scholarly journals Impact of treatment as usual on efficacy estimates of face-to-face and internet-based psychotherapy for depression: A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Munder ◽  
Alessia Geisshüsler ◽  
Tobias Krieger ◽  
Johannes Zimmermann ◽  
Markus Wolf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Background: Treatment as usual (TAU) is the most frequently used control group in randomised trials of psychotherapy for depression and meta-analyses that summarise these trials. Concerns have been raised over imprecise and biased efficacy estimates because of substantial variability in the treatments provided in TAU. We set out to investigate the impact of the control group intensity (i.e., quantitative and qualitative aspects of treatments in control groups) on results of trials of psychotherapy for depression and confounding due to systematic differences in this intensity in trials of face-to-face (F2F) and internet-based (INT) psychotherapy.Methods: We conducted a pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PsycINFO for systematic reviews of psychotherapy for depression from Jan 1, 2015 to Jan 3, 2020 and retrieved all references of trials included in these systematic reviews. We searched Cochrane’s Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO for randomised trials from Jan 1, 2018 to Jan 3, 2020. We included trials that compared (individual or group) F2F or (self-guided or guided) INT with TAU or waiting list (WL) in the acute treatment of patients with symptoms of unipolar depression. We excluded trials published before 2000. All information was extracted by two independent researchers. Six dichotomous indicators were used to create a score that expressed the intensity of TAU and WL. Primary outcome: Standardised mean differences (SMD) of treatment and control groups in depressive symptoms at treatment termination. SMDs were extracted from trial reports. A protocol was pre-registered with the Center for Open Science (www.osf.io/4mzyd).Findings: We included 89 eligible trials that randomised 14,474 patients to 113 eligible psychotherapy arms (8,284 patients) and 89 control arms (6,190 patients). TAU was used as control group in 42 trials (47.19%) and WL in 47 trials (52.81%). F2F was investigated in 37 trials (42.05%) and INT in 51 trials (57.95%). Intensity of control groups did not differ between F2F trials (M = 0.86, SD = 1.42) and INT trials (M = 0.39, SD = 0.63, p = .255). Intensity of control group was a significant predictor of trial results in the main analysis (one-sided p = .042), in pre-registered sensitivity analyses, and in all further exploratory analyses. Heterogeneity estimates were high (I2 = 69.30% to 95.37%). The final analysis found psychotherapy effects to be SMD = -0.287 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.483 to -0.091, one-sided p = .002, I2 = 76.13%) smaller in 24 trials with higher intensity TAU compared to 16 trials with lower intensity TAU. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that the variability of treatments in TAU influences the results of trials on psychotherapy for depression and is likely to introduce imprecision into meta-analyses of these trials. Source of funding: None

scholarly journals Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness

2021 ◽  
pp. 175791392096704
Author(s):  
GY Reinhardt ◽  
D Vidovic ◽  
C Hammerton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Outpatient Services ◽  
Social Prescribing ◽  
Positive Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Aims: The aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis. Results: From 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (14) ◽  
pp. 826-838 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Measuring the impact of screening automation on meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Norman ◽  
Mariska M. G. Leeflang ◽  
Raphaël Porcher ◽  
Aurélie Névéol
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Estimation Error ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The large and increasing number of new studies published each year is making literature identification in systematic reviews ever more time-consuming and costly. Technological assistance has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional, manual study identification to mitigate the cost, but previous literature has mainly evaluated methods in terms of recall (search sensitivity) and workload reduction. There is a need to also evaluate whether screening prioritization methods leads to the same results and conclusions as exhaustive manual screening. In this study, we examined the impact of one screening prioritization method based on active learning on sensitivity and specificity estimates in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Methods We simulated the screening process in 48 Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy and re-run 400 meta-analyses based on a least 3 studies. We compared screening prioritization (with technological assistance) and screening in randomized order (standard practice without technology assistance). We examined if the screening could have been stopped before identifying all relevant studies while still producing reliable summary estimates. For all meta-analyses, we also examined the relationship between the number of relevant studies and the reliability of the final estimates. Results The main meta-analysis in each systematic review could have been performed after screening an average of 30% of the candidate articles (range 0.07 to 100%). No systematic review would have required screening more than 2308 studies, whereas manual screening would have required screening up to 43,363 studies. Despite an average 70% recall, the estimation error would have been 1.3% on average, compared to an average 2% estimation error expected when replicating summary estimate calculations. Conclusion Screening prioritization coupled with stopping criteria in diagnostic test accuracy reviews can reliably detect when the screening process has identified a sufficient number of studies to perform the main meta-analysis with an accuracy within pre-specified tolerance limits. However, many of the systematic reviews did not identify a sufficient number of studies that the meta-analyses were accurate within a 2% limit even with exhaustive manual screening, i.e., using current practice.

