Search Results

  • Does consuming protein after a work-out in the gym (cardio or resistance training)helping to build muscle?
    Click image to download

    The Evidence

    • One high-quality study found that consuming protein with or without added carbohydrates can help increase muscle mass and strength among people who are doing exercise that combines resistance and endurance training.
    • Other research shows that multi-ingredient protein supplements help to increase the lower and upper body muscle mass and strength as a result of resistance training.
    • A study reported that the protein supplementation is effective in improving lean body mass (LBM) in adults and older adults, but not handgrip strength and leg press strength.
    • The effect of protein or essential amino acid supplementation during prolonged resistance exercise training in older adults is weak, inconsistent or not significant.
    • In addition, one study suggested there is no difference between the effects of soy protein versus animal protein supplements on gains in muscle mass and strength in response to resistance exercise. They both increase LBM and strength.

    Guidelines and recommendations

    • National Institutes of Health recommends that athletes consume high-quality protein after exercise and then every 3 to 5 hours to maximise muscle adaptations to training.

    Things to Remember

    • We can rarely be 100% certain about the effects of treatments. Please beware when someone suggests that it is certain that a treatment works or is safe.
    • Remember to ask if the treatment comparisons in a study happened under ideal circumstances, rather than under real life circumstances. We need to know how a treatment works in real life.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylul Taneri, HRB TMRN, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Dr. Paula Byrne, Senior post-doctoral researcher, iHealthFacts, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway.
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Kevin Cradock, Lecturer, Department of Health and Nutrition Sciences, Atlantic Technological University, Sligo.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Did social distancing and lockdown contribute to the increase in RSV, flu and other illnesses in children?
    Click image to download

    The Evidence

    • Due to public health restrictions, like lock-down, during the COVID-19 pandemic, people were less exposed to viruses that usually circulate.
    • Some people were concerned that this could cause a decrease in immunity among the population, and that lifting the restrictions might lead to an increase in certain illnesses.
    • Because so many types of illnesses are associated with viruses, we decided to concentrate only on childhood respiratory (breathing) diseases.
    • We found one review that included four studies about a respiratory infection called respiratory syncytial virus or RSV. The review found that hospital admissions for RSV reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic in children under the age of 5. One of the studies in this review found no change in hospitalisation for conditions that were not related to viral infections or social distancing.
    • We found 10 other individual studies that followed groups of people over time to see what the effect of restrictions might be respiratory illnesses.
    • Ten reported from individual countries including France, New Zealand, Norway, Germany, England and Australia:
      • Three of these studies (Study 1, Study 2 and Study 3) found that rates of respiratory infections in children reduced during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
      • Seven studies compared rates of respiratory illnesses in children before, during and after public health restrictions (Study 4, Study 5, Study 6, Study 7, Study 8, Study 9 and Study 10). All found that rates fell in almost all the diseases studied during restrictions, and that they generally rose after restrictions were lifted.
      • One study found that during the lockdown, there were fewer cases of respiratory illnesses in young children. However, after the lockdown ended, some viruses continued to stay at low levels, while others did not.
    • One study looked at rates of RSV (a common respiratory virus) in 18 different countries. The study found that during the pandemic, the rates of RSV decreased across all the countries studied. However, after the restrictions were lifted, rates of RSV increased in most of the countries (11 out of 18).
    • Another study examined hospital admission rates for RSV (a common respiratory virus) in seven different countries for children aged 4 to 12 years. The study found that in these countries, the normal peak times for RSV-related hospital admissions were delayed by four to twelve months compared to previous seasons. Following these delays, two countries experienced an increase in RSV-related hospital admissions, two countries saw a decrease, and three countries did not report any changes.

    Guidelines and recommendations

    • We did not find any guidelines or recommendations on this topic.

    Things to Remember

    • We cannot be sure about the cause of anything without comparing a group that experienced something (e.g. COVID-19 restrictions) to one that was not.
    • Ask yourself if the possible advantages outweigh the disadvantages of any intervention.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Paula Byrne, Senior post-doctoral researcher, iHealthFacts, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway,
    • Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Prof Eoin Feeney, Consultant in Infectious Diseases, St. Vincent’s University Hospital. Clinical Professor, University College Dublin.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Is tracking my cycle (non-hormonal contraception), including tracking my temperature, an effective way to prevent pregnancy?
    Click image to download

    The Evidence

    • Natural contraception (also called natural family planning or fertility awareness-based methods) is a method of contraception where a woman can track her menstrual cycle and monitor different fertility signals (such as changes in vaginal discharge and basal body temperature) to identify when she is likely to get pregnant.
    • A 2018 systematic review found no high quality research and concluded that pregnancy rates varied widely across different fertility awareness-based methods. The differences among the populations examined in the studies made it impossible for this review to compare natural contraception methods.
    • A 2004 Cochrane systematic review concluded that  the effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods of contraception remains unknown. The studies in the review identified difficulty in recruiting participants. Also, large numbers of participants dropped out before the research period was over, making the results weak.
    • A big issue with studies of natural contraceptions is that pregnancy rates or probabilities of pregnancy and how these are reported varied widely across different fertility awareness-based methods, so we cannot be certain about this type of evidence.

