one standardised measure to assess the effects of the NBAS or NBO versus inactive control for improving outcomes for caregivers and their infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewer authors independently assessed the records retrieved from the search. One reviewer extracted data, and a second checked them for accuracy. We presented the results for each outcome in each study as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we combined the results in a meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 16 RCTs in this review: 13 assessing the NBAS and 3 the NBO for improving outcomes in 851 randomised participants, including parents and their premature or newborn (aged 4 to 12 weeks) infants. All studies took place in the USA, and we judged all of them to be at high risk of bias.Seven studies involving 304 participants contributed data to one meta-analysis of the impact of the NBAS or NBO for caregiver-infant interaction, and the results suggest a significant, medium-sized difference between intervention and control groups (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.17; very low-quality evidence), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 51%). Subgroup analysis comparing the two types of programmes (i.e. NBAS and NBO) found a medium but non-significant effect for the NBAS (-0.49, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.00, 5 studies), with high levels of heterogeneity (I² = 61%), compared with a significant, large effect size for the NBO (-0.69, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.20, 2 studies), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%). A test for subgroup differences between the two models, however, was not significant. One study found a significant impact on the secondary outcome of caregiver knowledge (SMD -1.30, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.44; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an impact on maternal depression. We did not identify any adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently only very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of the NBAS and NBO in terms of improving parent-infant interaction for mostly low-risk, first-time caregivers and their infants. Further research is underway regarding the effectiveness of the NBO and is necessary to corroborate these results.

Physical activity, diet and other behavioural interventions for improving cognition and school achievement in children and adolescents with obesity or overweight

BACKGROUND

The global prevalence of childhood and adolescent obesity is high. Lifestyle changes towards a healthy diet, increased physical activity and reduced sedentary activities are recommended to prevent and treat obesity. Evidence suggests that changing these health behaviours can benefit cognitive function and school achievement in children and adolescents in general. There are various theoretical mechanisms that suggest that children and adolescents with excessive body fat may benefit particularly from these interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether lifestyle interventions (in the areas of diet, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and behavioural therapy) improve school achievement, cognitive function (e.g. executive functions) and/or future success in children and adolescents with obesity or overweight, compared with standard care, waiting-list control, no treatment, or an attention placebo control group.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and 15 other databases. We also searched two trials registries, reference lists, and handsearched one journal from inception. We also contacted researchers in the field to obtain unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural interventions for weight management in children and adolescents with obesity or overweight. We excluded studies in children and adolescents with medical conditions known to affect weight status, school achievement and cognitive function. We also excluded self- and parent-reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Two review authors extracted data, assessed quality and risks of bias, and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted study authors to obtain additional information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where the same outcome was assessed across different intervention types, we reported standardised effect sizes for findings from single-study and multiple-study analyses to allow comparison of intervention effects across intervention types. To ease interpretation of the effect size, we also reported the mean difference of effect sizes for single-study outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies (59 records) of 2384 children and adolescents with obesity or overweight. Eight studies delivered physical activity interventions, seven studies combined physical activity programmes with healthy lifestyle education, and three studies delivered dietary interventions. We included five RCTs and 13 cluster-RCTs. The studies took place in 10 different countries. Two were carried out in children attending preschool, 11 were conducted in primary/elementary school-aged children, four studies were aimed at adolescents attending secondary/high school and one study included primary/elementary and secondary/high school-aged children. The number of studies included for each outcome was low, with up to only three studies per outcome. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low and 17 studies had a high risk of bias for at least one item. None of the studies reported data on additional educational support needs and adverse events.Compared to standard practice, analyses of physical activity-only interventions suggested high-quality evidence for improved mean cognitive executive function scores. The mean difference (MD) was 5.00 scale points higher in an after-school exercise group compared to standard practice (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 9.32; scale mean 100, standard deviation 15; 116 children, 1 study). There was no statistically significant beneficial effect in favour of the intervention for mathematics, reading, or inhibition control. The standardised mean difference (SMD) for mathematics was 0.49 (95% CI -0.04 to 1.01; 2 studies, 255 children, moderate-quality evidence) and for reading was 0.10 (95% CI -0.30 to 0.49; 2 studies, 308 children, moderate-quality evidence). The MD for inhibition control was -1.55 scale points (95% CI -5.85 to 2.75; scale range 0 to 100; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.28; 1 study, 84 children, very low-quality evidence). No data were available for average achievement across subjects taught at school.There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of physical activity interventions combined with healthy lifestyle education on average achievement across subjects taught at school, mathematics achievement, reading achievement or inhibition control. The MD for average achievement across subjects taught at school was 6.37 points lower in the intervention group compared to standard practice (95% CI -36.83 to 24.09; scale mean 500, scale SD 70; SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.58; 1 study, 31 children, low-quality evidence). The effect estimate for mathematics achievement was SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.22; 3 studies, 384 children, very low-quality evidence), for reading achievement SMD 0.00 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.24; 2 studies, 284 children, low-quality evidence), and for inhibition control SMD -0.67 (95% CI -1.50 to 0.16; 2 studies, 110 children, very low-quality evidence). No data were available for the effect of combined physical activity and healthy lifestyle education on cognitive executive functions.There was a moderate difference in the average achievement across subjects taught at school favouring interventions targeting the improvement of the school food environment compared to standard practice in adolescents with obesity (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.66; 2 studies, 382 adolescents, low-quality evidence), but not with overweight. Replacing packed school lunch with a nutrient-rich diet in addition to nutrition education did not improve mathematics (MD -2.18, 95% CI -5.83 to 1.47; scale range 0 to 69; SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.20; 1 study, 76 children, low-quality evidence) and reading achievement (MD 1.17, 95% CI -4.40 to 6.73; scale range 0 to 108; SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.61; 1 study, 67 children, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of childhood and adolescent obesity treatment trials, we were only able to partially assess the impact of obesity treatment interventions on school achievement and cognitive abilities. School and community-based physical activity interventions as part of an obesity prevention or treatment programme can benefit executive functions of children with obesity or overweight specifically. Similarly, school-based dietary interventions may benefit general school achievement in children with obesity. These findings might assist health and education practitioners to make decisions related to promoting physical activity and healthy eating in schools. Future obesity treatment and prevention studies in clinical, school and community settings should consider assessing academic and cognitive as well as physical outcomes.

