scholarly journals Protocol for individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of patients with psychosis to investigate treatment effect modifiers for CBT versus treatment as usual or other psychosocial interventions

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e035062
Author(s):  
Maria Sudell ◽  
Catrin Tudur-Smith ◽  
Xiaomeng Liao ◽  
Eleanor Longden ◽  
Graham Dunn ◽  
...  

IntroductionAggregate data meta-analyses have shown heterogeneous treatment effects for cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. This heterogeneity could stem from specific intervention or patient characteristics that could influence the clinical effectiveness of CBT, termed treatment effect modifiers. This individual participant data meta-analysis will investigate a range of potential treatment effect modifiers of the efficacy of CBT.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating CBT versus treatment as usual, or CBT versus other psychosocial interventions, for patients with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE and the online clinical trials registers of the US government, European Union, WHO and Current Controlled Trials will be searched. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts identified by the search. Individual participant data will be requested for any eligible study, for the primary outcome (overall psychotic symptoms), secondary outcomes and treatment effect modifiers. Data will be checked and recoded according to an established statistical analysis plan. One-stage and two-stage random effects meta-analyses investigating potential treatment effect modifiers will be conducted. A list of potential treatment effect modifiers for CBT will be produced, motivating future research into particular modifiers.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval as it is based on data from existing studies, although best ethical practice for secondary analysis of clinical data will be followed. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and promoted to relevant stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060068.

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e040481
Author(s):  
Sinead T J McDonagh ◽  
James P Sheppard ◽  
Fiona C Warren ◽  
Kate Boddy ◽  
Leon Farmer ◽  
...  

IntroductionBlood pressure (BP) is normally measured on the upper arm, and guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of high BP are based on such measurements. Leg BP measurement can be an alternative when brachial BP measurement is impractical, due to injury or disability. Limited data exist to guide interpretation of leg BP values for hypertension management; study-level systematic review findings suggest that systolic BP (SBP) is 17 mm Hg higher in the leg than the arm. However, uncertainty remains about the applicability of this figure in clinical practice due to substantial heterogeneity.AimsTo examine the relationship between arm and leg SBP, develop and validate a multivariable model predicting arm SBP from leg SBP and investigate the prognostic association between leg SBP and cardiovascular disease and mortality.Methods and analysisIndividual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses using arm and leg SBP measurements for 33 710 individuals from 14 studies within the Inter-arm blood pressure difference IPD (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. We will explore cross-sectional relationships between arm and leg SBP using hierarchical linear regression with participants nested by study, in multivariable models. Prognostic models will be derived for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events.Ethics and disseminationData originate from studies with prior ethical approval and consent, and data sharing agreements are in place—no further approvals are required to undertake the secondary analyses proposed in this protocol. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at conferences. A comprehensive dissemination strategy is in place, integrated with patient and public involvement.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015031227.


Diabetes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 34-LB
Author(s):  
ANASTASSIOS G. PITTAS ◽  
TETSUYA KAWAHARA ◽  
ROLF JORDE ◽  
JASON P. NELSON ◽  
EDITH ANGELLOTTI ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Or Dagan ◽  
Pasco Fearon ◽  
Carlo Schuengel ◽  
Marije Verhage ◽  
Glenn I. Roisman ◽  
...  

Since the seminal 1992 paper by van IJzendoorn, Sagi, and Lambermon, putting forward the “The multiple caretaker paradox”, relatively little attention has been given to the potential joint effects of the role early attachment network to mother and father play in development. Recently, Dagan and Sagi-Schwartz (2018) have published a paper that attempts to revive this unsettled issue, calling for research on the subject and offering a framework for posing attachment network hypotheses. This Collaboration for Attachment Research Synthesis project attempts to use an Individual Participant Data meta-analyses to test the hypotheses put forward in Dagan and Sagi-Schwartz (2018). Specifically, we test (a) whether the number of secure attachments (0,1, or 2) matter in predicting a range of developmental outcomes, and (b) whether the quality of attachment relationship with one parent contributes more than the other to these outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document