Antibiotics for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide with approximately 7.4 million deaths each year. People with established coronary heart disease have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Antibiotics might prevent such outcomes due to their antibacterial, antiinflammatory, and antioxidative effects. However, a randomised clinical trial and several observational studies have suggested that antibiotics may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Furthermore, several non-Cochrane Reviews, that are now outdated, have assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease and have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotics compared with placebo or no intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS in December 2019 in order to identify relevant trials. Additionally, we searched TRIP, Google Scholar, and nine trial registries in December 2019. We also contacted 11 pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included trials, previous systematic reviews, and other types of reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in adult participants (≥18 years). Trials were included irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse event according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. Additionally, we extracted outcome data at 24±6 months follow-up. We assessed the risks of systematic errors using Cochrane 'Rosk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) or increase (ARI) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) if the outcome result showed a beneficial or harmful effect, respectively. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials randomising a total of 26,638 participants (mean age 61.6 years), with 23/38 trials reporting data on 26,078 participants that could be meta-analysed. Three trials were at low risk of bias and the 35 remaining trials were at high risk of bias. Trials assessing the effects of macrolides (28 trials; 22,059 participants) and quinolones (two trials; 4162 participants) contributed with the vast majority of the data. Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention seemed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.48%; NNTH 208; 25,774 participants; 20 trials; high certainty of evidence), stroke (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.73%; NNTH 138; 14,774 participants; 9 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; P = 0.11; I2= 0%; 4674 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Little to no difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.23; I2 = 0%; 25,523 participants; 17 trials; high certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing sudden cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.31; P = 0.41; I2 = 0%; 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses at 24±6 months follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.26%; NNTH 79 (95% CI 335 to 42); 9517 participants; 6 trials; high certainty of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.91; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.12%; NNTH 89 (95% CI 261 to 49); 9044 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also sudden cardiac death (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.44; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.9%; NNTH 53 (95% CI 145 to 28); 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.53; I2 = 43%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; moderate certainty of evidence) and stroke (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias differed from the overall analyses when assessing cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow-up. For all other outcomes, meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias did not differ from the overall analyses. None of the trials specifically assessed serious adverse event according to ICH-GCP. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that antibiotics (macrolides or quinolones) for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease seem harmful when assessing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke at maximum follow-up and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and sudden cardiac death at 24±6 months follow-up. Current evidence does, therefore, not support the clinical use of macrolides and quinolones for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Future trials on the safety of macrolides or quinolones for the secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease do not seem ethical. In general, randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics, especially macrolides and quinolones, need longer follow-up so that late-occurring adverse events can also be assessed.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are still harmful and ineffective. Responses to the comments by Hieronymus et al.

In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.

Great boast, small roast on effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: response to a critique of our systematic review.

Our systematic review in BMC Psychiatry concluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo significantly increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with major depression and the potential beneficial effects of SSRIs seem to be outweighed by the harms. Hieronymus et al. accused us of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors. In their post-hoc analysis of our data, they reported that SSRIs only increase the risk of SAEs in elderly and seems safe for non-elderly patients. They also found our review misleading because our efficacy analyses were based on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; we included suboptimal SSRI doses; and we missed some 'pivotal trials'. We do not agree with Hieronymus et al. regarding several of the 'errors' they claim that we have made. However, we acknowledge that they have identified minor errors and that we missed some trials. After rectifying the errors and inclusion of the missed trials by us and Hieronymus et al., we re-analysed the data. The updated analyses are even more robust and confirm our earlier conclusions. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of an SAE both in non-elderly (p=0.045) and elderly (p=0.01) patients [overall odds ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.73; p=0.002; I2=0%]. Moreover, SSRIs did not change noticeably the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the internationally accepted scale (mean difference -2.02 points; 95% CI -2.38 to -1.66; p<0.00001). We found no differential effect of dose (p=0.20).

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Effects of primary or secondary prevention with vitamin A supplementation on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age. METHODS: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I²=24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I²=24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I²=66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104347.