    Guidelines and recommendations

    • According to the NHS, natural family planning  methods can be effective if the instructions are carefully followed. They say that if natural family planning methods are not followed correctly, then there is more possibility to get pregnant. Also, stress, illness, travel, lifestyle and hormonal treatments can disrupt fertility signs and natural family planning methods.
    • According to the US CDC, fertility awareness-based methods can help to avoid getting pregnant. However, they say that it may work for women with a regular menstrual cycles, and the failure rates vary across these methods.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Drafted by: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Caroline Mc Carthy. Clinical Lecturer and Research Fellow, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and General Practitioner, Leixlip, Co Kildare.
    • Public and patient advisor: Ms Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalistic advisor: Claire O’Connell,Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

  • Does wearing a face mask when well prevent COVID-19 infection?
    Click image to download
    • We found six systematic reviews that examined the relationship between face mask-wearing and COVID-19 infection. Five were reviews of non-randomised. One included one RCT. The studies varied substantially in how they were designed and conducted and, apart from the RCT, lacked a comparison group.
    • Most of these reviews reported some evidence that masks were effective at preventing infection and reducing cases or serious outcomes, including deaths from COVID-19. However, these findings are of low certainty because other factors (such as lockdowns, social distancing or changes in peoples’ behaviour) could have caused the difference in infection rates. In addition, it is difficult to be sure that people remember exactly if and when they used masks and what other measures they were taking at the time.
    • Some of these reviews called for further high-quality studies to assess the impact of face mask-wearing in the community.
    • We then looked for RCTs and found two:
      • One of these was included in the systematic review discussed above. This Danish study found that 1.8% of those recommended to wear masks became infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with 2.1% of those who were not recommended masks; an absolute difference of 0.3%.
      • The second, Bangladeshi, RCT found that 0.68% of those in villages recommended to wear masks became infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with 76% of those in villages who were not recommended masks; an absolute increase of 0.8% where they were not asked to wear masks.
    • In both trials findings were ‘inconclusive’ meaning that that the results are not definitive, and it’s difficult to draw a clear conclusion or make a firm decision based on the evidence gathered.
    • To help them understand how confident they could be in their results, the researchers in these two trials used a tool called a ‘confidence interval’ (CI); a range of numbers that the researchers think the true answer is probably within. The CIs in the Danish trial suggest that masks could either increase or decrease infection rates. The CIs in the Bangladeshi trial suggest that masks could decrease infections or make no difference.
    • Both trials tried to account for people who did not wear masks correctly (or at all) and found that this made very little difference to their findings.
    • Currently, the WHO advises using masks as part of a comprehensive package for the prevention and control of COVID-19 but notes the ‘limited and inconsistent scientific evidence’ to support that recommendation.
    • Currently, the HSE notes that ‘when worn properly’ masks can reduce the spread of COVID-19.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Paula Byrne, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network & Evidence Synthesis Ireland, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic advisor: Prof. Susan M Smith, Professor of General Practice, Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin and General Practitioner in Inchicore Family Doctors, Dublin 8.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Journalist, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: Dr. Paula Byrnewas co-author of several HIQA reports on face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. She has no other financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Is the COVID-19 vaccine more effective than natural immunity at preventing infection, serious disease and death from COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • We found five systematic reviews that compared infection rates in people who had previously had COVID-19, and had not been vaccinated, to people who had been vaccinated.
    • Two of these reviews contained the types of studies we can be most certain about:
      • The first of these found that vaccinated people who never had COVID-19 were slightly more likely to become infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been infected. Giving a vaccine to someone who had been previously infected gave additional protection from infection (hybrid immunity), but only by a small amount.
      • The second of these found that either being previously infected with COVID-19 or being fully vaccinated can reduce the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms by almost half, compared to someone who hasn’t had either. The chances of severe COVID-19 were lower in people who were previously infected than in those who were vaccinated regardless of age.
    • A HIQA review describes four relevant studies which reported:
      • First study: People who were previously infected with COVID-19 have a lower risk of experiencing severe outcomes than those who are fully vaccinated.
      • Second study: There is no difference in the risk of getting hospitalised or infected between people who are fully vaccinated and those who were infected previously.
      • Third study: Both fully vaccinated individuals and those who were previously infected have a lower risk of getting infected, but the previously infected group may have a slightly lower risk.
      • Fourth study: Couldn’t compare the groups due to low numbers of reinfections overall.

    None of these studies had been peer-reviewed when they were published in this report.

    • We found two other reviews of lower certainty (here and here)
      • The first reported on people who had previously been infected, some of whom were subsequently vaccinated and some who were not. Less than 1% of either group got infected again within one year, with slightly lower rates in those who had been vaccinated.
      • The second review was unable to provide an estimate for the rate of reinfection. It did show that people who were fully vaccinated had lower rates of severe COVID-19. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of severe cases overall, which makes it challenging to draw any firm conclusions.

    Guidelines and recommendations

    • The WHO in April 2020 said that it was likely that natural infection may provide similar protection against symptomatic disease as vaccination, but that there was some uncertainty about this in light of new variants.
    • The HSE recommends that people who have had COVID-19 who are over-50 or are susceptible to infection should be vaccinated.

    Things to Remember

    • Not all scientific studies are equal in terms of reliability.
    • Just because a treatment is recommended by an expert or authority, you cannot be sure it is trustworthy.
    • You can’t be certain about treatment effects that are based on studies with few people or events.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Paula Byrne, Senior Post-doctoral Researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by:  Prof. Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway,
    • Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Prof. Corinna Sadlier, Consultant in Infectious Diseases, Cork University Hospital, Clinical Professor (Honorary), University College Cork
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in Research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Do mobile phones impact fertility?
    Click image to download
    • Claims have been made that exposure to mobile phones is linked to reduced fertility.
    • One systematic review that includes participants from fertility clinics and research centres, reported a link between using mobile phones and a decrease in the movement and health of sperm. In another study, two long-term studies that followed 3100 men from Europe and North America for eight years were merged and analysed together. As a result, it showed men with a body mass index (BMI) of less than 25 kg/m2 who kept mobile phones in their front pants pocket had a lower likelihood of being fertile compared to those who did not. However, the study did not find a clear link among men who were overweight or obese with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or more.
    • We could not find any research regarding the impact of mobile phone exposure on women’s fertility.
    • The British Association of Urological Surgeons recommends that men who have low sperm counts avoid carrying their mobile phones in their trouser pocket, among other lifestyle changes that can potentially increase fertility. We need more research to better understand the effects and how important these risks are for both men and women.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Caroline McCarthy, Clinical Lecturer and Research Fellow, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and General Practitioner, Leixlip, Co Kildare.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim.

