Ejere Henry O D, Alhassan Mahmoud B, Rabiu Mansur
Hode Internal Medicine, 120 South Park Drive, Suite F, Brownwood, Texas, USA, 76801.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 20;2015(2):CD003659. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003659.pub4.
Trachoma remains a major cause of avoidable blindness among underprivileged populations in many developing countries. It is estimated that about 146 million people have active trachoma and nearly six million people are blind due to complications associated with repeat infections.
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of face washing promotion for the prevention of active trachoma in endemic communities.
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (January 1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (accessed 10 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 January 2015.To identify further relevant trials we checked the reference lists of the included trials. Also, we used the Science Citation Index to search for references to publications that cited the trials included in the review. We contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared face washing with no treatment or face washing combined with antibiotics against antibiotics alone. Trial participants were residents of endemic trachoma communities.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial authors for additional information when needed. Two trials met our inclusion criteria; but we did not conduct meta-analysis due to methodological heterogeneity.
We included two cluster-RCTs, which provided data from 2447 participants. Both trials were conducted in areas endemic to trachoma: Northern Australia and Tanzania. The follow-up period was three months in one trial and 12 months in the other; both trials had about 90% participant follow-up at final visit. Overall the quality of the evidence is uncertain due to the trials not reporting many design methods and the differences in outcomes reported between trials.Face washing combined with topical tetracycline was compared with topical tetracycline alone in three pairs of villages in one trial. The trial found that face washing combined with topical tetracycline reduced 'severe' active trachoma compared with topical tetracycline alone at 12 months (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.97); however, the trial did not find any important difference between the intervention and control villages in reducing other types of active trachoma (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59). Intervention villages had a higher prevalence of clean faces than the control villages among children with severe trachoma (adjusted OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.59) and any trachoma (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72) at 12 months follow-up. The second trial compared eye washing to no treatment or to topical tetracycline alone or to a combination of eye washing and tetracycline drops in children with follicular trachoma. At three months, the trial found no evidence of benefit of eye washing alone or in combination with tetracycline eye drops in reducing follicular trachoma amongst children with follicular trachoma (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; one trial, 1143 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that face washing combined with topical tetracycline may be effective in reducing severe active trachoma and in increasing the prevalence of clean faces at one year follow-up. Current evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of face washing alone or in combination with topical tetracycline in reducing active or severe trachoma.
沙眼仍是许多发展中国家贫困人群可避免失明的主要原因。据估计,约有1.46亿人患有活动性沙眼,近600万人因反复感染相关并发症而失明。
本综述的目的是评估推广洗脸对流行社区预防活动性沙眼的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)(2015年第1期,其中包含Cochrane眼科和视力组试验注册库)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文、Ovid MEDLINE每日更新、Ovid OLDMEDLINE(1946年1月至2015年1月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2015年1月)、PubMed(1948年1月至2015年1月)、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库(LILACS)(1982年1月至2015年1月)、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com)(2014年1月10日访问)、ClinicalTrials.gov(www.clinicaltrials.gov)以及世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)。我们在电子检索试验时未设置任何日期或语言限制。我们最后一次检索电子数据库的时间为2015年1月26日。为识别更多相关试验,我们查阅了纳入试验的参考文献列表。此外,我们使用科学引文索引搜索引用本综述中所纳入试验的出版物的参考文献。我们联系了该领域的研究者和专家以识别其他试验。
我们纳入了将洗脸与不治疗进行比较,或洗脸联合抗生素与单独使用抗生素进行比较的随机对照试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验。试验参与者为沙眼流行社区的居民。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。必要时,我们联系试验作者获取更多信息。两项试验符合我们的纳入标准;但由于方法学异质性,我们未进行Meta分析。
我们纳入了两项整群RCT,共提供了2447名参与者的数据。两项试验均在沙眼流行地区进行:澳大利亚北部和坦桑尼亚。一项试验的随访期为3个月,另一项为12个月;两项试验在末次随访时的参与者随访率均约为90%。总体而言,由于试验未报告许多设计方法且试验间报告的结果存在差异,证据质量尚不确定。在一项试验的三对村庄中,将洗脸联合局部用四环素与单独使用局部用四环素进行了比较。该试验发现,在12个月时,与单独使用局部用四环素相比,洗脸联合局部用四环素可降低“重度”活动性沙眼(调整后的优势比(OR)为0.62,95%置信区间(CI)为0.40至0.97);然而,该试验未发现干预组和对照组村庄在降低其他类型活动性沙眼方面有任何重要差异(调整后的OR为0.81,95%CI为0.42至1.59)。在12个月随访时,重度沙眼儿童和任何沙眼儿童中,干预组村庄的清洁面部患病率均高于对照组村庄(重度沙眼儿童调整后的OR为0.35,95%CI为0.21至0.59;任何沙眼儿童调整后的OR为0.58,95%CI为0.47至0.72)。第二项试验在滤泡性沙眼儿童中,将洗眼与不治疗、单独使用局部用四环素或洗眼与四环素滴眼液联合使用进行了比较。在3个月时,该试验未发现单独洗眼或洗眼与四环素滴眼液联合使用在降低滤泡性沙眼儿童的滤泡性沙眼方面有获益的证据(风险比(RR)为1.03,95%CI为0.96至1.11;一项试验,1143名参与者)。
一项试验的证据表明,洗脸联合局部用四环素可能在1年随访时有效降低重度活动性沙眼并提高清洁面部的患病率。目前关于单独洗脸或洗脸联合局部用四环素在降低活动性或重度沙眼方面的有效性证据尚无定论。