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

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals A systematic review of pharmacist-led audit and feedback interventions to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i35
Author(s):  
M Carter ◽  
N Abutheraa ◽  
N Ivers ◽  
J Grimshaw ◽  
S Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Prescribing Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction Audit and Feedback (A&F) involves measuring data about practice, comparing it with clinical guidelines, professional standards or peer performance, and then feeding back the data to individuals/groups of health professionals to encourage change in practice (if required). A 2012 Cochrane review (1) found A&F was effective in changing health professionals’ behaviour and suggested that the person who delivers the A&F intervention influences its effect. Increasingly, pharmacists work in general practice and often have responsibility for medication review and repeat prescriptions. The effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F in influencing prescribing behaviour is uncertain. Aim This secondary analysis from an ongoing update of the original Cochrane review aims to identify and describe pharmacist-led A&F interventions and evaluate their impact on prescribing behaviour in general practice compared with no intervention. Methods This sub-review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020194355 and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2). For the updated Cochrane review, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group searched MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library (March 2019) to identify randomised trials featuring A&F interventions. For this sub-review, authors screened titles and abstracts (May 2020) to identify trials involving pharmacist-led A&F interventions in primary care, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) in eligible studies. Review results are summarised descriptively. Heterogeneity will be assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis is planned. Publication bias for selected outcomes and the certainty of the body of evidence will be evaluated and presented. Sub-group analyses will be conducted. Results Titles and abstracts of 295 studies identified for inclusion in the Cochrane A&F review update were screened. Eleven studies (all cluster-randomised trials) conducted in 9 countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, UK, Australia, Malaysia, USA) were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Six studies had low RoB, two had high risk due to dissimilarities between trial arms at baseline and/or insufficient detail about randomisation, and three studies had unclear RoB. Studies examined the effect of A&F on prescribing for specific conditions (e.g. hypertension), medications (e.g. antibiotics), populations (e.g. patients &gt;70), and prescribing errors (e.g. inappropriate dose). The pharmacist delivering A&F was a colleague of intervention participants in five studies. Pharmacists’ levels of skill and experience varied; seven studies reported details of pharmacist training undertaken for trial purposes. A&F interventions in nine studies demonstrated changes in prescribing, including reductions in errors or inappropriate prescribing according to the study aims and smaller increases in unwanted prescribing compared with the control group. Data analyses are ongoing (results will be available for the conference). Conclusion The preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F interventions in different countries and health systems with influencing prescribing practice to align more closely with guidance. Studies measured different prescribing behaviours; meta-analysis is unlikely to include all 11 studies. Further detailed analysis including feedback format/content/frequency and pharmacist skill level/experience, work-base (external/internal to recipients), will examine the impact of specific features on intervention effectiveness. References 1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. 2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

scholarly journals Consequences of the COVID-19 Syndemic for Nutritional Health: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1168
Author(s):  
Cristian Neira ◽  
Rejane Godinho ◽  
Fabio Rincón ◽  
Rodrigo Mardones ◽  
Janari Pedroso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Eating Style ◽  
Healthy Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Confinement at home, quarantine, and social distancing are some measures adopted worldwide to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), which has been generating an important alteration in the routines and qualities of life of people. The impact on health is still being evaluated, and consequences in the nutritional field are not entirely clear. The study objective was to evaluate the current evidence about the impact that preventive measures of physical contact restriction causes in healthy nutrition. A systematic review was carried out according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” PRISMA Group and Cochrane method for rapid systematic reviews. Searching was performed in six electronic databases and evaluated articles published between 2010 and 2020, including among their participants adult subjects who had been exposed to the preventive measures of physical contact restriction. Seven studies met the selection criteria and reported an overall increase in food consumption, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and a change in eating style. Findings suggest that healthy nutrition is affected by preventive measures to restrict physical contact as a result of the COVID-19 syndemic.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document