Efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy on sleep quality: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sleep complaints are reported by 40-60 % of menopausal women. Poor sleep is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. The effect of menopausal hormone therapy on sleep quality is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy on self-reported sleep quality. Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews CENTRAL, and PsycInfo) were searched from 2002 to October 2015. Randomized trials assessing the effect of menopausal hormone therapy with a minimum follow up of 8 weeks were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently and in duplicate. Primary outcome included sleep items within a questionnaire, scale or diary. Standardized mean differences across trials were pooled using random-effects models. The search identified 424 articles, from which 42 trials were included. Seven trials at a moderate to high risk of bias enrolling 15,468 women were pooled in meta-analysis. Menopausal hormone therapy improved sleep quality in women who had vasomotor symptoms at baseline [standardized mean difference -0.54 (-0.91 to -0.18), moderate quality evidence]. No difference was noted when women without such symptoms were analyzed separately or combined. Across 31 sleep quality questionnaires, daytime dysfunction was the most evaluated sleep domain. Menopausal hormone therapy improves sleep in women with concomitant vasomotor symptoms. Heterogeneity of trials regarding study population, formulations, and sleep scales; limit overall certainty in the evidence. Future menopausal hormone therapy trials should include assessment of self-reported sleep quality using standardized scales and adhere to reporting guidelines.

Correction: An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121715.].

An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of published network meta-analysis. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses of pharmaceuticals. We assessed general study characteristics, study transparency and reproducibility, methodological approach, and reporting of findings. We compared studies published in journals with lower impact factors with those published in journals with higher impact factors, studies published prior to January 1st, 2013 with those published after that date, and studies supported financially by industry with those supported by non-profit institutions or that received no support. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 854 citations. Three hundred and eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The number of network meta-analyses has grown rapidly, with 48% of studies published since January 2013. The majority of network meta-analyses were supported by a non-profit institution or received no support (68%). We found considerable inconsistencies among reviewed studies. Eighty percent reported search terms, 61% a network diagram, 65% sufficient data to replicate the analysis, and 90% the characteristics of included trials. Seventy percent performed a risk of bias assessment of included trials, 40% an assessment of model fit, and 56% a sensitivity analysis. Among studies with a closed loop, 69% examined the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Sixty-four percent of studies presented the full matrix of head-to-head treatment comparisons. For Bayesian studies, 41% reported the probability that each treatment was best, 31% reported treatment ranking, and 16% included the model code or referenced publicly-available code. Network meta-analyses published in higher impact factors journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across the assessment criteria. We found few differences between older and newer studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the network meta-analysis literature. Consensus among guidelines is needed improve the methodological quality, transparency, and consistency of study conduct and reporting.