scholarly journals CE1 METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES WITH CONDUCTING NETWORK META-ANALYSES ASSESSING LONG-TERM COMPARATIVE EFFICACY IN PSORIASIS: A CRITIQUE OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING RECENT INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S2-S3
Author(s):  
T. Disher ◽  
S. Peterson ◽  
K. Eaton ◽  
S. Nair ◽  
R. Villacorta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Meta Analyses

Comparative efficacy, effectiveness and harms of second-generation antidepressants in the pharmacologic treatment of adult depression

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1266-1266
Author(s):  
L. Morgan ◽  
G. Gartlehner
Keyword(s):  
Second Generation ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Onset Of Action ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Library

IntroductionSecond-generation antidepressants dominate the medical management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Two published comparative effectiveness reviews (CER) provide conflicting evidence about the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants for treating MDD.ObjectivesTo compare the benefits and harms of bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine for the treatment of MDD in adults.MethodsWe updated a CER published in 2007 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality searching MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts up to May 2010. Two persons independently reviewed the literature, abstracted data, and rated the risk of bias. If data were sufficient, we conducted meta-analyses of head-to-head trials of the relative benefit of response to treatment. In addition, we conducted mixed treatment comparisons to derive indirect estimates of the comparative efficacy among all second-generation antidepressants.ResultsOverall, no substantial differences in efficacy could be detected among second-generation antidepressants. Statistically significant differences in response rates between some compared drugs are small and likely not clinically relevant. Differences exist in the incidence of specific adverse events and the onset of action. Venlafaxine leads to higher rates of nausea and vomiting, sertraline to higher rates of diarrhea, and mirtazapine to higher rates of weight gain than comparator drugs. Bupropion caused lower rates of sexual dysfunction than other antidepressants.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the existing evidence does not warrant the choice of one second-generation antidepressant over another based on greater efficacy and effectiveness.

scholarly journals Methodological challenges in indirect treatment comparisons

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-216
Author(s):  
Arun Singh ◽  
Srihari Gopal ◽  
Edward Kim ◽  
Maju Mathews ◽  
Jennifer Kern-Sliwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons

scholarly journals PGI3 INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISONS AND NETWORK META-ANALYSES OF NALDEMEDINE FOR THE TREATMENT OF OPIOID-INDUCED CONSTIPATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S178
Author(s):  
R. Beale ◽  
P. Conway ◽  
B. Cai ◽  
E. Krauter ◽  
B. Langford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Meta Analyses

Indirect comparisons of treatment effects: Network meta-analyses

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 510-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Pia Sormani
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Formal Methods ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Options ◽  
Indirect Treatment ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

Many therapeutic options are now available for patients with multiple sclerosis. While the efficacy of each drug has been assessed against placebo or, more recently, against interferon, no direct comparisons of these new therapies have been conducted in randomized clinical trials. Therefore, indirect treatment comparisons are needed to inform clinical decisions. In this brief report, some basic concepts about network meta-analyses that are the formal methods used to run multiple indirect treatment comparisons are reviewed when applied in the context of multiple sclerosis studies.

Physical and Psychological Benefits of Written Emotional Expression

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 242-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éva Kállay
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Expressive Writing ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Psychological Benefits ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. The last several decades have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of individuals suffering from both diagnosable and subsyndromal mental health problems. Consequently, the development of cost-effective treatment methods, accessible to large populations suffering from different forms of mental health problems, became imperative. A very promising intervention is the method of expressive writing (EW), which may be used in both clinically diagnosable cases and subthreshold symptomatology. This method, in which people express their feelings and thoughts related to stressful situations in writing, has been found to improve participants’ long-term psychological, physiological, behavioral, and social functioning. Based on a thorough analysis and synthesis of the published literature (also including most recent meta-analyses), the present paper presents the expressive writing method, its short- and long-term, intra-and interpersonal effects, different situations and conditions in which it has been proven to be effective, the most important mechanisms implied in the process of recovery, advantages, disadvantages, and possible pitfalls of the method, as well as variants of the original technique and future research directions.

scholarly journals More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Lopez-Leon ◽  
Talia Wegman-Ostrosky ◽  
Carol Perelman ◽  
Rosalinda Sepulveda ◽  
Paulina A. Rebolledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Attention Disorder ◽  
Initial Recovery ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractCOVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document