scholarly journals Sexual health interventions delivered to participants by mobile technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. sextrans-2020-054853
Author(s):  
Sima Berendes ◽  
Anasztazia Gubijev ◽  
Ona L McCarthy ◽  
Melissa J Palmer ◽  
Emma Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Condom Use ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundThe use of mobile technologies to prevent STIs is recognised as a promising approach worldwide; however, evidence has been inconclusive, and the field has developed rapidly. With about 1 million new STIs a day globally, up-to-date evidence is urgently needed.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of mobile health interventions delivered to participants for preventing STIs and promoting preventive behaviour.MethodsWe searched seven databases and reference lists of 49 related reviews (January 1990–February 2020) and contacted experts in the field. We included randomised controlled trials of mobile interventions delivered to adolescents and adults to prevent sexual transmission of STIs. We conducted meta-analyses and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence following Cochrane guidance.ResultsAfter double screening 6683 records, we included 22 trials into the systematic review and 20 into meta-analyses; 18 trials used text messages, 3 used smartphone applications and 1 used Facebook messages as delivery modes. The certainty of evidence regarding intervention effects on STI/HIV occurrence and adverse events was low or very low. There was moderate certainty of evidence that in the short/medium-term text messaging interventions had little or no effect on condom use (standardised mean differences (SMD) 0.02, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.14, nine trials), but increased STI/HIV testing (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.36, seven trials), although not if the standard-of-care control already contained an active text messaging component (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47, two trials). Smartphone application messages also increased STI/HIV testing (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.60, subgroup analysis, two trials). The effects on other outcomes or of social media or blended interventions is uncertain due to low or very low certainty evidence.ConclusionsText messaging interventions probably increase STI/HIV testing but not condom use in the short/medium term. Ongoing trials will report the effects on biological and other outcomes.

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.

scholarly journals The Effect of Perioperative E-Health Interventions on the Postoperative Course: A Systematic Review of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e0158612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva van der Meij ◽  
Johannes R. Anema ◽  
René H. J. Otten ◽  
Judith A. F. Huirne ◽  
Frederieke G. Schaafsma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Postoperative Course ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin A Wasmann ◽  
Pieta Wijsman ◽  
Susan van Dieren ◽  
Willem Bemelman ◽  
Christianne Buskens
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Lost To Follow Up

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.ResultsIn total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).ConclusionsPatients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019094438.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document