@article{MTMT:34663757,
	title = {In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34663757},
	author = {Sunkara, Sesh Kamal and Kamath, Mohan S. and Pandian, Zabeena and Gibreels, Ahmed and Bhattacharya, Siladitya},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub5},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34663757},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	keywords = {Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; ovulation induction; gamete intrafallopian transfer; Live Birth; watchful waiting; Clomiphene [therapeutic use]; Fertility Agents, Female [therapeutic use]; Infertility, Female [therapy]; Fertilization in Vitro [methods]; Insemination, Artificial [methods]},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X},
	orcid-numbers = {Bhattacharya, Siladitya/0000-0002-4588-356X}
}

@article{MTMT:34660006,
	title = {Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34660006},
	author = {Reeve, Kelly and On, Begum Irmak and Havla, Joachim and Burns, Jacob and Gosteli-Peter, Martina A. and Alabsawi, Albraa and Alayash, Zoheir and Gotschi, Andrea and Seibold, Heidi and Mansmann, Ulrich and Held, Ulrike},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD013606.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34660006},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X}
}

@article{MTMT:34659534,
	title = {Musical and vocal interventions to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes for preterm infants},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34659534},
	author = {Haslbeck, Friederike B. and Mueller, Katharina and Karen, Tanja and Loewy, Joanne and Meerpohl, Joerg J. and Bassler, Dirk},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD013472.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34659534},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X}
}

@article{MTMT:34615766,
	title = {Machine perfusion in liver transplantation},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34615766},
	author = {Tingle, Samuel J. and Dobbins, Joseph J. and Thompson, Emily R. and Figueiredo, Rodrigo S. and Mahendran, Balaji and Pandanaboyana, Sanjay and Wilson, Colin},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD014685.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34615766},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	abstract = {BackgroundLiver transplantation is the only chance of cure for people with end-stage liver disease and some people with advanced liver cancers or acute liver failure. The increasing prevalence of these conditions drives demand and necessitates the increasing use of donated livers which have traditionally been considered suboptimal. Several novel machine perfusion preservation technologies have been developed, which attempt to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of ischaemia reperfusion injury. Machine perfusion technology aims to improve organ quality, thereby improving outcomes in recipients of suboptimal livers when compared to traditional static cold storage (SCS; ice box).ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of different methods of machine perfusion (including hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE), normothermic machine perfusion (NMP), controlled oxygenated rewarming, and normothermic regional perfusion) versus each other or versus static cold storage (SCS) in people undergoing liver transplantation.Search methodsWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 10 January 2023.Selection criteriaWe included randomised clinical trials which compared different methods of machine perfusion, either with each other or with SCS. Studies comparing HOPE via both hepatic artery and portal vein, or via portal vein only, were grouped. The protocol detailed that we also planned to include quasi-randomised studies to assess treatment harms.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall participant survival, 2. quality of life, and 3. serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. graC survival, 5. ischaemic biliary complications, 6. primary non-function of the graC, 7. early allograft function, 8. non-serious adverse events, 9. transplant utilisation, and 10. transaminase release during the first week post-transplant. We assessed bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.Main resultsWe included seven randomised trials (1024 transplant recipients from 1301 randomised/included livers). All trials were parallel two-group trials; four compared HOPE versus SCS, and three compared NMP versus SCS. No trials used normothermic regional perfusion.When compared with SCS, it was uncertain whether overall participant survival was improved with either HOPE (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.98; P = 0.81, I-2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision because of low number of events) or NMP (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.80; P = 0.90; 1 trial, 222 recipients; very low-certainty evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias).No trials reported quality of life.When compared with SCS alone, HOPE was associated with improvement in the following clinically relevant outcomes: graft survival (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87; P = 0.02, I-2 = 0%; 4 trials, 482 recipients; high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events in extended criteria DBD liver transplants (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.91; P = 0.03, I-2 = 0%; 2 trials, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinically significant ischaemic cholangiopathy in recipients of DCD livers (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.92; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 156 recipients; high-certainty evidence). In contrast, NMP was not associated with improvement in any of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP was associated with improved utilisation compared with SCS (one trial found a 50% lower rate of organ discard; P = 0.008), but the reasons underlying this effect are unknown.We identified 11 ongoing studies investigating machine perfusion technologies.Authors' conclusionsIn situations where the decision has been made to transplant a liver donated after circulatory death or donated following brain death, end-ischaemic HOPE will provide superior clinically relevant outcomes compared with SCS alone. Specifically, graft survival is improved (high-certainty evidence), serious adverse events are reduced (moderate-certainty evidence), and in donors after circulatory death, clinically relevant ischaemic biliary complications are reduced (high-certainty evidence). There is no good evidence that NMP has the same benefits over SCS in terms of these clinically relevant outcomes. NMP does appear to improve utilisation of grafts that would otherwise be discarded with SCS; however, the reasons for this, and whether this effect is specific to NMP, is not clear. Further studies into NMP viability criteria and utilisation, as well as head-to-head trials with other perfusion technologies are needed.In the setting of donation following circulatory death transplantation, further trials are needed to assess the effect of these ex situ machine perfusion methods against, or in combination with, normothermic regional perfusion.},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X},
	orcid-numbers = {Wilson, Colin/0000-0002-1515-8690}
}

