Lower limb muscle cramps are common and painful. They can limit exercise participation, and reduce quality of sleep, and quality of life. Many interventions are available for lower limb cramps; some are controversial or could cause harm, and often, people experience no benefit from the interventions used. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.

To assess the effects of non-drug, non-invasive therapies for lower limb muscle cramps.

In August 2018 and May 2020, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of included studies. We imposed no restrictions by language or publication date.

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-drug, non-invasive interventions tested over at least four weeks, for lower limb muscle cramps in any group of people, except pregnam stretching for 12 weeks may make little or no difference to the frequency of night-time lower limb muscle cramps in people aged 60 years and older. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of a combination of daily calf, quadriceps, and hamstring stretching on the frequency and severity of leg cramps in 50- to 60-year-old women with metabolic syndrome. Overall, use of unvalidated outcome measures and inconsistent diagnostic criteria make it difficult to compare the studies and apply findings to clinical practice. Given the prevalence and impact of lower limb muscle cramps, there is a pressing need to carefully evaluate many of the commonly recommended and emerging non-drug therapies in well-designed RCTs across all types of lower limb muscle cramps. A specific cramp outcome tool should be developed and validated for use in future research.

The effective control of moisture and microbes is necessary for the success of restoration procedures. The rubber dam, as an isolation method, has been widely used in dental restorative treatments. GSK-4362676 purchase The effects of rubber dam usage on the longevity and quality of dental restorations still require evidence-based discussion. This review compares the effects of rubber dam with other isolation methods in dental restorative treatments. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2016.

To assess the effects of rubber dam isolation compared with other types of isolation used for direct and indirect restorative treatments in dental patients.

Cochrane Oral Health’s Information specialist searched the following electronic databases Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (searched 13 January 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 January 2021), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 January 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 January 2021), Lsix months. At other time points, the evidence is very uncertain. Further high-quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.

This review found some low-certainty evidence that the use of rubber dam in dental direct restorative treatments may lead to a lower failure rate of the restorations compared with cotton roll usage after six months. At other time points, the evidence is very uncertain. Further high-quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.

Helminthiasis is an infestation of the human body with parasitic worms. It is estimated to affect 44 million pregnancies, globally, each year. Intestinal helminthiasis (hookworm infestation) is associated with blood loss and decreased supply of nutrients for erythropoiesis, resulting in iron-deficiency anaemia. Over 50% of the pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) suffer from iron-deficiency anaemia. Though iron-deficiency anaemia is multifactorial, hookworm infestation is a major contributory cause in women of reproductive age in endemic areas. Antihelminthics are highly efficacious, but evidence of their beneficial effect and safety when given during pregnancy has not been established. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2015.

To determine the effects of mass deworming with antihelminthics for soil-transmitted helminths (STH) during the second or third trimester of pregnancy on maternal and pregnancy outcomes.

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy andcould also assess the effectiveness of co-interventions and health education along with antihelminthics for maternal and pregnancy outcomes.

This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

We searched the following databases (22 August 2019) the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide).

Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide i compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.

Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.