  • Does screen time before bedtime make a difference to sleep quality in younger people?
    Click image to download
    • It has been claimed that looking at screens before bedtime can make a difference in sleep quality.
    • The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that sitting and looking at screens for long periods of time is not good for our health. Examples of these screen activities include watching TV or videos, playing computer games, etc.
    • One systematic review of 23 studies suggested that excessive use of digital screens is linked with reduced sleep quality and duration, although many of the studies were not of high quality.
    • Another systematic review of 42 studies found that using digital media at bedtime or during the night was associated with  poor sleep outcomes in people aged 16-25.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Drafted by: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof Sinéad Lydon, Associate Professor, Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, University of Galway.
    • Public and patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalistic advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell,Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation

  • Does the flu vaccine increase the risk of infection and serious illness from Streptococcus A bacteria?
    Click image to download
    • Streptococcus A is a bacterial infection that may have no symptoms, or it may cause mild diseases like strep throat (fever and sore throat symptoms). Flu is a viral infection that affects the nose, throat and lungs. Both Streptococcus A and flu can cause similar symptoms like fever, aches and pains and fatigue.
    • Occasionally Streptococcus A infections cause more severe disease. If the bacteria spread beyond the throat into the bloodstream or other tissues, they are called invasive Streptococcus A infections. Invasive Streptococcus A infections have caused deaths in some cases, especially among children, in Europe over the last few months.
    • Some people believe the flu vaccine has caused this spike in invasive Streptococcus A infections and the deaths and are saying so on social media.
    • However, there is no evidence to suggest that the flu vaccine increases the risk of infection and serious illness from streptococcus A infections.
    • A study has found that getting the flu vaccine may in fact protect you from getting Streptococcus A infections. However, this is only one study and we need much more research to be carried out to prove if this is the case.

    Things to Remember

    • Social media opinions and stories are not a reliable basis for claims about the effects of treatments.
    • Just because one study shows that people who got one treatment did better or worse than people who got something else or didn’t get a treatment at all, it does not mean that is the final answer. More studies that compare the same treatments and a careful summary of all the relevant studies are needed.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Marie Tierney, Postdoctoral Researcher, Informed Health Choices-Cancer project, School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, science communicator and contributor to The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement:The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does using antiperspirant/deodorant cause breast cancer?
    Click image to download
    • Antiperspirants and deodorants often contain aluminium or aluminium chloride.
    • It has been claimed that using underarm antiperspirant and deodorant products causes breast cancer.
    • Two studies published in 2003 and 2004 attempted to establish a connection between the use of antiperspirants/deodorants and breast cancer. However, cancer experts suggest that these two studies linking deodorant use to breast cancer are flawed in their methodology.
    • A systematic review of six studies with 1674 breast cancer patients and 1662 control patients have suggested that there is no association between use of antiperspirants and deodorants and breast cancer.
    • A recently conducted primary study involving 384 people also concluded that there is no relationship between the use of aluminium containing antiperspirant with breast cancer.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Drafted by: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Dr. Frank Moriarty, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in health and social care research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalistic advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

  • Does cold sea-water swimming improve general health, mental health and the immune system?
    Click image to download
    • Open-water swimming is a popular sport that grew in many parts of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on indoor sports.
    • Cold-water swimming enthusiasts claim that it can improve general health, mental health, and the immune system.
    • In January 2023, claims circulated in social and mainstream media warning open-water swimmers about the risks of swimming-induced pulmonary oedema, a dangerous condition that causes fluid in the lungs. This was based on findings from a single case report published in a medical journal.
    • Case reports often describe the experience of just one person, and tend to focus on patients who have rare or unusual  symptoms.
    • It has also been suggested that exposure to intensive short-term, cold stimuli such as swimming in cold water is a possible form of body hardening. Hardening means exposure to a natural stimulus, resulting in the body being better able to resist  stress and diseases.
    • In a number of studies (Study 1, Study 4, Study 5, Study 6, Study 7, Study 8, Study 9, Study 10), blood samples were taken from groups of people who regularly took part in cold-water swimming. To test for any differences these samples were compared to either before and after the cold-water swimming season, (Study 5, Study 7, Study 9) or to the blood samples of non-swimming groups (Study 1, Study 4, Study 6, Study 8, Study 10).
    • Some of these studies (Study 6, Study 7, Study 8, Study 9, Study 10) used the blood samples to examine the impact of cold-water swimming on hormones in the blood, like adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol. These are known as “stress hormones” because they are released in response to stressful situations. Most of these studies found that cold-water swimming had a positive impact on the regulation of these hormones, except for Study 8, which did not report any significant effects.
    • Some studies (Study 1, Study 4, Study 5) used the blood samples to examine important components of the body’s defence system that are present in the blood, such as red blood cells, white blood cells or platelets. The studies suggest that cold-water swimming may have a beneficial effect on these components of the blood, potentially improving overall health and wellbeing.
    • Other studies (Study 2, Study 3) used questionnaires to examine the impact of cold-water swimming on wellbeing, fatigue, pain and mental health. Study 2 found that swimmers who participated in cold-water swimming had higher levels of vigour and less fatigue compared to the group who did not swim in cold water. Additionally, those who engaged in winter swimming reported a reduction in pain symptoms. These findings suggest that cold-water swimming may have a positive impact on physical wellbeing.
    • Study 3 did not find any significant differences in mental health between individuals who participated in cold-water swimming and those who did not. This suggests that while cold-water swimming may have benefits for physical wellbeing, it may not necessarily lead to improvements in mental health.
    • The above findings suggest that repeated cold-water swimming can lead to adaptive mechanisms that offer various benefits, such as improved immune response, mood regulation, and pain tolerance, despite the initial stress response that exposure to cold water can trigger. However, further research is necessary to understand the underlying mechanisms of these effects fully and to determine safe and effective strategies for incorporating cold-water exposure into one’s lifestyle.

