Comparative efficacy and acceptability of different antihypertensive drug classes for cardiovascular disease prevention: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines differ in their recommendations on first-line antihypertensive drug classes. No adequately powered randomised controlled trial have assessed all major drug classes against each other, and previous meta-analyses have mainly relied on pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons.Methods and analysisA systematic review and network meta-analysis will be carried out to assess the efficacy and acceptability of all major antihypertensive drug classes. PubMed and CENTRAL were searched on 21 February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials with at least 1000 person-years of follow-up, assessing any antihypertensive agent against other agents or placebo. All trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be assessed for risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. The study selection process, risk of bias assessment and data extraction are done by two authors in duplicate. Relative risks from individual trials will be combined in pairwise meta-analyses; in the absence of important intransitivity, random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed. The primary outcome for efficacy will be major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the primary acceptability outcome will be treatment discontinuation for any reason. Additional outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and acute renal failure. The impact of differences within drug classes will be explored through alternative networks, including analysing thiazide-like and thiazide-type diuretics separately.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only process aggregated study level data and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020205482.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001129 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain

BMJ Open Science ◽

10.1136/bmjos-2020-100135 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e100135

Author(s):

Xue Ying Zhang ◽

Jan Vollert ◽

Emily S Sena ◽

Andrew SC Rice ◽

Nadia Soliman

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measure ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Persistent Pain ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Animal Pain ◽

Trim And Fill ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

ObjectiveThigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents and is enhanced when animals are under stress. It is characterised by the preference of a rodent to seek shelter, rather than expose itself to the aversive open area. The behaviour has been proposed to be a measurable construct that can address the impact of pain on rodent behaviour. This systematic review will assess whether thigmotaxis can be influenced by experimental persistent pain and attenuated by pharmacological interventions in rodents.Search strategyWe will conduct search on three electronic databases to identify studies in which thigmotaxis was used as an outcome measure contextualised to a rodent model associated with persistent pain. All studies published until the date of the search will be considered.Screening and annotationTwo independent reviewers will screen studies based on the order of (1) titles and abstracts, and (2) full texts.Data management and reportingFor meta-analysis, we will extract thigmotactic behavioural data and calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes will be combined using a random-effects model. We will assess heterogeneity and identify sources of heterogeneity. A risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted to evaluate study quality. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill analysis. We will also extract stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal data to assess its correlation with thigmotaxis in the same animals. The evidence obtained will provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of using thigmotactic outcome measure in animal pain research so that future experimental designs can be optimised. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and disseminate the review findings through publication and conference presentation.

Download Full-text

Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. e024886 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Klaus Munkholm ◽

Asger Sand Paludan-Müller ◽

Kim Boesen

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Study ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Depression Symptom ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact ◽

Clinical Study Reports

ObjectivesTo investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Ciprianiet al) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence.DesignReanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses.Data sources522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Ciprianiet aland clinical study reports for 19 of these trials.AnalysisWe used the Cochrane Handbook’s risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsSeveral methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Ciprianiet al. The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a ‘placebo run-in’ study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p<0.0001). The outcome data reported by Ciprianiet aldiffered from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0–52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21).ConclusionsThe evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.

Download Full-text

Acupuncture combined with medication for opioid use disorder in adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034554 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e034554

Author(s):

Zhihan Chen ◽

Rui Wang ◽

Min Zhang ◽

Yitong Wang ◽

Yulan Ren

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Opioid Use Disorder ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group ◽

Opioid Use ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Assess Quality ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOpioid use disorder (OUD) is a worldwide health problem. Clinical trials indicated that acupuncture combined with medication is effective in OUD, however, there are different conclusions presented by previous trials. This study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with medication in OUD.Methods and analysisPubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, AMED, OpenGrey, Clinicaltrials.gov and who.int/trialsearch will be searched in September 2019 without a language restriction. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which included participants with OUD receiving acupuncture therapy combined with medication versus control group will be included in this study. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, assess risk of bias by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and assess quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Any disagreements will be arbitrated by the third reviewer. Data synthesis and analysis will be conducted by using RevMan V.5.3. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression and reporting bias assessment will be conducted if necessary and appropriate.Ethics and disseminationOn account of the nature of this systematic review and meta-analysis, ethical approval is not required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123436.

Download Full-text

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

10.1101/2021.02.19.21252094 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Benjamin Woolf ◽

Phil Edwards

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Response Data ◽

Randomised Control Trials ◽

Study Participants ◽

The Impact

AbstractBackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is ten years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate Edwards et al. (2009) to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias.MethodsData sources: Edwards et al. (2009); 13 data-bases; the references in, and citations of included studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised control trials examining the impact of pre-notification on response. Data extraction: data extraction was done twice by a single unblinded reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and funnel plots.Results103 trials were included. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.38 (95%CI: 1.25-1.53). However, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was greatly reduced (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21).ConclusionsThe evidence implies that while pre-notification does increase response rates, this may not be of clinical utility.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Mhealth Interventions to Improve Nasal Corticosteroid Adherence in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-277478/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mats Baxter ◽

Jurgen Schwarze ◽

Andrew Bush ◽

Aziz Sheikh

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Systematic Review Protocol ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract IntroductionMobile health (mHealth) is a potential tool to improve nasal corticosteroid (NCS) adherence in allergic rhinitis (AR), which remains largely poor and inconsistent for many. We plan to undertake a systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR. Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), filtered for publication dates between January 2010 and August 2020. The search is scheduled to commence in August 2020. We will scan reference lists of included studies for additional eligible papers. Relevant unpublished or in-progress trials will be searched for through trial registries. Randomised controlled trials that examine the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR are to be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract relevant data from the included studies and perform a risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. We will perform a narrative synthesis with relevant data tables and, if deemed clinically relevant and statistically adequate, meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used to help guide the reporting of this review. Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review will be exclusively based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval will be sought. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated at appropriate conferences/webinars while being published in an open access peer-reviewed journal.Registration: In accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 27th August 2020. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020198879.