@article{MTMT:34587879,
	title = {Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34587879},
	author = {Klitgaard, Thomas L. and Schjorring, Olav L. and Nielsen, Frederik M. and Meyhoff, Christian S. and Perner, Anders and Wetterslev, Jorn and Rasmussen, Bodil S. and Barbateskovic, Marija},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD012631.pub3},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34587879},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	abstract = {BackgroundThis is an updated review concerning 'Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit'.Supplementary oxygen is provided to most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent global and organ hypoxia (inadequate oxygen levels). Oxygen has been administered liberally, resulting in high proportions of patients with hyperoxemia (exposure of tissues to abnormally high concentrations of oxygen). This has been associated with increased mortality and morbidity in some settings, but not in others. Thus far, only limited data have been available to inform clinical practice guidelines, and the optimum oxygenation target for ICU patients is uncertain. Because of the publication of new trial evidence, we have updated this review.ObjectivesTo update the assessment of benefits and harms of higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registers and scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials. Literature searches for this updated review were conducted in November 2022.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower FiO(2) or targets of arterial oxygenation (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation (SpO(2) or SaO(2))) for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.We excluded trials randomising participants to hypoxaemia (FiO(2) below 0.21, SaO(2)/SpO(2) below 80%, or PaO2 below 6 kPa) or to hyperbaric oxygen, and cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials.Data collection and analysisFour review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references identified in the literature searches and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life. We analysed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. Only three trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more SAEs as a composite outcome. However, most trials reported on events categorised as SAEs according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single SAE with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with an SAE in each trial. Two trials reported on quality of life.Secondary outcomes were lung injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. No trial reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, but four trials reported on the occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and five on pneumonia. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single lung injury event with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial.We assessed the risk of systematic errors by evaluating the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We used the GRADEpro tool to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We also evaluated the risk of publication bias for outcomes reported by 10b or more trials.Main resultsWe included 19 RCTs (10,385 participants), of which 17 reported relevant outcomes for this review (10,248 participants). For all-cause mortality, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and six at overall high risk of bias. For the reported SAEs, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and seven at overall high risk of bias. Two trials reported on quality of life, of which one was judged to be at overall low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias for this outcome.Meta-analysis of all trials, regardless of risk of bias, indicated no significant difference from higher or lower oxygenation strategies at maximum follow-up with regard to mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (C)I 0.96 to 1.06; I-2 = 14%; 16 trials; 9408 participants; very low-certainty evidence); occurrence of SAEs: the highest proportion of any specific SAE in each trial RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; I-2 = 36%; 9466 participants; 17 trials; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.5 points in participants assigned to higher oxygenation strategies (95% CI -2.75 to 1.75; I-2 = 34%, 1649 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence)). Meta-analysis of the cumulated number of SAEs suggested benefit of a lower oxygenation strategy (RR 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; I-2 = 74%; 9489 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty evidence)). However, trial sequential analyses, with correction for sparse data and repetitive testing, could reject a relative risk increase or reduction of 10% for mortality and the highest proportion of SAEs, and 20% for both the cumulated number of SAEs and quality of life. Given the very low-certainty of evidence, it is necessary to interpret these findings with caution.Meta-analysis of all trials indicated no statistically significant evidence of a difference between higher or lower oxygenation strategies on the occurrence of lung injuries at maximum follow-up (the highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.38; I-2 = 0%; 2048 participants; 8 trials; very low-certainty evidence).Meta-analysis of all trials indicated harm from higher oxygenation strategies as compared with lower on the occurrence of sepsis at maximum follow-up (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93; I-2 = 0%; 752 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated no differences regarding the occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke.Authors' conclusionsIn adult ICU patients, it is still not possible to draw clear conclusions about the effects of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies on all-cause mortality, SAEs, quality of life, lung injuries, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis at maximum follow-up. This is due to low or very low-certainty evidence.},
	keywords = {Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Intensive Care Units [statistics & numerical data]; Intubation [adverse effects] [methods]; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy [adverse effects] [methods] [mortality]; Pneumonia [therapy]; Respiratory Distress Syndrome [therapy]},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X}
}