    Things to Remember

    • Opinions alone are not a reliable basis for claims about the effects of treatments.
    • Beware of claims that are based on a single study. Ask if other studies examine the same question and, ideally, if there a careful summary of all the relevant studies.
    • Whenever possible, use up-to-date summaries (systematic reviews) of fair comparisons to inform decisions.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Caoimhe Madden, Postdoctoral researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway  
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland 
    • Topic advisor: Prof. Emma Wallace, Professor of General Practice, Dept of General Practice, University College Cork & General Practitioner, Parklands Surgery, Commons Road, Cork.   
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway  
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, MSc Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.   

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Is exposure to WIFI associated with brain cancer?
    Click image to download

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway
    • Topic advisor: Prof.  Susan Smith, Professor of General Practice, Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin and General Practitioner in Inchicore Family Doctors, Dublin 8.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • If I've already had COVID-19 am I immune to re-infection?
    Click image to download
    • Here we discuss reinfection rates in people who were not vaccinated.
    • Most of the systematic reviews we found reported on studies when the original types of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) were circulating rather than newer variants.
    • These studies reported that a previous infection was between 81% and 97% effective at preventing a subsequent infection. Reinfections occurred in 0% to 3% of people who had previously had COVID-19.
    • True reinfection can only be accurately confirmed by using a technique called whole genome sequencing(WGS), to make sure that the first and second infections are separate infections.  Most studies did not use WGS but relied on PCR tests, which can be less reliable for this kind of information.
    • Reviews of the evidence have found that different variants of virus confer differing levels of protection against other variants.
    • Some studies reported on the severity of second COVID-19 infections. One review found that overall, the rate of serious illness in someone with prior infection was 0.02% and that even after more than three months since the first infection, this did not rise above 0.1%. Another review found that any prior infection was highly protective against severe COVID-19 or death during the Omicron period.
    • The length of time that people were followed varied between the studies. The shortest follow-up was two weeks, and the longest was 20 months.
    • The duration of protection from infection from the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 was reported in three reviews (here, here and here) as lasting for at least eight months and at least 20 months during Delta. The evidence on the duration of immunity during the circulation of other variants was of low certainty.
    • Immune memory can be extremely long lived, e.g., more than 60 years after smallpox vaccination and 90 years after infection with influenza. Some parts of immune memory from the first SARS-CoV epidemic in 2003 have been detected 17 years after infection. We need studies that follow people for a longer period to find out how long-term immunity, including immune memory, protects us against COVID-19 infection, serious illness or death.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Paula Byrne, Senior Post-doctoral Researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway,
    • Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Frank Moriarty, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in Research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest for this health claim summary. Paula Byrne previously was co-reviewer on several review and updates of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 for the Health Information and Quality Authority and is co-author on three published papers on related topics.

  • Do blue-light-blocking glasses make a difference to headaches and eye strain when working on a computer?
    Click image to download
    • Blue light is a part of the light spectrum that the human eye can see. Sunlight is the greatest natural source of blue light. Artificial sources of blue light include fluorescent light, LED TVs, computer monitors, smartphones and tablet screens.
    • Blue light emitted from computer screens has been claimed to cause headaches and eye strain among other symptoms.
    • Computer vision syndrome (CVS) is a combination of eye and vision problems related to computer use. CVS is also referred to as visual fatigue and digital eye strain. Symptoms include visual discomfort, eye strain, eye irritation, dry eyes, headache, shoulder, neck and back pain.
    • Claims have been made that blue-light-blocking glasses reduce the headache, eye strain, and other symptoms of CVS or digital eye strain.
    • Studies have shown that there is little evidence to support the use of blue-light-blocking glasses to reduce headaches and eye strain when working on a computer. But the evidence is of low certainty.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Drafted by: KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof Andrew Murphy, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland and General Practitioner principal in a semi-rural setting.
    • Public and patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalistic advisor: Claire O’Connell, Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation

  • Can rosemary oil make a difference to hair loss or thinning?
    Click image to download
    • Claims have been made that rosemary oil can help reduce hair loss or hair thinning and some products are marketed with this claim.
    • We found no high-quality evidence that rosemary oil reduces hair loss or hair thinning when compared to no treatment.
    • We found one small randomised trial with 100 people that suggested that rosemary oil was as effective as minoxidil 2% (Regaine; registered trade mark of Johnson & Johnson Limited). This study found a significant increase in hair count at 6-month in both the group of people who had been allocated to use rosemary oil and those who had been allocated to use minoxidil 2%. This difference in hair count was not present at the 3-month check.
    • We found no national (Health Service Executive) or international (World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines on using rosemary oil for hair loss or hair thinning.
    • We need further high-quality research before we can be certain about the effectiveness of rosemary oil on hair loss or thinning.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Darren Dahly, Principal Statistician, HRB Clinical Research Facility, Cork, Ireland, and Senior Lecturer in Research Methods in the UCC School of Public Health.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, Science communicator and contributor to The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Can taking large doses of Vitamin C help to prevent COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • There have been claims suggesting that Vitamin C can be used as a treatment for COVID-19. Some claims have also recommended taking large doses of Vitamin C to prevent COVID-19.
    • Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is an essential vitamin. Adults need about 45mg of Vitamin C a day, and you can get it by eating fruit and vegetables. If you don’t get enough Vitamin C for several months, it can cause a disease called scurvy.
    • Using Vitamin C to help prevent and treat colds and flu has long been controversial. Although Vitamin C supports the immune system (European Food Safety Authority), there’s little evidence that it can prevent or treat colds, let alone COVID-19, which is a more serious disease and potentially more harmful.
    • Sales of dietary supplements such as Vitamin C increased during the pandemic, with many people believing they have “immune-boosting”
    • One study report suggested that higher levels of dietary intake of Vitamin C reduced the risk of developing COVID-19 after contact with an infected person. However, this study depended on participants reporting their diets themselves, which may not be reliable.
    • Evidence regarding the use of Vitamin C to prevent COVID-19 is lacking.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Caoimhe Madden, Postdoctoral researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Frank Moriarty,  Pharmacist and lecturer at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)   
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, MSc Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Can wearing eye glasses prevent infection from COVID-19 in the general public?
    Click image to download
    • There have been claims on social and in mainstream media that, for the general public, wearing eye glasses can prevent infection from the virus that causes COVID-19.
    • There is currently no research evidence to help us determine if wearing eye glasses can prevent infection from COVID-19 in the general public.
    • There are currently no national or international guidelines that advise the public to wear eye glasses to prevent infection from COVID-19. However, the Health Service Executive (HSE), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend that healthcare workers use eye protection when examining someone who has or might have COVID-19.
    • A review of studies that includes evidence from COVID-19 and other serious respiratory illnesses showed there may be a reduced risk of transmitting an infection when wearing eye protection.
    • Another review of studies suggests that there might be a reduction in COVID-19 infections with eye protection.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri MD, PhD, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Dr. Darren Dahly, Principal Statistician, HRB Clinical Research Facility, Cork, Ireland, and Senior Lecturer in Research Methods in the UCC School of Public Health.
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Ms Deirdre Mac Loughlin, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • During pregnancy, is taking 5-MTHF supplements as effective as taking folic acid supplements in reducing neural tube defects?
    Click image to download
    • The neural tube, which is responsible for the development of the brain and spine in the embryo, closes during the first 28 days of pregnancy. If this closure does not happen, neural tube defects such as ‘spina bifida’ can develop.
    • Research has shown that folic acid supplementation during early pregnancy substantially reduces the likelihood of the development of neural tube defects.
    • Both 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF) and folic acid are different forms of ‘Vitamin B9’.
    • Claims have been made that taking 5-MTHF during pregnancy is as effective as taking folic acid for reducing the likelihood of neural tube defects.
    • We found no high-quality evidence that 5-MTHF supplementation is as effective as folic acid in reducing neural tube defects during pregnancy.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Drafted by: KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Frank Moriarty, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).
    • Public and patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalistic advisor: Claire O’Connell, Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does drinking pineapple juice before wisdom tooth extraction aid recovery?
    Click image to download
    • While one study suggests that bromelain can reduce pain and swelling and increase motion in the jaw after wisdom tooth removal; other studies have not found a difference in swelling and jaw motion nor in pain in the early stage of recovery.
    • The National Institutes of Health (NIH) notes that there “…are conflicting research results on whether bromelain is helpful for pain, swelling, and jaw range of motion after wisdom tooth surgery.”
    • Although promising, studies that have been done tended to be few and of low quality, making it difficult to be certain if bromelain can help in recovery after wisdom tooth removal. We need more research, and better quality research before we can be certain.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of  Galway
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Frank Moriarty, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, Masters in Science Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Do older men who engage in strenuous strength training require longer recovery periods than younger athletes to maximise strength gains?
    Click image to download
    • The World Health Organisation recommends that in addition to aerobic exercise, adults aged 18-64 years should also do muscle-strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week, as these provide additional health benefits.
    • Examples of muscle-strengthening activities include lifting weights, push-ups, sit-ups, and squats.
    • It is known that aging causes reductions in muscle mass and strength, which can impact how the muscles and skeleton work. Muscle-strengthening exercise can help people maintain and improve their muscle strength as they get older.
    • It may therefore be expected that men aged 50 to 60 years who engage in strenuous strength training would require longer recovery periods than younger athletes.
    • In a number of studies (Study 1, Study 2, Study 3, Study 4, Study 5) that compared recovery measures (like muscle damage) in younger and middle-aged men after resistance exercise, middle-aged men demonstrated similar recovery to the younger men. However, another study (Study 6) reports findings that conflict with this, suggesting recovery after lower-body resistance exercise is greater in trained middle-aged males than in their young counterparts.
    • None of these studies had a middle-aged group of strictly 50-60 years – for example, some studies also included people who were slightly younger (Study 1: 45-49 years; Study 2: 40-49 years; Study 6: 35-49 years) or slightly older (Study 5: average age 66.9 years) in the sample. While this includes men aged 50-60 years, it means that the evidence we have isn’t just focused on that group. It could be that men in this specific age group have similar or different recovery periods than men aged 40 to 70 years.
    • Therefore, future research with a specific age group of 50-60 years is required to directly address the above query. Such research will need to consider the influence of things like type of exercise, degree of muscle damage, training age of the person, health conditions and frequency and intensity of training.

