Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 624-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Whitehead ◽  
Carlos Perdomo ◽  
Raymond D. Pratt ◽  
Jacqueline Birks ◽  
Gordon K. Wilcock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 844-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myura Nagendran ◽  
James A. Russell ◽  
Keith R. Walley ◽  
Stephen J. Brett ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Data sharing: experience of accessing individual patient data from completed randomised controlled trials in vascular and cognitive medicine

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038765
Author(s):  
Polly Scutt ◽  
Lisa J Woodhouse ◽  
Alan A Montgomery ◽  
Philip M Bath
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesMeta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.SettingTwo linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.ParticipantsParticipants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.ResultsAcross the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.ConclusionSharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.Trial registrationNot applicable.

scholarly journals Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (11) ◽  
pp. 1201-1209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Tai Yu ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Chen-Chen Tan ◽  
Sandrine Andrieu ◽  
John Suckling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundEvidence on preventing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is challenging to interpret due to varying study designs with heterogeneous endpoints and credibility. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence with prospective designs to propose evidence-based suggestions on AD prevention.MethodsElectronic databases and relevant websites were searched from inception to 1 March 2019. Both observational prospective studies (OPSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The multivariable-adjusted effect estimates were pooled by random-effects models, with credibility assessment according to its risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Levels of evidence and classes of suggestions were summarised.ResultsA total of 44 676 reports were identified, and 243 OPSs and 153 RCTs were eligible for analysis after exclusion based on pre-decided criteria, from which 104 modifiable factors and 11 interventions were included in the meta-analyses. Twenty-one suggestions are proposed based on the consolidated evidence, with Class I suggestions targeting 19 factors: 10 with Level A strong evidence (education, cognitive activity, high body mass index in latelife, hyperhomocysteinaemia, depression, stress, diabetes, head trauma, hypertension in midlife and orthostatic hypotension) and 9 with Level B weaker evidence (obesity in midlife, weight loss in late life, physical exercise, smoking, sleep, cerebrovascular disease, frailty, atrial fibrillation and vitamin C). In contrast, two interventions are not recommended: oestrogen replacement therapy (Level A2) and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (Level B).InterpretationEvidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD.

scholarly journals Comprehensive database and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on psychotherapies reducing suicidal thoughts and behaviour: study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e037566
Author(s):  
Mandy Xian Hu ◽  
Christina Palantza ◽  
Kim Setkowski ◽  
Renske Gilissen ◽  
Eirini Karyotaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Suicidal Thoughts ◽  
Comprehensive Database ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPsychotherapy may reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviour, but its effectiveness is not well examined. Furthermore, conventional meta-analyses are unable to test possible effects of moderators affecting this relationship. This protocol outlines the building of a comprehensive database of the literature in this research field. In addition, we will conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to establish the effectiveness of psychotherapy in reducing suicidality, and to examine which factors moderate the efficacy of these interventions.Methods and analysisTo build a comprehensive database, randomised controlled trials examining the effect of any psychotherapy targeting any psychiatric disorder on suicidal thoughts or behaviour will be identified by running a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from data inception to 12 August 2019. For the IPD-MA, we will focus on adult outpatients with suicidal ideation or behaviour. In addition, as a comparison group we will focus on a control group (waiting-list, care as usual or placebo). A 1-stage IPD-MA will be used to determine the effectiveness of psychotherapy on suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and/or suicide deaths, and to investigate potential patient-related and intervention-related moderators. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to test the robustness of the findings. Additionally, a conventional MA will be conducted to determine the differences between studies that provided IPD and those that did not. IPD-MA may determine the effectiveness of psychotherapy in reducing suicidality and provide insights into the moderating factors influencing the efficacy of psychotherapy. Answering these questions will inform mental healthcare practitioners about optimal treatments for different groups of individuals with suicidal ideation and/or behaviour and consequently help to reduce suicide risk.Ethics and disseminationAn ethical approval is not required for this study. The results will be published in a peer-review journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020140573

Fever control in critically ill adults. An individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Young ◽  
Rinaldo Bellomo ◽  
Gordon R. Bernard ◽  
Daniel J. Niven ◽  
Frederique Schortgen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critically Ill ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Critically Ill Adults ◽  
Ill Adults
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document