Individualised versus standard duration of antibiotic therapy in children with acute uncomplicated febrile urinary tract infection: a study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile urinary tract infection is one of the most common bacterial infections in children. Currently, recommended antibiotic duration is 10 days. However, recent evidence suggests that 90%-95% of children with febrile urinary tract infections are afebrile and clinically improved 48-72 hours after treatment initiation. Accordingly, individualised duration of antibiotic therapy, according to the recovery time, might be more beneficial than current recommendations, but no evidence exists. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An open-label randomised clinical trial equally randomising children aged 3 months to 12 years from eight Danish paediatric departments with uncomplicated febrile (≥38°C) urinary tract infection to either individualised or standard duration of antibiotic therapy. Children allocated to individualised duration of antibiotic therapy will terminate antibiotic therapy 3 days after clinical improvement with no fever, flank pain or dysuria. Children allocated to standard duration will receive 10 days of antibiotic therapy. Co-primary outcomes are non-inferiority for recurrent urinary tract infection or death within 28 days after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 7.5 percentage points) and superiority for the number of days with antibiotic therapy within 28 days after treatment initiation. Seven other outcomes will also be assessed. A total of 408 participants are needed to detect non-inferiority (one-sided alpha 2.5%; beta 80%). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee (H-21057310) and the Data Protection Agency (P-2022-68) in Denmark. Regardless of the trial's findings (whether positive, negative or inconclusive), the results will be compiled into one or more manuscripts for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05301023.

Fever therapy in febrile adults: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of fever therapy compared with no fever therapy in a wide population of febrile adults. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, BIOSIS, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection, searched from their inception to 2 July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials in adults diagnosed as having fever of any origin. Included experimental interventions were any fever therapy, and the control intervention had to be no fever therapy (with or without placebo/sham). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were all cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and trial sequential analyses, and the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Forty two trials assessing 5140 participants were included. Twenty three trials assessed 11 different antipyretic drugs, 11 trials assessed physical cooling, and eight trials assessed a combination of antipyretic drugs and physical cooling. Of the participants, 3007 were critically ill, 1892 were non-critically ill, 3277 had infectious fever, and 1139 had non-infectious fever. All trials were assessed as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of death (risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.19; I2=0%; P=0.62; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 1.02, 0.89 to 1.17; I2=0%; P=0.78; 16 trials; high certainty evidence) could be rejected. One trial assessing quality of life was included, showing no difference between fever therapy and control. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that the hypothesis that fever therapy reduces the risk of non-serious adverse events could be neither confirmed nor rejected (risk ratio 0.92, 0.67 to 1.25; I2=66.5%; P=0.58; four trials; very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Fever therapy does not seem to affect the risk of death and serious adverse events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019134006.

Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure. DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure. INFORMATION SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of 'cardiac failure' (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), 'hospitalisations' (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and 'ventricular tachycardia' (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=-5.28; 95% CI -6.60 to -3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: High certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112082.

Fever control interventions versus placebo, sham or no intervention in adults: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Fever is an integral part of the inflammatory response and has therefore likely a physiological role in fighting infections. Nevertheless, whether fever in itself is beneficial or harmful in adults is unknown. This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the beneficial and harmful effects of fever control interventions in adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol for a systematic review was conducted following the recommendations of Cochrane, GRADE and the eight-step assessment suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues for better validation of meta-analytical results in systematic reviews. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials comparing any fever control intervention with placebo, sham or no intervention in adults. We plan to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed and classified as either at high risk of bias or low risk of bias, and our primary conclusions will be based on trials at low risk of bias. We will perform our meta-analyses of the extracted data using Review Manager 5.3 and Trial Sequential Analysis. For all our outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table based on GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal approval or review of ethics is required for this systematic review as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe fever to be beneficial, harmful or neither in adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps on this topic; and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are correct. These results will be disseminated through publication in a leading peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134006.

Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing survival, cardiovascular disease remains the primary cause of death worldwide with an estimated 7.4 million annual deaths. The main symptom of ischaemic heart disease is chest pain (angina pectoris) most often caused by blockage of a coronary artery. The aim of coronary artery bypass surgery is revascularisation achieved by surgically grafting harvested arteries or veins distal to the coronary lesion restoring blood flow to the heart muscle. Older evidence suggested a clear survival benefit of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but more recent trials yield less clear evidence. We want to assess the benefits and harms of coronary artery bypass surgery combined with different medical therapies versus medical therapy alone in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review follows the recommendations of Cochrane and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all randomised clinical trials assessing coronary artery bypass surgery combined with different medical therapies versus medical therapy alone in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We plan to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, and BIOSIS to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed as high risk or low risk of bias, and our conclusions will primarily be based on trials at low risk of bias. The analyses of the extracted data will be performed using Review Manager 5, STATA 16 and trial sequential analysis. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. DISCUSSION: Coronary artery bypass surgery is invasive and can cause death, which is why its use must be thoroughly studied to determine if it yields a large enough long-term benefit for the thousands of patients receiving it every year. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID 131924.

Digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS: 28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052935.

Digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial flutter, another arrhythmia, occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA. Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities. In the management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, it is often necessary to use medical interventions to lower the heart rate. Lowering the heart rate may theoretically prevent the development of heart failure and tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy. The evidence on the benefits and harms of digoxin compared with placebo or with other medical interventions is unclear. This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the beneficial and harmful effects of digoxin compared with placebo, no intervention, or with other medical interventions for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review was conducted following the recommendations of Cochrane and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials comparing digoxin with placebo, no intervention, or with other medical interventions. We plan to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, and BIOSIS to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed and classified as either at high risk of bias or low risk of bias, and our primary conclusions will be based on trials with low risk of bias. We will perform our meta-analyses of the extracted data using Review Manager 5.3 and Trial Sequential Analysis ver. 0.9.5.5 beta. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table based on GRADE assessments of the quality of the evidence. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit millions of patients worldwide as well as healthcare economy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052935.

The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial flutter, another arrhythmia, occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA. Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities. The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aiming at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy. The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear. This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review was performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of any rhythm control strategy versus any rate control strategy. We plan to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, and BIOSIS to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed and classified as either high risk of bias or low risk of bias, and our conclusions will be based on trials with low risk of bias. The analyses of the extracted data will be performed using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table and use GRADE assessment to assess the quality of the evidence. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thousands of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016051433.

The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter may be managed by either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy but the evidence on the clinical effects of these two intervention strategies is unclear. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, TRIP, EU-CTR, Chi-CTR, and ICTRP for eligible trials comparing any rhythm control strategy with any rate control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter published before November 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were stroke and ejection fraction. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analysis and chose the most conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by calculating inconsistency (I2) for traditional meta-analyses and diversity (D2) for TSA. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the reasons for substantial statistical heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of publication bias in meta-analyses consisting of 10 trials or more with tests for funnel plot asymmetry. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS: 25 randomized clinical trials (n = 9354 participants) were included, all of which were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies significantly increased the risk of a serious adverse event (risk ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I2 = 12% (95% CI 0.00 to 0.32); 21 trials), but TSA did not confirm this result (TSA-adjusted CI 0.99 to 1.22). The increased risk of a serious adverse event did not seem to be caused by any single component of the composite outcome. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies were associated with better SF-36 physical component score (mean difference (MD), 6.93 points; 95% CI, 2.25 to 11.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 95% (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96); 8 trials) and ejection fraction (MD, 4.20%; 95% CI, 0.54 to 7.87; P = 0.02; I2 = 79% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.85); 7 trials), but TSA did not confirm these results. Both meta-analysis and TSA showed no significant differences on all-cause mortality, SF-36 mental component score, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm control strategies compared with rate control strategies seem to significantly increase the risk of a serious adverse event in patients with atrial fibrillation. Based on current evidence, it seems that most patients with atrial fibrillation should be treated with a rate control strategy unless there are specific reasons (e.g., patients with unbearable symptoms due to atrial fibrillation or patients who are hemodynamically unstable due to atrial fibrillation) justifying a rhythm control strategy. More randomized trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016051433.