Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use.

Several school-based interventions are effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, and tobacco or harmful alcohol use. However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions. 1. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address student diet, physical activity, tobacco or alcohol use, and obesity. 2. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies to improve intervention implementation on measures of student diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use or alcohol use; describe their cost or cost-effectiveness; and any harms of strategies on schools, school staff or students. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was between 1 September 2016 and 30 April 2021 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review. We defined 'Implementation' as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised controlled trial (non-RCT)) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by students to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy. We used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary (implementation) and secondary (student health behaviour and obesity) outcomes using a decision hierarchy. Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For RCTs, we conducted meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model, or in instances where there were between two and five studies, a fixed-effect model. The synthesis of the effects for non-randomised studies followed the 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines. We included an additional 11 trials in this update bringing the total number of included studies in the review to 38. Of these, 22 were conducted in the USA. Twenty-six studies used RCT designs. Seventeen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating, 12 physical activity and six a combination of risk factors. Just one trial sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. The overall certainty of evidence was low and ranged from very low to moderate for secondary review outcomes. Pooled analyses of RCTs found, relative to a control, the use of implementation strategies may result in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; 22 RCTs, 1917 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes we found, relative to control, the use of implementation strategies to support intervention implementation may result in a slight improvement on measures of student diet (SMD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; 11 RCTs, 16,649 participants; low-certainty evidence) and physical activity (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 9 RCTs, 16,389 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on obesity probably suggest little to no difference (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 8 RCTs, 18,618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effects on tobacco use are very uncertain (SMD -0.03, 95% CIs -0.23 to 0.18; 3 RCTs, 3635 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT assessed measures of student alcohol use and found strategies to support implementation may result in a slight increase in use (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; P = 0.60; 2105 participants). Few trials reported the economic evaluations of implementation strategies, the methods of which were heterogeneous and evidence graded as very uncertain. A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review. The use of implementation strategies may result in large increases in implementation of interventions, and slight improvements in measures of student diet, and physical activity. Further research is required to assess the impact of implementation strategies on such behavioural- and obesity-related outcomes, including on measures of alcohol use, where the findings of one trial suggest it may slightly increase student risk. Given the low certainty of the available evidence for most measures further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.

Wolfenden L ，McCrabb S ，Barnes C ，O'Brien KM ，Ng KW ，Nathan NK ，Sutherland R ，Hodder RK ，Tzelepis F ，Nolan E ，Williams CM ，Yoong SL ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use.

A range of school-based interventions are effective in improving student diet and physical activity (e.g. school food policy interventions and classroom physical activity interventions), and reducing obesity, tobacco use and/or alcohol use (e.g. tobacco control programmes and alcohol education programmes). However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions. The primary review objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address students' (aged 5 to 18 years) diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and/or alcohol use. The secondary objectives are to: 1. determine whether the effects are different based on the characteristics of the intervention including school type and the health behaviour or risk factor targeted by the intervention; 2. describe any unintended consequences and adverse effects of strategies on schools, school staff or students; and 3. describe the cost or cost-effectiveness of strategies. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five additional databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the US National Institutes of Health registry (clinicaltrials.gov). The latest search was between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2023 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review. We defined 'implementation' as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any randomised controlled trial (RCT) or cluster-RCT conducted on any scale, in a school setting, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to improve the implementation of policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and/or alcohol use by students (aged 5 to 18 years) to no active implementation strategy (i.e. no intervention, inclusive of usual practice, minimal support) or a different implementation strategy. We used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary outcome using a decision hierarchy (i.e. continuous over dichotomous, most valid, total score over subscore). Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Where we could not combine data in meta-analysis, we followed recommended Cochrane methods and reported results in accordance with 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines. We conducted assessments of risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures. We included an additional 14 trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials in the review to 39 trials with 83 trial arms and 6489 participants. Of these, the majority were conducted in Australia and the USA (n = 15 each). Nine were RCTs and 30 were cluster-RCTs. Twelve trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating practices; 17 physical activity, two tobacco, one alcohol, and seven a combination of risk factors. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational meetings, and education outreach visits, or academic detailing. Of the 39 included trials, we judged 26 as having high risks of bias, 11 as having some concerns, and two as having low risk of bias across all domains. Pooled analyses found, relative to a control (no active implementation strategy), the use of implementation strategies probably results in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 0.95, 95% CI 0.71, 1.19; I2 = 78%; 30 trials, 4912 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This is equivalent to a 0.76 increase in the implementation of seven physical activity intervention components when the SMD is re-expressed using an implementation measure from a selected included trial. Subgroup analyses by school type and targeted health behaviour or risk factor did not identify any differential effects, and only one study was included that was implemented at scale. Compared to a control (no active implementation strategy), no unintended consequences or adverse effects of interventions were identified in the 11 trials that reported assessing them (1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine trials compared costs between groups with and without an implementation strategy and the results of these comparisons were mixed (2136 participants; low-certainty evidence). A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review. We found the use of implementation strategies probably results in large increases in implementation of interventions targeting healthy eating, physical activity, tobacco and/or alcohol use. While the effectiveness of individual implementation strategies could not be determined, such examination will likely be possible in future updates as data from new trials can be synthesised. Such research will further guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting. The review will be maintained as a living systematic review.