Download Full-text

Physically active lessons in schools and their impact on physical activity, educational, health and cognition outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

British Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1136/bjsports-2018-100502 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 54 (14) ◽

pp. 826-838 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Emma Norris ◽

Tommy van Steen ◽

Artur Direito ◽

Emmanuel Stamatakis

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Educational Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Control Group ◽

Physically Active ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

ObjectiveThis review provides the first meta-analysis of the impact of physically active lessons on lesson-time and overall physical activity (PA), as well as health, cognition and educational outcomes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies. Six meta-analyses pooled effects on lesson-time PA, overall PA, in-class educational and overall educational outcomes, cognition and health outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using the metafor package in R. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science, grey literature and reference lists were searched in December 2017 and April 2019.Studies eligibility criteriaPhysically active lessons compared with a control group in a randomised or non-randomised design, within single component interventions in general school populations.Results42 studies (39 in preschool or elementary school settings, 27 randomised controlled trials) were eligible to be included in the systematic review and 37 of them were included across the six meta-analyses (n=12 663). Physically active lessons were found to produce large, significant increases in lesson-time PA (d=2.33; 95% CI 1.42 to 3.25: k=16) and small, increases on overall PA (d=0.32; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46: k=8), large, improvement in lesson-time educational outcomes (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14: k=7) and a small improvement in overall educational outcomes (d=0.36; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63: k=25). No effects were seen on cognitive (k=3) or health outcomes (k=3). 25/42 studies had high risk of bias in at least two domains.ConclusionIn elementary and preschool settings, when physically active lessons were added into the curriculum they had positive impact on both physical activity and educational outcomes. These findings support policy initiatives encouraging the incorporation of physically active lessons into teaching in elementary and preschool setting.Trial registration numberCRD42017076933.

Download Full-text

Effects of Sport-Based Interventions on Children’s Executive Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci11060755 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. 755

Author(s):

Falonn Contreras-Osorio ◽

Christian Campos-Jara ◽

Cristian Martínez-Salazar ◽

Luis Chirosa-Ríos ◽

Darío Martínez-García

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Working Memory ◽

Executive Function ◽

Inhibitory Control ◽

Cognitive Flexibility ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Healthy Children ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

One of the most studied aspects of children’s cognitive development is that of the development of the executive function, and research has shown that physical activity has been demonstrated as a key factor in its enhancement. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of specific sports interventions on the executive function of children and teenagers. A systematic review was carried out on 1 November 2020 to search for published scientific evidence that analysed different sports programs that possibly affected executive function in students. Longitudinal studies, which assessed the effects of sports interventions on subjects between 6 and 18 years old, were identified through a systematic search of the four principal electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. A total of eight studies, with 424 subjects overall, met the inclusion criteria and were classified based on one or more of the following categories: working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility. The random-effects model for meta-analyses was performed with RevMan version 5.3 to facilitate the analysis of the studies. Large effect sizes were found in all categories: working memory (ES −1.25; 95% CI −1.70; −0.79; p < 0.0001); inhibitory control (ES −1.30; 95% CI −1.98; −0.63; p < 0.00001); and cognitive flexibility (ES −1.52; 95% CI −2.20; −0.83; p < 0.00001). Our analysis concluded that healthy children and teenagers should be encouraged to practice sports in order to improve their executive function at every stage of their development.

Download Full-text

Influence of Coronal Preflaring on the Accuracy of Electronic Working Length Determination: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10132760 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (13) ◽

pp. 2760

Author(s):

María León-López ◽

Daniel Cabanillas-Balsera ◽

Victoria Areal-Quecuty ◽

Jenifer Martín-González ◽

María C. Jiménez-Sánchez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Science Studies ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Experimental Studies ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Total Risk ◽

Human Teeth ◽

Working Length ◽

Meta Analyses

Aim. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the following PICO question: in extracted human permanent teeth, does preflaring, compared with unflared canals, influence the accuracy of WL determination with EAL? Material and Methods. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist, using the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies related to WL determination using EAL both in preflared and unflared root canals of extracted human teeth were included. The outcome of interest was the accuracy of the electronic WL determination. A quality assessment of the included studies was performed, determining the risk of bias. The meta-analyses were calculated with the 5.4 RevMan software using the inverse variance method with random effects. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021243412. Results. Ten experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and most of them found that preflaring increases the accuracy of the EALs in WL determination. The calculated OR was 1.98 (95% CI = 1.65–2.37; p < 0.00001; I2 = 10%), indicating that the determination of WL by EALs is almost twice as accurate in preflared canals. The accuracy of Root ZX in WL determination increases more than three times (OR = 3.25; p < 0.00001). Preflaring with Protaper files significantly increases the accuracy of EALs (OR = 1.76; p < 0.00001). The total risk of bias of the included studies was low. No obvious publication bias was observed. Conclusions. The results indicate a significant increase in the accuracy of WL determination with EAL after preflaring, doubling the percentage of exact measurements. Preflaring should be recommended as an important step during mechanical enlargement of the root canal, not only because it improves the access of the files to the canal, but also because it allows one to obtain more accurate electronic determinations of WL.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017868 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e017868

Author(s):

Joey S.W. Kwong ◽

Sheyu Li ◽

Wan-Jie Gu ◽

Hao Chen ◽

Chao Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Coronary Revascularisation ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Registration Number ◽

Collection Form ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Download Full-text