scholarly journals Role of personality disorder in randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for adults with mood disorders: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e025145
Author(s):  
Bianca E Kavanagh ◽  
Sharon Lee Brennan-Olsen ◽  
Alyna Turner ◽  
Olivia M Dean ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Mood Disorders ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionRemission rates for mood disorders, including depressive and bipolar disorders, remain relatively low despite available treatments, and many patients fail to respond adequately to these interventions. Evidence suggests that personality disorder may play a role in poor outcomes. Although personality disorders are common in patients with mood disorders, it remains unknown whether personality disorder affects treatment outcomes in mood disorders. We aim to review currently available evidence regarding the role of personality disorder on pharmacological interventions in randomised controlled trials for adults with mood disorders.Methods and analysisA systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) via cochranelibrary.com, PubMed via PubMed, EMBASE via embase.com, PsycINFO via Ebsco and CINAHL Complete via Ebsco databases will be conducted to identify randomised controlled trials that have investigated pharmacological interventions in participants aged 18 years or older for mood disorders (ie, depressive disorders and bipolar spectrum disorders) and have also included assessment of personality disorder. One reviewer will screen studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria, and a second reviewer will confirm eligible studies. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A systematic review, and if sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be completed. Meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. A random effects model will be employed and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I2 statistic. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be completed.Ethics and disseminationAs this systematic review will use published data, ethics permission will not be required. The outcomes of this systematic review will be published in a relevant scientific journal and presented at a research conference.Trial registration numberCRD42018089279.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing postpartum fatigue: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e051136
Author(s):  
Jialu Qian ◽  
Shiwen Sun ◽  
Lu Liu ◽  
Xiaoyan Yu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Postpartum Fatigue

IntroductionPostpartum fatigue is a common symptom among new mothers after their pregnancy. It has a considerable negative impact on women’s functional and mental status as well as the development of babies. Identifying effective interventions to prevent or reduce postpartum fatigue is meaningful to improve the quality of life and avoid adverse outcomes of this vulnerable population. This systematic review aims to synthesise non-pharmacological evidence and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for reducing postpartum fatigue among puerperas.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest databases to identify clinical trials implementing non-pharmacological interventions conducted during 0–78 weeks postpartum for fatigue reduction. An additional search of OpenGrey will be conducted to identify grey literature. The search will be performed on 30 March 2021 without restrictions on time and language. Two independent reviewers will be responsible for study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool will be adopted to evaluate the risk biases of the included randomised controlled trials, and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions will be applied to evaluate non-randomised controlled trials. Any disagreements will be referred to a third reviewer to reach a consensus. Findings will be qualitatively synthesised, and a meta-analysis will be conducted for the statistical combination if outcome data are sufficient and available.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not involve the collection of primary data and will be based on published data. Therefore, ethics approval is not required. The final findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021234869

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychodynamic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

scholarly journals The effects of exercise on Bone Mineral Density in Men: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blair Ross Hamilton ◽  
Katherine Staines ◽  
George Kelley ◽  
Kristi Kelley ◽  
Wendy Kohrt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Mineral Density ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Mineral ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
Skeletal Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Introduction: Exercise is a cost-effective, widely available intervention that has been reported to help maintain optimal bone mineral density (BMD) in men, however, consideration of exercise modality is needed if the aim is to promote skeletal health. A previous meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials observed a moderate benefit on femoral neck (FN) but no benefit on lumbar spine (LS) BMD. However, since that analysis more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published and updated methods of meta-analysis have been developed and therefore an updated systematic review and meta-analysis is required. Methods and analysis: RCTs of >24 weeks and published in English up to 01/05/20 will be retrieved by searching 3 electronic databases, cross referencing and expert review. The primary outcome measures will be changes in FN and LS BMD and lower limb BMD. Risk of bias for each study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument for RCTs, while the strength of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. Standardised effect sizes will be calculated from each study and pooled using the inverse heterogeneity (IVhet) model. Trial Registration number: CRD42020180441.

scholarly journals Role of topical magnesium in post-operative sore throat: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 520 ◽  
Author(s):  
JeetinderK Makkar ◽  
NarinderP Singh ◽  
Vincent Wourms ◽  
Andrés Zorrilla-Vaca ◽  
RonaldB Cappellani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sore Throat ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Effect of walnut consumption on markers of blood glucose control: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (7) ◽  
pp. 641-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth P. Neale ◽  
Vivienne Guan ◽  
Linda C. Tapsell ◽  
Yasmine C. Probst
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fasting Blood Glucose ◽  
Blood Glucose Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractType 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease increasing in global prevalence. Although habitual consumption of walnuts is associated with reduced risk of CVD, there is inconsistent evidence for the impact of walnut consumption on markers of glycaemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effect of walnut consumption on markers of blood glucose control. A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane databases (to 2 March 2019) was conducted. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials conducted with adults which assessed the effect of walnut consumption on fasting blood glucose and insulin, glycated Hb and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess the weighted mean differences (WMD) for each outcome. Risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Sixteen studies providing eighteen effect sizes were included in the review. Consumption of walnuts did not result in significant changes in fasting blood glucose levels (WMD: 0·331 mg/dl; 95 % CI −0·817, 1·479) or other outcome measures. Studies were determined to have either ‘some concerns’ or be at ‘high risk’ of bias. There was no evidence of an effect of walnut consumption on markers of blood glucose control. These findings suggest that the known favourable effects of walnut intake on CVD are not mediated via improvements in glycaemic control. Given the high risk of bias observed in the current evidence base, there is a need for further high-quality randomised controlled trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document