    Things to Remember

    • Beware of claims that are based on a single study. Ask if other studies examine the same question and, ideally, if there a careful summary of all the relevant studies.
    • Whenever possible, use up-to-date summaries (systematic reviews) of fair comparisons to inform decisions.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Caoimhe Madden, Postdoctoral researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Dr Kevin Cradock, Lecturer, Department of Health and Nutrition Sciences, Atlantic Technological University, Sligo.
    • Public and Patient advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, MSc Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Can large doses of Vitamin C help treat COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • In March 2020, claims circulated in social and mainstream media suggesting that vitamin C could be used as a treatment for COVID-19. These claims were made by a number of people and included stories of doctors using vitamin C to treat COVID-19 in hospitals. Some claims recommended taking large doses of vitamin C to ward off coronavirus.
    • Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is an essential vitamin. Adults need about 45mg of vitamin C daily, which you can get by eating fruit and vegetables. If you don’t get enough of this vitamin, that can lead to scurvy, a disease resulting from vitamin C deficiency.
    • Using vitamin C for preventing and treating colds and flu has long been controversial. Although Vitamin C supports the immune system (European Food Safety Authority), there is little evidence that it can prevent or treat colds, let alone coronavirus disease, which is more serious and harmful.
    • Vitamin C can be administered orally or intravenously through a needle, such as in a drip, although delivering it intravenously results in greater absorption by the body.
    • Two recent systematic reviews have found that vitamin C supplementation was associated with lower levels of death in hospitaland less severe illness among patients with COVID-19. Both reviews conclude that, despite such evidence, findings need to be substantiated by large-scale studies in the future before guidelines and recommendations are modified.
    • Four recent systematic reviews (Review 1, Review 2, Review 3, Review 4) reported no impact of giving vitamin C to people on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 such as mortality, length of hospital stay, and disease severity. These studies also suggest that further evidence on the effect of vitamin C on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 is needed from large randomised controlled trials.
    • Administration of high-dose vitamin C is considered safe, as none of the studies reported differences in serious harm among those who received vitamin C, and those that didn’t.
    • In these reviews, there was much variation in the study populations, the amount of vitamin C administered, and the way it was administered (oral or intravenous)- all of which could impact findings. Standardising vitamin C administration will be important for future research to measure the true impact of vitamin C supplementation on COVID-19 patients.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Caoimhe Madden, Postdoctoral researcher, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway; Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland
    • Topic advisor: Dr. Frank Moriarty, Pharmacist and lecturer at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)   
    • Public and Patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Claire O’Connell, PhD in cell biology, MSc Communication. Contributor to The Irish Times, writing about health, science and innovation.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Is the COVID-19 vaccine unsafe because it was developed so quickly?
    Click image to download
    • Claims have circulated through the media that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe because they were developed so quickly, leading to some people being hesitant to receive the vaccine.
    • COVID-19 vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed for several reasons, including being able to adapt new technologies from the development of other vaccines and having close collaborations between international regulators, industry and clinical researchers. However, the safety and efficacy (how well it works) requirements for vaccines have not been compromised.
    • The World Health Organization (WHO) declares that ‘all vaccines must undergo rigorous testing in clinical trials to prove that they meet internationally agreed benchmarks for safety and effectiveness’. In addition, they have to be approved for public use by independent regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
    • The Health Service Executive (HSE), the WHO and the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for use.
    • A systematic review of randomised controlled trials suggests that “The safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination.”
    • Overall, heart muscle inflammation (myocarditis)rates were found to be low in five vaccine safety surveillance studies. The risk was higher among younger male populations, with the onset of symptoms within a few days, usually after the second dose.
    • Another systematic review of studies that looked at pregnancy and neonatal (newborn) outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination did not find an association between vaccines and harmful effects on pregnancy, foetal development, or neonatal outcomes.
    • As with all vaccines, the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines continue to be monitored after approval by independent bodies such as the EU pharmacovigilance system, the CDC and the WHO.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, Professor of Health Research Methodology, Deputy Dean, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway; Scientific Director, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network; Director, Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Director, Cochrane Ireland.
    • Topic Advisor: Dr. Liam Glynn, Professor of General Practice at the Graduate Entry Medical, School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Chair of the North Clare Primary Care Team and Rural GP.
    • Patient and Public Advisor: Ms Deirdre Mac Loughlin, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Journalist, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does flying increase the risk of catching or spreading the COVID-19 virus?
    Click image to download
    • During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on travel were put in place as a possible way to control the spread of the virus. These travel restrictions included restrictions on flying.
    • Studies have taken place to investigate if flying specifically increases the risk of contracting or spreading the COVID-19 virus. Differences in how these studies were done and the differences in their design and methods make it difficult to interpret the results.
    • It is also difficult to determine precisely when someone got infected e,g. before travel, at the airport, on the flight or elsewhere.
    • However, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence and national and international guidelines advise using standard prevention measures when travelling.
    • The World Health Organization recommends that travellers remain vigilant for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and adhere to public health and social measures. These include avoiding crowded and poorly ventilated spaces, following good respiratory etiquette (such as covering coughs and sneezes), respecting physical distancing and wearing a mask as appropriate.

    Things to Remember

    • Beware of claims based on a single study. Ask if there are other studies that examine the same question and ideally, a careful summary of all the relevant studies.
    • Whenever possible, use up-to-date careful summaries (systematic reviews) of fair comparisons to inform decisions

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Claire Beecher, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network & Evidence Synthesis Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Professor Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Evidence Advisor: Dr Maureen Kelly, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences University of Galway.
    • Evidence Advisor: Anne Daly, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary

  • Does the use of air conditioning spread COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • Claims have been circulated on social media that using air conditioning may lead to the spread of COVID-19.
    • Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are used in indoor spaces to provide comfortable environmental conditions of temperature and humidity (moisture in the air).
    • There are various types of HVAC systems. Ventilation systems provide clean air by exchanging indoor and outdoor air and filtering. Air conditioning systems provide varying temperatures and take excess moisture from the air.
    • Air conditioning systems can be part of an integrated HVAC or stand-alone system. Stand-alone air conditioning systems generally recirculate air without exchanging or mixing it with outdoor air.
    • The various types of HVAC systems mean that it is difficult to generalise the results of studies that have taken place to date on the transmission of previous coronaviruses (e.g. SARS) through these systems.
    • There is not enough high-quality evidence to support the claim that COVID-19 is spread through air conditioning systems.
    • In spaces and buildings such as homes, schools and offices, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends increased ventilation through natural (e.g. opening windows) or mechanical (e.g. HVAC systems that introduce outdoor air) means, preferably without systems that recirculate the air.
    • Air conditioning and industrial ventilation systems in public spaces and buildings should be inspected, maintained, and cleaned regularly to ensure systems are working properly
    • The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control states that well-maintained HVAC systems can help to decrease the spread of COVID-19.