Point-of-use fortification of foods with micronutrient powders containing iron in children of preschool and school-age

BACKGROUND

Approximately 600 million children of preschool and school age are anaemic worldwide. It is estimated that at least half of the cases are due to iron deficiency. Point-of-use fortification of foods with micronutrient powders (MNP) has been proposed as a feasible intervention to prevent and treat anaemia. It refers to the addition of iron alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals in powder form, to energy-containing foods (excluding beverages) at home or in any other place where meals are to be consumed. MNPs can be added to foods either during or after cooking or immediately before consumption without the explicit purpose of improving the flavour or colour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of point-of-use fortification of foods with iron-containing MNP alone, or in combination with other vitamins and minerals on nutrition, health and development among children at preschool (24 to 59 months) and school (five to 12 years) age, compared with no intervention, a placebo or iron-containing supplements.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2016, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, LILACS, IBECS, Popline and SciELO. We also searched two trials registers in April 2017, and contacted relevant organisations to identify ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs trials with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were children aged between 24 months and 12 years at the time of intervention. For trials with children outside this age range, we included studies where we were able to disaggregate the data for children aged 24 months to 12 years, or when more than half of the participants were within the requisite age range. We included trials with apparently healthy children; however, we included studies carried out in settings where anaemia and iron deficiency are prevalent, and thus participants may have had these conditions at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included trials, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and graded the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies involving 5810 participants from Latin America, Africa and Asia. We excluded 38 studies and identified six ongoing/unpublished trials. All trials compared the provision of MNP for point-of-use fortification with no intervention or placebo. No trials compared the effects of MNP versus iron-containing supplements (as drops, tablets or syrup).The sample sizes in the included trials ranged from 90 to 2193 participants. Six trials included participants younger than 59 months of age only, four included only children aged 60 months or older, and three trials included children both younger and older than 59 months of age.MNPs contained from two to 18 vitamins and minerals. The iron doses varied from 2.5 mg to 30 mg of elemental iron. Four trials reported giving 10 mg of elemental iron as sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (NaFeEDTA), chelated ferrous sulphate or microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 12.5 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 2.5 mg or 2.86 mg of elemental iron as NaFeEDTA. One trial gave 30 mg and one trial provided 14 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate, while one trial gave 28 mg of iron as ferrous glycine phosphate.In comparison with receiving no intervention or a placebo, children receiving iron-containing MNP for point-of-use fortification of foods had lower risk of anaemia prevalence ratio (PR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.88, 10 trials, 2448 children; moderate-quality evidence) and iron deficiency (PR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.47, 5 trials, 1364 children; moderate-quality evidence) and had higher haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 3.37 g/L, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.80, 11 trials, 2746 children; low-quality evidence).Only one trial with 115 children reported on all-cause mortality (zero cases; low-quality evidence). There was no effect on diarrhoea (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.78, 2 trials, 366 children; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Point-of-use fortification of foods with MNPs containing iron reduces anaemia and iron deficiency in preschool- and school-age children. However, information on mortality, morbidity, developmental outcomes and adverse effects is still scarce.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder

BACKGROUND

Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) frequently present with inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity, which are the cardinal symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The effectiveness of methylphenidate, a commonly used ADHD treatment, is therefore of interest in these children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of methylphenidate for symptoms of ADHD (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and ASD (impairments in social interaction and communication, and repetitive, restricted or stereotypical behaviours) in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years with ASD.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 11 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of methylphenidate versus placebo on the core symptoms of ASD or ADHD-like symptoms, or both, in children aged 6 to 18 years who were diagnosed with ASD or pervasive developmental disorder. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy, defined as an improvement in ADHD-like symptoms (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and in the core symptoms of ASD (impaired social interaction, impaired communication, and stereotypical behaviours), and overall ASD. Secondary outcomes examined were: rate of adverse events; caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; and overall quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We combined outcome measures that used different psychometric scales, where clinically appropriate. We used a coefficient of 0.6 to calculate standard deviations and adjust for the studies' cross-over design. We considered a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.52 as the minimum clinically relevant inter-treatment difference. We applied the GRADE rating for strength of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The studies: we included four cross-over studies, with a total of 113 children aged 5 to 13 years, most of whom (83%) were boys. We included two studies with five-year-old children since we were unable to obtain the disaggregated data for those aged six years and above, and all other participants were in our target age range. All participants resided in the USA. The duration of treatment in the cross-over phase was one week for each dose of methylphenidate. Studies used a range of outcome scales, rated by parents, teachers or both; clinicians; or programme staff. We report parent-rated outcomes separately. Risk of bias: we considered three trials to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and all trials to be at unclear risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors, due to the potential for recognising the side effects of methylphenidate. We judged all trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias for other items. Primary outcomes: the meta-analysis suggested that high-dose methylphenidate (0.43 mg/kg/dose to 0.60 mg/kg/dose) had a significant and clinically relevant benefit on hyperactivity, as rated by teachers (SMD -0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.43; 4 studies, 73 participants; P < 0.001; low-quality evidence) and parents (mean difference (MD) -6.61 points, 95% CI -12.19 to -1.03, rated on the hyperactivity subscale of the Aberrant Behviour Checklist, range 0 to 48; 2 studies, 71 participants; P = 0.02; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis also showed a significant but not clinically relevant benefit on teacher-rated inattention (MD -2.72 points, 95% CI -5.37 to -0.06, rated on the inattention subscale of the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham, Fourth Version questionnaire, range 0 to 27; 2 studies, 51 participants; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There were inadequate data to conduct a meta-analysis on the symptom of impulsivity. There was no evidence that methylphenidate worsens the core symptoms of ASD or benefits social interaction (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.05; 3 studies, 63 participants; P = 0.07; very low-quality evidence), stereotypical behaviours (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.17; 3 studies, 69 participants; P = 0.19; low-quality evidence), or overall ASD (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.19; 2 studies, 36 participants; P = 0.15; low-quality evidence), as rated by teachers. There were inadequate data to conduct a meta-analysis on the symptom of impaired communication.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

no data were available for the secondary outcomes of caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling options or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; or overall quality of life. No trials reported serious adverse events. The only adverse effect that was significantly more likely with treatment was reduced appetite as rated by parents (risk ratio 8.28, 95% CI 2.57 to 26.73; 2 studies, 74 participants; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis by dose did not identify any significant differences in effect on our primary outcomes between low-, medium- or high-dose ranges.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that short-term use of methylphenidate might improve symptoms of hyperactivity and possibly inattention in children with ASD who are tolerant of the medication, although the low quality of evidence means that we cannot be certain of the true magnitude of any effect. There was no evidence that methylphenidate has a negative impact on the core symptoms of ASD, or that it improves social interaction, stereotypical behaviours, or overall ASD. The evidence for adverse events is of very low quality because trials were short and excluded children intolerant of methylphenidate in the test-dose phase. Future RCTs should consider extending the duration of treatment and follow-up. The minimum clinically important difference also needs to be confirmed in children with ASD using outcome scales validated for this population.

Atypical antipsychotics for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review, last published in 2012 (Loy 2012). Children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders may present to health services, where they may be treated with atypical antipsychotics. There is increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of disruptive behaviour disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo, for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. The aim was to evaluate each drug separately rather than the class effect, on the grounds that each atypical antipsychotic has different pharmacologic binding profile (Stahl 2013) and that this is clinically more useful.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics versus placebo in children and youths aged up to and including 18 years, with a diagnosis of disruptive behaviour disorders, including comorbid ADHD. The primary outcomes were aggression, conduct problems and adverse events (i.e. weight gain/changes and metabolic parameters). The secondary outcomes were general functioning, noncompliance, other adverse events, social functioning, family functioning, parent satisfaction and school functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JL and KS) independently collected, evaluated and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analyses for each of our primary outcomes, except for metabolic parameters, due to inadequate outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials (spanning 2000 to 2014), involving a total of 896 children and youths aged five to 18 years. Bar two trials, all came from an outpatient setting. Eight trials assessed risperidone, one assessed quetiapine and one assessed ziprasidone. Nine trials assessed acute efficacy (over four to 10 weeks); one of which combined treatment with stimulant medication and parent training. One trial was a six-month maintenance trial assessing symptom recurrence.The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Nine studies had some degree of pharmaceutical support/funding. Primary outcomesUsing the mean difference (MD), we combined data from three studies (238 participants) in a meta-analysis of aggression, as assessed using the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) ‒ Irritability subscale. We found that youths treated with risperidone show reduced aggression compared to youths treated with placebo (MD -6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.79 to -4.19; low-quality evidence). Using the standardised mean difference (SMD), we pooled data from two risperidone trials (190 participants), which used different scales: the Overt Aggression Scale ‒ Modified (OAS-M) Scale and the Antisocial Behaviour Scale (ABS); as the ABS had two subscales that could not be combined (reactive and proactive aggression), we performed two separate analyses. When we combined the ABS Reactive subscale and the OAS-M, the SMD was -1.30 in favour of risperidone (95% CI -2.21 to -0.40, moderate-quality evidence). When we combined the ABS Proactive subscale and OAS-M, the SMD was -1.12 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), suggesting uncertainty about the estimate of effect, as the confidence intervals overlapped the null value. In summary, there was some evidence that aggression could be reduced by risperidone. Data were lacking on other atypical antipsychotics, like quetiapine and ziprasidone, with regard to their effects on aggression.We pooled data from two risperidone trials (225 participants) in a meta-analysis of conduct problems, as assessed using the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form ‒ Conduct Problem subscale (NCBRF-CP). This yielded a final mean score that was 8.61 points lower in the risperidone group compared to the placebo group (95% CI -11.49 to -5.74; moderate-quality evidence).We investigated the effect on weight by performing two meta-analyses. We wanted to distinguish between the effects of antipsychotic medication only and the combined effect with stimulants, since the latter can have a counteracting effect on weight gain due to appetite suppression. Pooling two trials with risperidone only (138 participants), we found that participants on risperidone gained 2.37 kilograms (kg) more (95% CI 0.26 to 4.49; moderate-quality evidence) than those on placebo. When we added a trial where all participants received a combination of risperidone and stimulants, we found that those on the combined treatment gained 2.14 kg more (95% CI 1.04 to 3.23; 3 studies; 305 participants; low-quality evidence) than those on placebo. Secondary outcomesOut of the 10 included trials, three examined general functioning, social functioning and parent satisfaction. No trials examined family or school functioning. Data on non-compliance/attrition rate and other adverse events were available from all 10 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that in the short term risperidone may reduce aggression and conduct problems in children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders There is also evidence that this intervention is associated with significant weight gain.For aggression, the difference in scores of 6.49 points on the ABC ‒ Irritability subscale (range 0 to 45) may be clinically significant. It is challenging to interpret the clinical significance of the differential findings on two different ABS subscales as it may be difficult to distinguish between reactive and proactive aggression in clinical practice. For conduct problems, the difference in scores of 8.61 points on the NCBRF-CP (range 0 to 48) is likely to be clinically significant. Weight gain remains a concern.Caution is required in interpreting the results due to the limitations of current evidence and the small number of high-quality trials. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of quetiapine, ziprasidone or any other atypical antipsychotic for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths and no evidence for children under five years of age. It is uncertain to what degree the efficacy found in clinical trials will translate into real-life clinical practice. Given the effectiveness of parent-training interventions in the management of these disorders, and the somewhat equivocal evidence on the efficacy of medication, it is important not to use medication alone. This is consistent with current clinical guidelines.