Lee DC ，O'Brien KM ，McCrabb S ，Wolfenden L ，Tzelepis F ，Barnes C ，Yoong S ，Bartlem KM ，Hodder RK ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions implemented through sporting organisations for promoting healthy behaviour or improving health outcomes.

Chronic diseases are the leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Much of this burden can be prevented by adopting healthy behaviours and reducing chronic disease risk factors. Settings-based approaches to address chronic disease risk factors are recommended globally. Sporting organisations are highly prevalent, and engage many people in many countries. As such, they represent an ideal setting for public health interventions to promote health. However, there is currently limited evidence of their impact on healthy behaviour and health outcomes as previous systematic reviews are either limited in their scope (e.g. restricted to professional sporting organisations), or are out of date. Primary: to assess the benefits and harms of interventions implemented through sporting organisations to promote healthy behaviours (including physical activity, healthy diet) or reduce health risk behaviours (including alcohol consumption, tobacco use). Secondary: to assess the benefits and harms of these interventions to promote health outcomes (e.g. weight), other health-related behaviours (e.g. help-seeking behaviour) or health-related knowledge; to determine whether benefits and harms differ based on the characteristics of the interventions, including target population and intervention duration; to assess unintended adverse consequences of sporting organisation interventions; and to describe their cost or cost-effectiveness. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database and two clinical trial registries, from inception to May 2024, to identify eligible trials. We searched Google Scholar in May 2024. We did not impose language or publication status restrictions. We also searched reference lists of included trials for other potentially eligible trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, of any intervention conducted within or using a sporting organisation for access to a target group, that aimed to improve a health behaviour primary outcome or a secondary review outcome, and had a parallel control group (no intervention, alternative intervention). Eligible participants were any individual exposed to an intervention involving a sporting organisation, including players, members, coaches, and supporters. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to synthesise results where we could pool data from at least two trials. Where we could not conduct meta-analysis, we followed Cochrane guidance for synthesis using other methods and reported results according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We included 20 trials (42 trial arms, 8179 participants) conducted in high-income countries, and identified four ongoing trials and four trials awaiting classification. There was considerable heterogeneity in the type of participants, interventions and outcomes assessed across trials. Included trials primarily targeted sporting organisation members (eight trials) or supporters (eight trials), males only (11 trials) and adults (14 trials). Football clubs (e.g. soccer, American football, Australian football league) were the most common intervention setting (15 trials), and interventions targeted various combinations of health behaviours, knowledge and health outcomes. Fourteen trials (10 RCTs and four cluster-RCTs) assessed the impact of a sporting organisation intervention on a primary outcome: physical activity (nine trials); diet (six trials); alcohol consumption (11 trials); and tobacco use (two trials). For RCTs, we assessed the risk of bias for primary outcomes (physical activity, diet, alcohol consumption) and unintended adverse consequences as being at low risk of bias (four outcomes), some concerns (one outcome) or high risk of bias (32 outcomes), due to outcomes being self-reported. For cluster-RCTs, we assessed the risk of bias for all primary outcomes (alcohol consumption, tobacco use) as high risk (eight outcomes), due to outcomes being self-reported. Sporting organisation interventions versus control probably have a small positive effect on the amount of physical activity per day, equivalent to approximately 7.4 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.49; I2 = 3%; 4 trials, 1213 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may not reduce sedentary behaviour (mean difference (MD) -15.18, 95% CI -30.82 to 0.47; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 1047 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sporting organisation interventions versus control may have a moderate positive effect on fruit and vegetable consumption, equivalent to a score increase of 1.25 points on a 12-point scale for frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1402 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sporting organisation interventions versus control may reduce sugary drink consumption (equivalent to a reduction of sugary drink consumption by 0.8 times per day), but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.10; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sporting organisation interventions versus control may have little to no effect on alcohol consumption (equivalent to a reduction of 0.38 units of alcohol consumed per week), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.24; I2 = 78%; 7 trials, 2313 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two trials that could not be synthesised reported equivocal findings on tobacco use (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sporting club interventions on unintended adverse consequences. Five trials assessed this outcome, with two reporting that there were no adverse consequences, one reporting only non-serious adverse consequences, and two reporting that there were serious unintended adverse consequences in less than 1% of participants. Overall, sporting organisation interventions probably increase MVPA by 7.4 minutes per day, may result in little to no difference in sedentary behaviour, and may increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The evidence is very uncertain about whether sporting organisation interventions decrease sugary drink and alcohol consumption. Findings for tobacco use and unintended adverse consequences were equivocal in the few trials reporting these; thus, the evidence was very uncertain. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the heterogeneity of the interventions, participants and sporting organisations for some outcomes.