    Things to Remember

    • Beware of claims that are based on a single study. Ask if other studies examine the same question and, ideally, if there a careful summary of all the relevant studies.
    • Beware of claims that are based on before and after comparisons, and when people don’t say what a treatment was compared to. Remember: Ask what the treatment was compared to and whether it was a fair comparison.
    • Whenever possible, use up-to-date careful summaries (systematic reviews) of fair comparisons to inform decisions.

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Claire Beecher, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network & Evidence Synthesis Ireland, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof. Andrew Murphy, General Practice, University of Galway, Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Anne Daly, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does the flu vaccine increase the risk of contracting COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • Claims have been circulated on social media that getting the flu vaccine increases your risk of getting COVID-19.
    • Influenza(flu) is a very infectious illness caused by the flu virus. Flu spreads easily and infects both children and adults. The flu vaccine offers the best protection against influenza.
    • Some recent systematic summaries of studies suggest that influenza vaccination may help decrease the risk of getting COVID-19 infection; however, more studies are needed before we can be sure this is the case.
    • There is no evidence that the flu vaccine increases the risk of getting COVID-19.
    • The Health Service Executive (HSE)and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that there is no evidence that getting a flu vaccination raises the risk of getting infected by COVID-19 or by any other coronavirus.
    • In their joint statement, which was released on 12 October 2022, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the European Commission advised at-risk groups such as healthcare workers, people over 60 years old, pregnant women and people with multiple chronic conditions and/or underlying conditions to get vaccinated against both influenza and COVID-19. The potential that  COVID-19 and seasonal influenza will circulate together could put vulnerable people at increased risk of severe illness and death.
    • The vaccine is available every year to adults and children at risk of flu and its complications. As children are more likely than adults to get severe flu complications, the HSE recommends that all children aged 2 to 12 should get the nasal flu vaccine, which is delivered painlessly as a spray into the nose.
    • If you are in an at-risk group, the HSE recommend that you get the flu vaccine as early into the flu season as you can. It’s available from October to April each year. The full list of people who are recommended to get the vaccine can be seen here.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. Petek Eylül Taneri, MD, PhD, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway.
    • Evidence Advisor: Prof Dearbháile Morris School of Medicine, and Centre for One Health, University of Galway.
    • Evidence Advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Do facemasks reduce the amount of oxygen you breathe causing you to feel faint?
    Click image to download
    • There is evidence that wearing a mask reduces the amount of droplets that get scattered from the nose and mouth, and can protect others from the wearer.
    • There is general agreement from the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other organisations that people with symptoms of respiratory illness should wear face coverings in combination with other measures (e.g. isolating from others, hand washing and sanitising, containing coughs and sneezes in tissues etc) to help prevent spread of respiratory diseases.
    • The HSE states that face coverings should NOT be worn by anyone who has trouble breathing, who is incapacitated, or who is otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.
    • The WHO states that the prolonged use of medical masks (flat or pleated masks) when properly worn, does not cause harmful changes in levels of the carbon dioxide or oxygen in the air being breathed in. However, the WHO does not advise people to wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably.
    • The type (i.e. material used) and design of face masks can affect comfort and perceived breathability.
    • A cloth face covering should cover the nose and go under the chin and fit snugly but comfortably against the side of the face, and it should include at least 2 layers of fabric and allow for breathing without restriction.
    • Health agencies recommend that when protecting against Covid-19 and other respiratory diseases, face masks must be used, washed, recycled or disposed of appropriately in combination with other measures eg: handwashing, physical distancing and respiratory etiquette.
    • Face coverings are not enough on their own to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases including COVID-19. They are NOT a replacement for other recommended measures e.g. hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, social distancing etc, and people need adequate training on how to safely use face coverings (including how to put them on and take them off safely) before wearing them.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof. Dearbháile Morris School of Medicine, and Centre for One Health, University of Galway.
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Ms. Deirdre Mac Loughlin, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Do dock leaves relieve nettle stings?
    Click image to download
    • Anecdotally, several “treatments” are thought to lessen the pain of nettle stings. These include rubbing dock leaves (Rumex obtusifolius), sage (Salvia officinalis), peppermint (Mentha x piperita), mud, or even toothpaste on the site of the sting.
    • These treatments are based on the belief that nettle stings are caused only by a biochemical reaction in the body, resulting in a painful, inflamed skin rash.
    • The evidence from animal studies suggests that nettle stings are a combination of a biochemical reaction (from an acid touching the skin) and the mechanical action of tiny hair-like spikes called “trichomes” piercing human skin; therefore treatment may be more complex than previously thought.
    • It was believed that dock leaves could neutralise the acid in nettle stings. However, we now know that the sap from dock leaves is also acidic, and so it is unlikely to counteract the acid.

    It may be that dock leaves were historically used to treat nettle stings based on:

    • their availability (they usually grow near nettles)
    • when dock leaves are rubbed onto a nettle sting, they might cause a placebo-based distraction from the sting’s pain (i.e. the person believes the dock leaf will help, and this belief provides a beneficial effect).