Task-oriented interventions for children with developmental co-ordination disorder

BACKGROUND

Developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) is a common childhood disorder, which can persist into adolescence and adulthood. Children with DCD have difficulties in performing the essential motor tasks required for self-care, academic, social and recreational activities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of task-oriented interventions on movement performance, psychosocial functions, activity, and participation for children with DCD and to examine differential intervention effects as a factor of age, sex, severity of DCD, intervention intensity, and type of intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases, and five trials registers. We also searched reference lists, and contacted members of the mailing list of the International Conference on DCD to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the task-oriented intervention with either an inactive control intervention or an active control intervention in children and adolescents aged four to 18 years with a diagnosis of DCD.Types of outcome measures included changes in motor function, as assessed by standardised performance outcome tests and questionnaires; adverse events; and measures of participation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors participated in study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and quality, and two review authors independently performed all tasks. Specifically, two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to eliminate irrelevant studies, extracted data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. In cases of ambiguity or information missing from the paper, one review author contacted trial authors.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 15 studies (eight RCTs and seven quasi-RCTs). Study characteristicsThe trials included 649 participants of both sexes, ranging in age from five to 12 years.The participants were from Australia, Canada, China, Sweden, Taiwan, and the UK.Trials were conducted in hospital settings; at a university-based clinic, laboratory, or centre; in community centres; at home or school, or both at home and school.The durations of task-oriented interventions were mostly short term (less than six months), with the total number of sessions ranging from five to 50. The length of each session ranged from 30 to 90 minutes, and the frequencies ranged from once to seven times per week.We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high across the studies. Some elements were impossible to achieve (such as blinding of administering personnel or participants).

KEY RESULTS

primary outcomesA meta-analysis of two RCTs and four quasi-RCTs found in favour of task-oriented interventions for improved motor performance compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) -3.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.88 to -1.39; P = 0.002; I² = 43%; 6 trials, 169 children; very low-quality evidence).A meta-analysis of two RCTs found no effect of task-oriented interventions for improved motor performance compared to no intervention (MD -2.34, 95% CI -7.50 to 2.83; P = 0.38; I² = 42%; 2 trials, 51 children; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported no adverse effects or events. Through personal correspondence, the authors of nine studies indicated that no injuries had occurred.

KEY RESULTS

secondary outcomesDue to the limited number of studies with complete and consistent data, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses on our secondary measures or any subgroup analysis on age, sex, severity of DCD, and intervention intensity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. The conclusions drawn from previous reviews, which unanimously reported beneficial effects of intervention, are inconsistent with our conclusions. This review highlights the need for carefully designed and executed RCTs to investigate the effect of interventions for children with DCD.

Treadmill interventions in children under six years of age at risk of neuromotor delay

BACKGROUND

Delayed motor development may occur in children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, general developmental delay or children born preterm. It limits the child's exploration of the environment and can hinder cognitive and social-emotional development. Literature suggests that task-specific training, such as locomotor treadmill training, facilitates motor development.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of treadmill interventions on locomotor development in children with delayed ambulation or in pre-ambulatory children (or both), who are under six years of age and who are at risk for neuromotor delay.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and a number of trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effect of treadmill intervention in the target population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently extracted the data. Outcome parameters were structured according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model.

