scholarly journals Management of social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling older adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e042828
Author(s):  
Ahreum Lee ◽  
Caitlin McArthur ◽  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Monika Kastner ◽  
George Ioannidis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Central Registry ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSocial isolation and loneliness in older adults are significant public health issues. Various interventions such as exercise programmes or social activities are used in the management of social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides effect estimates for all comparisons by considering the relative efficacy of multiple intervention alternatives. Therefore, this study will determine the comparative efficacy of intervention to alleviate social isolation and loneliness of older adults in community dwelling by comparing direct and indirect interventions through systematic review and NMA.Methods and analysisWe will include all relevant randomised controlled trials for interventions of social isolation and loneliness in older adults written in English without any limitation of publication date through electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and CINAHL. Independent teams of reviewers will screen trial eligibility, collect data, identify duplication and assess risk of bias, by using the Cochrane revised risk of bias tool. The interventions for the management of social isolation and loneliness will be included. The primary outcome is social isolation. The secondary outcomes are loneliness and health-related quality of life. We will conduct an NMA through a Bayesian hierarchical model, by testing assumption (ie, transitivity) for NMA. We will also estimate the ranking probabilities for all interventions at each possible rank for each intervention. For estimation of each intervention efficacy, we will assess the certainty and credibility using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will not be obtained for this systematic review as it will be conducted with published papers. The review results will be presented at a field-specific conference and published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155789.

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 Multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions for cardiovascular disease primary prevention: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205520761989048
Author(s):  
Artur Direito ◽  
Jonathan Rawstorn ◽  
Jacqueline Mair ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Ralph Maddison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Health Lifestyle ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Preventative Interventions

Objective Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading cause of mortality and disease burden. Preventative interventions to augment the population-level adoption of health lifestyle behaviours that reduce CVD risk are a priority. Face-to-face interventions afford individualisation and are effective for improving health-related behaviours and outcomes, but they are costly and resource intensive. Electronic and mobile health (e- and mHealth) approaches aimed at modifying lifestyle risk factors may be an effective and scalable approach to reach many individuals while preserving individualisation. This systematic review aims to (a) determine the effectiveness of multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions on CVD risk and on lifestyle-related cardiometabolic risk factors and self-management behaviours among adults without CVD; and (b) describe the evidence on adverse events and on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Methods Methods were detailed prior to the start of the review in order to improve conduct and prevent inconsistent decision making throughout the review. This protocol was prepared following the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL electronic databases will be searched between 1991 and September 2019. Eligibility criteria are: (a) population: community-dwelling adults; (b) intervention/comparison: randomised controlled trials comparing e- or mHealth CVD risk preventative interventions with usual care; and (c) outcomes: modifiable CVD risk factors. Selection of study reports will involve two authors independently screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible reports. Two authors will independently undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of outcome data will be performed. Discussion This protocol describes the pre-specified methods for a systematic review that will provide quantitative and narrative syntheses of current multifactorial e- and mHealth CVD preventative interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to PRISMA 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 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.

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 The effect of eHealth-based falls prevention programmes on balance in people aged 65 years and over living in the community: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e031200
Author(s):  
Meghan Ambrens ◽  
Anne Tiedemann ◽  
Kim Delbaere ◽  
Stephanie Alley ◽  
Corneel Vandelanotte
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fall Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Prevention Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Community Dwellers

IntroductionBetween 20% and 28% of community-dwelling older people experience a fall each year. Falls can result in significant personal and socioeconomic costs, and are the leading cause of admission to hospital for an older person in Australia. Exercise interventions that target balance are the most effective for preventing falls in community-dwellers; however, greater accessibility of effective programmes is needed. As technology has become more accessible, its use as a tool for supporting and promoting health and well-being of individuals has been explored. Little is known about the effectiveness of eHealth technologies to deliver fall prevention interventions. This protocol describes a systematic review with meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the effect of eHealth fall prevention interventions compared with usual care control on balance in people aged 65 years and older living in the community.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Embase and PsychINFO and citation search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Cochrane Database Central and PEDro for randomised controlled trials that use an eHealth technology to deliver a fall prevention intervention to community-dwellers aged ≥65 years, that are published in English, and include a balance outcome (primary outcome). The screening and selection of articles for review will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. The PEDro scale and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations will be used to assess study quality. The results will be synthesised descriptively, and if sufficient data are available and the studies are not overly heterogeneous, a meta-analysis will be conducted using the random effects model.Ethics and disseminationAs this will be a systematic review, without involvement of human participants, there will be no requirement for ethical approval. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and dissemination to policymakers and consumers to maximise health impact.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018115098.

scholarly journals Impact of levothyroxine in women with positive thyroid antibodies on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043751
Author(s):  
Lorraine Lau ◽  
Jamie L Benham ◽  
Patricia Lemieux ◽  
Jennifer Yamamoto ◽  
Lois E Donovan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Delivery ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of levothyroxine therapy on pregnancy outcomes compared with placebo or no treatment in women without overt hypothyroidism with presence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) and/or thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAb).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trialsStudy eligibility criteriaPrespecified criteria for inclusion were: randomised trials of levothyroxine versus control (placebo or no treatment) among women with positive TPOAb or TgAb who were pregnant or considering conception.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 to 5 November 2020.Outcome measuresPrespecified data elements were extracted and where appropriate, meta-analyses were conducted. Main outcomes include pregnancy achieved, miscarriage, preterm delivery and live birth.Risk of bias assessmentCochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials.ResultsFrom 3023 citations, 79 citations were identified for full-text review. Of these, six trials (total of 2263 women) were included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Risk of bias was deemed low for only one trial. There was no significant difference in the relative risk (RR) of pregnancy achieved (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13), miscarriage (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14), preterm delivery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) or live births (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16) in thyroid autoimmune women treated with levothyroxine compared with controls. Sensitivity analyses of preterm birth identified study quality and timing of levothyroxine initiation as sources of heterogeneity.ConclusionsAmong pregnant women or women planning conception, with thyroid autoimmunity, there is a lack of evidence of benefit for levothyroxine use (moderate to high Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). Recommendations to use levothyroxine in this setting need to be reconsidered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019130459.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document