    Things to Remember

    • Faulty logic “Old is better!” – Just because a treatment has been used for a long time or by many people, it does not mean that it helps or is safe.
    • Trust alone “It worked for me!” – If someone got better after using a treatment, it does not necessarily mean that the treatment made them better. There are many other things to consider, even though they are rarely mentioned in casual conversations.
    • Just because using a treatment is associated with people getting better or worse, that doesn’t mean that the treatment made them better or worse.

     

     

     

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Sandra Galvin, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Professor Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof. Liam Glynn, Professor of General Practice at the Graduate Entry Medical School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Chair of the North Clare Primary Care Team and Rural GP.
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Ms Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Journalist, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does a high BMI increase the risk of getting severely ill from COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • Currently, national (the Health Service Executive) and international (Public Health England, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines state that obesity (having a BMI of more than 30) places people at higher risk for complications from COVID-19.
    • There is evidence to suggest that obesity puts people at risk of having a more severe disease in COVID-19 and more likely to need advanced medical care. For example, a recent (2022) systematic review of 167 studies reported that ’Obese individuals are 1.5 times more likely to experience severe outcomes and 1.09 times more likely to die when compared to non-obese individuals with COVID-19 disease.”
    • Having a BMI of more than 40 is a significant predictor or risk factor for severe outcomes and death in COVID-19 patients.
    • Obesity may also present challenges in caring for patients. It can, for example, be more difficult to intubate, or place a tube in the throat of, patients with obesity to help them breathe, and to carry out diagnostic imaging such as X-rays.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Petek Eylül Taneri, MD, PhD, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Prof. Andrew Murphy, Professor of General Practice, NUI Galway, Director of the Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland and General Practitioner principal in a semi-rural practice.
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Anne Daly, Public and Patient Involvement in research (PPI) advisor, PPI Ignite, NUI Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Claire O’Connell, Journalist, Contributor, The Irish Times.

  • Are children at less risk of contracting COVID-19 than adults?
    Click image to download
    • Scientists, policy-makers and the public have been wondering whether children are at the same risk from COVID-19 as adults.
    • Just like adults, children of all ages can get very sick from COVID-19 and can have both short- and long-term health problems.
    • However, systematic reviews suggest that, compared to adults, children and adolescents have milder and fewer COVID-19 infections and generally have good outcomes.
    • The presentation of symptoms in children varies. The majority who are diagnosed have mild symptoms and many don’t have any symptoms at all, which we call ‘asymptomatic’.
    • The HSE recommend that children and their caregivers follow the current recommendations to prevent COVID-19 including: getting a COVID-19 vaccine, wearing a face mask in certain settings, and washing hands regularly and properly.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of  Galway
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of  Galway
    • Topic Advisor: Prof. Susan Smith, Professor of General Practice, Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin and General Practitioner in Inchicore Family Doctors, Dublin, Ireland.
    • Public and Patient Advisor: Ms Anne Daly, PPI Ignite, University of Galway
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine prevent or treat COVID-19?
    Click image to download
    • Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (which is less toxic than chloroquine) are medicines that have been used for many years to treat malaria and rheumatoid conditions, such as arthritis
    • At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there had been suggestions in medical circles, the media and social media that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine might be useful to help prevent and treat COVID-19
    • A large amount of research has been carried out to investigate these suggestions
    • Randomised controlled trials have found no evidence that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine can prevent COVID-19
    • Randomised controlled trials have found no evidence of benefit from treating people with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine
    • The evidence does suggest that the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine could cause adverse events in people taking these medicines
    • Based on the existing evidence, the World Heath Organization recommends against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr Claire Beecher, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network & Evidence Synthesis Ireland, University of Galway
    • Reviewed by: Professor Declan Devane, School of Nursing and Midwifery, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic Advisor: Dr Frank Moriarty, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy at the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and visiting research fellow at The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).
    • Patient and Public Partner: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr Claire O’Connell, Contributor, The Irish Times.

    Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest for this health claim summary.

  • Does taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, or aspirin make the symptoms of COVID-19 worse?
    Click image to download
    • Ibuprofen is one of a group of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). They are often used to help relieve pain, reduce inflammation and reduce fevers.
    • Claims have circulated on social media linking the use of ibuprofen to a worsening of the symptoms of COVID-19. These claims have been made by a number of people and organisations. Claims began following a letter on March 11, 2020 in The Lancet journal, which suggested, on the basis of limited evidence, that NSAIDs increase a particular enzyme (a type of substance that occurs naturally in the body), and this increase could worsen the symptoms of COVID-19 in some people.
    • There is no high-quality evidence linking the use of NSAIDs, like ibuprofen, with worsening symptoms of COVID-19.
    • Until there is more evidence, Health Service Executive (HSE),the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) and the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) recommend that people who have tested positive for COVID-19, or who believe they have COVID-19, may take ibuprofen.
    • Some people take ibuprofen for other illnesses (e.g., arthritis). The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (UK) and the European Medicines Agency recommend that people currently advised to use ibuprofen by their healthcare professional should not stop using it.

    Things to Remember

    Reviewers

    • Lead Researcher: Dr. KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Reviewed by: Prof. Declan Devane, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway.
    • Topic advisor: Prof. Andrew Murphy, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland and General Practitioner principal in a semi-rural setting.
    • Public and patient advisor: Deirdre Mac Loughlin, PPI Ignite, University of Galway.
    • Journalist Advisor: Dr. Claire O’Connell, Journalist, Contributor, The Irish Times.

Upcoming Questions

  • Does taking Paracetamol regularly (e.g. Calpol) harm children’s organs?

  • Does lavender improve sleep?

  • Do injections to treat age related wet macular degeneration work and how many are needed?