MAIN RESULTS

This is an update of a Cochrane review from 2011, which included five trials. This update includes seven studies on treadmill intervention in 175 children: 104 were allocated to treadmill groups, and 71 were controls. The studies varied in population (children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, developmental delay or at moderate risk for neuromotor delay); comparison type (treadmill versus no treadmill; treadmill with versus without orthoses; high- versus low-intensity training); study duration, and assessed outcomes. Due to the diversity of the studies, only data from five studies were used in meta-analyses for five outcomes: age of independent walking onset, overall gross motor function, gross motor function related to standing and walking, and gait velocity. GRADE assessments of quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low.The effects of treadmill intervention on independent walking onset compared to no treadmill intervention was population dependent, but showed no overall effect (mean difference (MD) -2.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -5.38 to 1.22, 2 studies, 58 children; moderate-quality evidence): 30 children with Down syndrome benefited from treadmill training (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.96 to -1.04), but 28 children at moderate risk of developmental delay did not (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.14). We found no evidence regarding walking onset in two studies that compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children (MD 0.10, 95% CI -5.96 to 6.16), and high- versus low-intensity treadmill interventions in 30 children with Down syndrome (MD -2.13, 95% -4.96 to 0.70).Treadmill intervention did not improve overall gross motor function (MD 0.88, 95% CI -4.54 to 6.30, 2 studies, 36 children; moderate-quality evidence) or gross motor skills related to standing (MD 5.41, 95% CI -1.64 to 12.43, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence), and had a negligible improvement in gross motor skills related to walking (MD 4.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.73, 2 studies, 32 children; low-quality evidence). It led to improved walking skills in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.88 to 14.32, 1 study) and favourable gross motor skills in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.18 to 12.82). A study which compared treadmill intervention with and without orthotics in 17 children with Down syndrome suggested that adding orthotics might hinder overall gross motor progress (MD -8.40, 95% CI -14.55 to -2.25).Overall, treadmill intervention showed a very small increase in walking speed compared to no treadmill intervention (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.37, 2 studies, 32 children; high-quality evidence). Treadmill intervention increased walking speed in 20 ambulatory children with developmental delay (MD 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.42), but not in 12 children with cerebral palsy (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update of the review from 2011 provides additional evidence of the efficacy of treadmill intervention for certain groups of children up to six years of age, but power to find significant results still remains limited. The current findings indicate that treadmill intervention may accelerate the development of independent walking in children with Down syndrome and may accelerate motor skill attainment in children with cerebral palsy and general developmental delay. Future research should first confirm these findings with larger and better designed studies, especially for infants with cerebral palsy and developmental delay. Once efficacy is established, research should examine the optimal dosage of treadmill intervention in these populations.

Exercise interventions for cerebral palsy

BACKGROUND

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting from an injury to the developing brain. It is the most common form of childhood disability with prevalence rates of between 1.5 and 3.8 per 1000 births reported worldwide. The primary impairments associated with CP include reduced muscle strength and reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in difficulties performing activities such as dressing, walking and negotiating stairs.Exercise is defined as a planned, structured and repetitive activity that aims to improve fitness, and it is a commonly used intervention for people with CP. Aerobic and resistance training may improve activity (i.e. the ability to execute a task) and participation (i.e. involvement in a life situation) through their impact on the primary impairments of CP. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of exercise interventions for people with CP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of exercise interventions in people with CP, primarily in terms of activity, participation and quality of life. Secondary outcomes assessed body functions and body structures. Comparators of interest were no treatment, usual care or an alternative type of exercise intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of children, adolescents and adults with CP. We included studies of aerobic exercise, resistance training, and 'mixed training' (a combination of at least two of aerobic exercise, resistance training and anaerobic training).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligibility; extracted all relevant data and conducted 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials (926 participants); 27 included children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years, three included adolescents and young adults (10 to 22 years), and one included adults over 20 years. Males constituted 53% of the sample. Five trials were conducted in the USA; four in Australia; two in Egypt, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the UK; three in Greece; and one apiece in India, Italy, Norway, and South Africa.Twenty-six trials included people with spastic CP only; three trials included children and adolescents with spastic and other types of CP. Twenty-one trials included people who were able to walk with or without assistive devices, four trials also included people who used wheeled mobility devices in most settings, and one trial included people who used wheeled mobility devices only. Three trials did not report the functional ability of participants. Only two trials reported participants' manual ability. Eight studies compared aerobic exercise to usual care, while 15 compared resistance training and 4 compared mixed training to usual care or no treatment. Two trials compared aerobic exercise to resistance training. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias overall.We found low-quality evidence that aerobic exercise improves gross motor function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.04, N = 65, 3 studies) and intermediate term (mean difference (MD) 12.96%, 95% CI 0.52% to 25.40%, N = 12, 1 study). Aerobic exercise does not improve gait speed in the short term (MD 0.09 m/s, 95% CI -0.11 m/s to 0.28 m/s, N = 82, 4 studies, very low-quality evidence) or intermediate term (MD -0.17 m/s, 95% CI -0.59 m/s to 0.24 m/s, N = 12, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No trial assessed participation or quality of life following aerobic exercise.We found low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.43, N = 164, 7 studies), gait speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.02 m/s to 0.07 m/s, N = 185, 8 studies), participation (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.70, N = 127, 2 studies) or parent-reported quality of life (MD 12.70, 95% CI -5.63 to 31.03, n = 12, 1 study) in the short term. There is also low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed (MD -0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.17 m/s to 0.11 m/s, N = 84, 3 studies), gross motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.55, N = 85, 3 studies) or participation (MD 0.37, 95% CI -6.61 to 7.35, N = 36, 1 study) in the intermediate term.We found low-quality evidence that mixed training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.33, N = 163, 4 studies) or gait speed (MD 0.10 m/s, -0.07 m/s to 0.27 m/s, N = 58, 1 study) but does improve participation (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.67, N = 65, 1 study) in the short-term.There is no difference between resistance training and aerobic exercise in terms of the effect on gross motor function in the short term (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.55, N = 56, 2 studies, low-quality evidence).Thirteen trials did not report adverse events, seven reported no adverse events, and nine reported non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence for all conclusions is low to very low. As included trials have small sample sizes, heterogeneity may be underestimated, resulting in considerable uncertainty relating to effect estimates. For children with CP, there is evidence that aerobic exercise may result in a small improvement in gross motor function, though it does not improve gait speed. There is evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed, gross motor function, participation or quality of life among children with CP.Based on the evidence available, exercise appears to be safe for people with CP; only 55% of trials, however, reported adverse events or stated that they monitored adverse events. There is a need for large, high-quality, well-reported RCTs that assess the effectiveness of exercise in terms of activity and participation, before drawing any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise for people with CP. Research is also required to determine if current exercise guidelines for the general population are effective and feasible for people with CP.