Hodder RK ，O'Brien KM ，Al-Gobari M ，Flatz A ，Borchard A ，Klerings I ，Clinton-McHarg T ，Kingsland M ，von Elm E ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Prevention of self-harm and suicide in young people up to the age of 25 in education settings.

In 2016, globally, suicide was the second leading cause of death amongst those aged 15 to 29 years. Self-harm is increasingly common among young people in many countries, particularly among women and girls. The risk of suicide is elevated 30-fold in the year following hospital presentation for self-harm, and those with suicidal ideation have double the risk of suicide compared with the general population. Self-harm and suicide in young people are significant public health issues that cause distress for young people, their peers, and family, and lead to substantial healthcare costs. Educational settings are widely acknowledged as a logical and appropriate place to provide prevention and treatment. A comprehensive, high-quality systematic review of self-harm and suicide prevention programmes in all education settings is thus urgently required. This will support evidence-informed decision making to facilitate rational investment in prevention efforts in educational settings. Suicide and self-harm are distressing, and we acknowledge that the content of this review is sensitive as the data outlined below represents the lived and living experience of suicidal distress for individuals and their caregivers. To assess the effects of interventions delivered in educational settings to prevent or address self-harm and suicidal ideation in young people (up to the age of 25) and examine whether the relative effects on self-harm and suicide are modified by education setting. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, EBSCO host Australian Education Index, British Education Index, Educational Research Abstracts to 28 April 2023. We included trials where the primary aim was to evaluate an intervention specifically designed to reduce self-harm or prevent suicide in an education setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were self-harm postintervention and acceptability; secondary outcomes included suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and two outcomes co-designed with young people: better or more coping skills, and a safe environment, with more acceptance and understanding. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. For co-designed outcomes, we used vote counting based on the direction of effect, as there is a huge variation in the data and the effect measure used in the included studies. We included 51 trials involving 36,414 participants (minimum 23; maximum 11,100). Twenty-seven studies were conducted in secondary schools, one in middle school, one in primary school, 19 in universities, one in medical school, and one across education and community settings. Eighteen trials investigated universal interventions, 11 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but no trials provided data for self-harm postintervention. Evidence on the acceptability of universal interventions is of very low certainty, and indicates little or no difference between groups (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.67; 9 studies, 8528 participants). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no effect on suicidal ideation (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.20; 4 studies, 379 participants) nor on hopelessness (MD -0.01, 95% CI -1.98 to 1.96; 1 trial, 121 participants). Fifteen trials investigated selective interventions, eight of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only one trial provided data for self-harm postintervention. Low-certainty evidence indicates that selective interventions may reduce self-harm postintervention slightly (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.43; 1 trial, 148 participants). While no trial provided data for hopelessness, little to no effect was found on acceptability (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.0; 6 studies, 10,208 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or suicidal ideation (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.43; 2 studies, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seventeen trials investigated indicated interventions, 14 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only four trials provided data for self-harm postintervention and two reported no events in both groups. Low-certainty evidence suggests that indicated interventions may slightly reduce self-harm postintervention (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76; 2 studies, 76 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence indicating that these interventions may decrease the odds of non-suicidal self-injury (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 2 studies, 89 participants). Evidence of a slight decrease in acceptability in the intervention group is of low certainty (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.42; 10 studies, 641 participants). Low-certainty evidence shows that indicated interventions may slightly reduce suicidal ideation (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.10; 10 studies, 685 participants) and may result in little to no difference in hopelessness postintervention (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.01; 6 studies, 455 participants). There were mixed findings regarding the effect of suicide prevention interventions on a range of constructs relevant to coping skills and safe environment. None of the trials, however, measured the impact of improvements in these constructs on self-harm or suicidal ideation. While this review provides an update on the evidence about interventions targeting self-harm and suicide prevention in education settings, there remains significant uncertainty about the impact of these interventions. There are some promising findings but large replication studies are needed, as are studies that examine the combination of different intervention approaches, and can be delivered in a safe environment and implemented over a long period of time. Further research is required to understand and measure outcomes that are meaningful to young people with lived experience, as they want coping skills and safety of the environment in which they conduct their everyday lives to be measured as key outcomes in future trials.

Sharma V ，Marshall D ，Fortune S ，Prescott AE ，Boggiss A ，Macleod E ，Mitchell C ，Clarke A ，Robinson J ，Witt KG ，Hawton K ，Hetrick SE ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014. To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury. At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review. There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.

Todd CL ，Johnson EE ，Stewart F ，Wallace SA ，Bryant A ，Woodward S ，Norton C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》