@article{MTMT:34520965,
	title = {Pravastatin for lowering lipids},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34520965},
	author = {Adams, Stephen P. and Alaeiilkhchi, Nima and Tasnim, Sara and Wright, James M.},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD013673.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34520965},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	abstract = {Background A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. Objectives Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects. Search methods The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases. Main results Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. Authors' conclusions Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.},
	keywords = {C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; CORONARY-ARTERY-DISEASE; Intima-media thickness; DENSITY-LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL; BASE-LINE CHARACTERISTICS; GROWTH EVALUATION STATIN; Asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis; HMG-COA-REDUCTASE; PRIMARY MODERATE HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X},
	orcid-numbers = {Tasnim, Sara/0009-0002-4217-2575}
}

@article{MTMT:34654847,
	title = {Psychological therapies delivered remotely for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34654847},
	author = {Rosser, Benjamin A. and Fisher, Emma and Janjua, Sadia and Eccleston, Christopher and Keogh, Edmund and Duggan, Geoffrey},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD013863.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34654847},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X},
	orcid-numbers = {Fisher, Emma/0000-0001-8980-3181; Eccleston, Christopher/0000-0003-0698-1543; Keogh, Edmund/0000-0002-1615-3699}
}

@article{MTMT:34649160,
	title = {Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34649160},
	author = {Worthington, Helen V. and Bulsara, Vishal M. and Glenny, Anne-Marie and Clarkson, Janet E. and Conway, David I. and Macluskey, Michaelina},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD006205.pub5},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34649160},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X},
	orcid-numbers = {Macluskey, Michaelina/0000-0002-2734-0537}
}

@article{MTMT:34646303,
	title = {Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34646303},
	author = {Santos, Brena C. and Flumignan, Ronald L. G. and Civile, Vinicius T. and Atallah, Alvaro N. and Nakano, Luis C. U.},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD015102.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	volume = {2023},
	unique-id = {34646303},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	abstract = {Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results: We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment. Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant. One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent. One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. Authors' conclusions: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes. Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X}
}

@article{MTMT:34641472,
	title = {Pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane flap versus pars plana vitrectomy with conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for large macular hole},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34641472},
	author = {Ghoraba, Hashem and Rittiphairoj, Thanitsara and Akhavanrezayat, Amir and Karaca, Irmak and Matsumiya, Wataru and Pham, Brandon and Mishra, Kapil and Yasar, Cigdem and Mobasserian, Azadeh and Abdelkarem, Amira Ahmed and Nguyen, Quan Dong},
	doi = {10.1002/14651858.CD015031.pub2},
	journal-iso = {COCHRANE DATABASE SYST REV},
	journal = {COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS},
	unique-id = {34641472},
	issn = {1361-6137},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1469-493X}
}