Family therapy for autism spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are characterised by impairments in communication and reciprocal social interaction. These impairments can impact on relationships with family members, augment stress and frustration, and contribute to behaviours that can be described as challenging. Family members of individuals with ASD can experience high rates of carer stress and burden, and poor parental efficacy. While there is evidence to suggest that individuals with ASD and family members derive benefit from psychological interventions designed to reduce stress and mental health morbidity, and enhance coping, most studies to date have targeted the needs of either individuals with ASD, or family members. We wanted to examine whether family (systemic) therapy, aimed at enhancing communication, relationships or coping, is effective for individuals with ASD and their wider family network.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of family therapy as a treatment to enhance communication or coping for individuals with ASD and their family members. If possible, we will also seek to establish the economic costs associated with family therapy for this clinical population.

SEARCH METHODS

On 16 January 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and three trials registers. We also handsearched reference lists of existing systematic reviews and contacted study authors in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the effectiveness of family therapy for young people or adults with ASD or family members, or both, delivered via any modality and for an unspecified duration, compared with either standard care, a wait-list control, or an active intervention such as an alternative type of psychological therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened each title and abstract and all full-text reports retrieved. To enhance rigour, 25% of these were independently screened by a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 4809 records. Of these, we retrieved 37 full-text reports for further scrutiny, which we subsequently excluded as they did not meet the review inclusion criteria, and identified one study awaiting classification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have examined the effectiveness of family therapy for ASD, and none of these are RCTs. Further research studies employing methodologically robust trial designs are needed to establish whether family therapy interventions are clinically beneficial for enhancing communication, strengthening relationships, augmenting coping and reducing mental health morbidity for individuals with ASD and family members.

Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review, last published in 2009 (Huertas-Ceballos 2009). Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP), including children with irritable bowel syndrome, is a common problem affecting between 4% and 25% of school-aged children. For the majority of such children, no organic cause for their pain can be found on physical examination or investigation. Many dietary inventions have been suggested to improve the symptoms of RAP. These may involve either excluding ingredients from the diet or adding supplements such as fibre or probiotics.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of dietary interventions in improving pain in children of school age with RAP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors, in June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dietary interventions with placebo or no treatment in children aged five to 18 years with RAP or an abdominal pain-related, functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria (Rasquin 2006).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We grouped dietary interventions together by category for analysis. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information and clarification, when needed. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs, reported in 27 papers with a total of 1453 participants. Fifteen of these studies were not included in the previous review. All 19 RCTs had follow-up ranging from one to five months. Participants were aged between four and 18 years from eight different countries and were recruited largely from paediatric gastroenterology clinics. The mean age at recruitment ranged from 6.3 years to 13.1 years. Girls outnumbered boys in most trials. Fourteen trials recruited children with a diagnosis under the broad umbrella of RAP or functional gastrointestinal disorders; five trials specifically recruited only children with irritable bowel syndrome. The studies fell into four categories: trials of probiotic-based interventions (13 studies), trials of fibre-based interventions (four studies), trials of low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diets (one study), and trials of fructose-restricted diets (one study).We found that children treated with probiotics reported a greater reduction in pain frequency at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.12; 6 trials; 523 children). There was also a decrease in pain intensity in the intervention group at the same time point (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.15; 7 studies; 575 children). However, we judged the evidence for these outcomes to be of low quality using GRADE due to an unclear risk of bias from incomplete outcome data and significant heterogeneity.We found that children treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47; 7 studies; 722 children). The estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was eight, meaning that eight children would need to receive probiotics for one to experience improvement in pain in this timescale. We judged the evidence for this outcome to be of moderate quality due to significant heterogeneity.Children with a symptom profile defined as irritable bowel syndrome treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.13; 4 studies; 344 children). Children treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at three to six months postintervention compared to those receiving placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.43; 2 studies; 224 children). We judged the evidence for these two outcomes to be of moderate quality due to small numbers of participants included in the studies.We found that children treated with fibre-based interventions were not more likely to experience an improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than children given placebo (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.65; 2 studies; 136 children). There was also no reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo at the same time point (SMD -1.24, 95% CI -3.41 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 children). We judged the evidence for these outcomes to be of low quality due to an unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and significant heterogeneity.We found only one study of low FODMAP diets and only one trial of fructose-restricted diets, meaning no pooled analyses were possible.We were unable to perform any meta-analyses for the secondary outcomes of school performance, social or psychological functioning, or quality of daily life, as not enough studies included these outcomes or used comparable measures to assess them.With the exception of one study, all studies reported monitoring children for adverse events; no major adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that probiotics may be effective in improving pain in children with RAP. Clinicians may therefore consider probiotic interventions as part of a holistic management strategy. However, further trials are needed to examine longer-term outcomes and to improve confidence in estimating the size of the effect, as well as to determine the optimal strain and dosage. Future research should also explore the effectiveness of probiotics in children with different symptom profiles, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome.We found only a small number of trials of fibre-based interventions, with overall low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There was therefore no convincing evidence that fibre-based interventions improve pain in children with RAP. Further high-quality RCTs of fibre supplements involving larger numbers of participants are required. Future trials of low FODMAP diets and other dietary interventions are also required to facilitate evidence-based recommendations.

Vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and mortality in children from six months to five years of age

BACKGROUND

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is a major public health problem in low- and middle-income countries, affecting 190 million children under five years of age and leading to many adverse health consequences, including death. Based on prior evidence and a previous version of this review, the World Health Organization has continued to recommend vitamin A supplementation for children aged 6 to 59 months. There are new data available from recently published randomised trials since the previous publication of this review in 2010, and this update incorporates this information and reviews the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of vitamin A supplementation (VAS) for preventing morbidity and mortality in children aged six months to five years.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2016 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted relevant organisations and researchers to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of synthetic VAS in children aged six months to five years living in the community. We excluded studies involving children in hospital and children with disease or infection. We also excluded studies evaluating the effects of food fortification, consumption of vitamin A rich foods, or beta-carotene supplementation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and abstracted data, resolving discrepancies by discussion. We performed meta-analyses for outcomes, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, disease, vision, and side effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 47 studies (4 of which are new to this review), involving approximately 1,223,856 children. Studies took place in 19 countries: 30 (63%) in Asia, 16 of these in India; 8 (17%) in Africa; 7 (15%) in Latin America, and 2 (4%) in Australia. About one-third of the studies were in urban/periurban settings, and half were in rural settings; the remaining studies did not clearly report settings. Most of the studies included equal numbers of girls and boys and lasted about a year. The included studies were at variable overall risk of bias; however, evidence for the primary outcome was at low risk of bias. A meta-analysis for all-cause mortality included 19 trials (1,202,382 children). At longest follow-up, there was a 12% observed reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality for vitamin A compared with control using a fixed-effect model (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.93; high-quality evidence). This result was sensitive to choice of model, and a random-effects meta-analysis showed a different summary estimate (24% reduction: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88); however, the confidence intervals overlapped with that of the fixed-effect model. Nine trials reported mortality due to diarrhoea and showed a 12% overall reduction for VAS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; 1,098,538 participants; high-quality evidence). There was no significant effect for VAS on mortality due to measles, respiratory disease, and meningitis. VAS reduced incidence of diarrhoea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.87; 15 studies; 77,946 participants; low-quality evidence) and measles (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67; 6 studies; 19,566 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, there was no significant effect on incidence of respiratory disease or hospitalisations due to diarrhoea or pneumonia. There was an increased risk of vomiting within the first 48 hours of VAS (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.69; 4 studies; 10,541 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin A supplementation is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in morbidity and mortality in children. Therefore, we suggest maintaining the policy of universal supplementation for children under five years of age in populations at risk of VAD. Further placebo-controlled trials of VAS in children between six months and five years of age would not change the conclusions of this review, although studies that compare different doses and delivery mechanisms are needed. In populations with documented vitamin A deficiency, it would be unethical to conduct placebo-controlled trials.

Pharmacological interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood

BACKGROUND

Between 4% and 25% of school-aged children at some stage complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of sufficient severity to interfere with their daily lives. When no clear organic cause is found, the children are managed with reassurance and simple measures; a large range of pharmacological interventions have been recommended for use in these children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for RAP in children of school age.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other electronic databases up to June 2016. We also searched two trials registers and contacted researchers of published studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving children aged five to 18 years old with RAP or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria (Rasquin 2006). The interventions were any pharmacological intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, waiting list, or standard care. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity, pain duration or pain frequency, and improvement in pain. The secondary outcome measures were school performance, social or psychological functioning, and quality of daily life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligible studies. Two review authors extracted data and performed a 'Risk of bias' assessment. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. We deemed a meta-analysis to be not appropriate as the studies were significantly heterogeneous. We have consequently provided a narrative summary of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 16 studies with a total of 1024 participants aged between five and 18 years, all of whom were recruited from paediatric outpatient clinics. Studies were conducted in seven countries: seven in the USA, four in Iran, and one each in the UK, Switzerland, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and India. Follow-up ranged from two weeks to four months. The studies examined the following interventions to treat RAP: tricyclic antidepressants, antibiotics, 5-HT4 receptor agonists, antispasmodics, antihistamines, H2 receptor antagonists, serotonin antagonists, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, a dopamine receptor antagonist, and a hormone. Although some single studies reported that treatments were effective, all of these studies were either small or had key methodological weaknesses with a substantial risk of bias. None of these 'positive' results have been reproduced in subsequent studies. We judged the evidence of effectiveness to be of low quality. No adverse effects were reported in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no convincing evidence to support the use of drugs to treat RAP in children. Well-conducted clinical trials are needed to evaluate any possible benefits and risks of pharmacological interventions. In practice, if a clinician chooses to use a drug as a 'therapeutic trial', they and the patient need to be aware that RAP is a fluctuating condition and any 'response' may reflect the natural history of the condition or a placebo effect, rather than drug efficacy.

Psychosocial interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood

BACKGROUND

This review supersedes the original Cochrane review first published in 2008 (Huertas-Ceballos 2008).Between 4% and 25% of school-aged children complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) severe enough to interfere with their daily activities. No organic cause for this pain can be found on physical examination or investigation for the majority of such children. Although many children are managed by reassurance and simple measures, a large range of psychosocial interventions involving cognitive and behavioural components have been recommended.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing pain in school-aged children with RAP.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the references of identified studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial therapies with usual care, active control, or wait-list control for children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) with RAP or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder defined by the Rome III criteria were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Five review authors independently selected studies, assessed them for risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. We also assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 18 randomised controlled trials (14 new to this version), reported in 26 papers, involving 928 children and adolescents with RAP between the ages of 6 and 18 years. The interventions were classified into four types of psychosocial therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy (including guided imagery), yoga, and written self-disclosure. The studies were carried out in the USA, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Brazil. The majority of the studies were small and short term; only two studies included more than 100 participants, and only five studies had follow-up assessments beyond six months. Small sample sizes and the degree of assessed risk of performance and detection bias in many studies led to the overall quality of the evidence being rated as low to very low for all outcomes.For CBT compared to control, we found evidence of treatment success postintervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 27.32; Z = 2.16; P = 0.03; 4 studies; 175 children; very low-quality evidence), but no evidence of treatment success at medium-term follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 10.16; Z = 1.85; P = 0.06; 3 studies; 139 children; low-quality evidence) or long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.33; Z = 0.53; P = 0.60; 2 studies; 120 children; low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of effects of intervention on pain intensity scores measured postintervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.08; 7 studies; 405 children; low-quality evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; 4 studies; 301 children; low-quality evidence).For hypnotherapy (including studies of guided imagery) compared to control, we found evidence of greater treatment success postintervention (OR 6.78, 95% CI 2.41 to 19.07; Z = 3.63; P = 0.0003; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence) as well as reductions in pain intensity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.61; Z = 4.97; P < 0.00001; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence) and pain frequency (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.72; Z = 4.48; P < 0.00001; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence). The only study of long-term effect reported continued benefit of hypnotherapy compared to usual care after five years, with 68% reporting treatment success compared to 20% of controls (P = 0.005).For yoga therapy compared to control, we found no evidence of effectiveness on pain intensity reduction postintervention (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.05; Z = 1.69; P = 0.09; 3 studies; 122 children; low-quality evidence).The single study of written self-disclosure therapy reported no benefit for pain.There was no evidence of effect from the pooled analyses for any type of intervention on the secondary outcomes of school performance, social or psychological functioning, and quality of daily life.There were no adverse effects for any of the interventions reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from trials to date provide some evidence for beneficial effects of CBT and hypnotherapy in reducing pain in the short term in children and adolescents presenting with RAP. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of yoga therapy or written self-disclosure therapy. There were insufficient data to explore effects of treatment by RAP subtype.Higher-quality, longer-duration trials are needed to fully investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions. Identifying the active components of the interventions and establishing whether benefits are sustained in the long term are areas of priority. Future research studies would benefit from employing active control groups to help minimise potential bias from wait-list control designs and to help account for therapist and intervention time.

Household interventions for preventing domestic lead exposure in children

BACKGROUND

Lead poisoning is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children, and trials have tested many household interventions to prevent lead exposure. This is an update of the original review, first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of household interventions for preventing or reducing lead exposure in children, as measured by improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2016 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and two trials registers: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to find unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies involving 2643 children: 13 RCTs (involving 2565 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Thirteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, and one was in Australia. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in all studies. The duration of the intervention ranged from 3 months to 24 months in 12 studies, while 2 studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 48 months. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. We rated two RCTs and one quasi-RCT as being at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs as being at high risk of attrition bias. For educational interventions, we rated the quality of evidence to be high for continuous blood lead levels and moderate for all other outcomes. For environmental interventions, we assessed the quality of evidence as moderate to low. National or international research grants or governments funded 12 studies, while the other 2 did not report their funding sources.No studies reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes. No studies reported on adverse events in children. All studies reported blood lead level outcomes.We put studies into subgroups according to their intervention type. We performed meta-analyses of both continuous and dichotomous data for subgroups where appropriate. Educational interventions were not effective in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.12, I² = 0%; 5 studies; N = 815; high quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.11; I² = 90%; 3 studies; N = 298; low quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; I² = 0; 2 studies; N = 210; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07; I² = 56%; 2 studies; N = 210; low quality evidence). After adjusting the dust control subgroup for clustering in meta-analysis, we found no evidence of effectiveness. We could not pool the studies using soil abatement (removal and replacement) and combination intervention groups in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between studies, and generalisability or reproducibility of the results from these studies is unknown. Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to clarify whether soil abatement or a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on current knowledge, household educational interventions are ineffective in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. Dust control interventions may lead to little or no difference in blood lead levels (the quality of evidence was moderate to low, meaning that future research is likely to change these results). There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement or combination interventions. No study reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes or adverse events. These patient-relevant outcomes would have been of great interest to draw conclusions for practice.Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for preventing lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.