Comparative effectiveness of different placebos and comparator groups for hand osteoarthritis exploring the impact of contextual factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the pain relief effects of comparators (placebos and untreated control groups) in hand osteoarthritis trials and the impact of contextual factors. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to December 26, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of people with hand osteoarthritis with a placebo or an untreated control group. We assessed the Risk of Bias with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool version 2. Each comparator was contrasted with a null-arm, imputed as having a zero change from baseline with the same standard deviation as the comparator. We combined the standardised mean differences with a random effects meta-analysis. The contextual factors' effect was explored in meta-regression and stratified models with pain as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 84 trials (7262 participants) were eligible for quantitative synthesis, of which 76 (6462 participants) were eligible for the stratified analyses. Placebos were superior to their matched null-arms in relieving pain with an effect size of -0.51 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.42), while untreated control groups were not. When analysing all comparators, blinded trial designs and low risk of bias were associated with higher pain relief compared to an open-label trial design and some concern or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The placebo response on pain for people with hand osteoarthritis was increased by appropriate blinding and a lower risk of bias assessment. Placebos were superior to a null-arm, while untreated control groups were not. Results emphasise the importance of using appropriate comparators in clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022298984.

Minor tranquillizers for short-term treatment of newly onset symptoms of anxiety and distress: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Unspecific symptoms of anxiety and distress are frequently encountered in patients in both general practice and acute psychiatric services. Minor tranquillizers may be a treatment option when non-pharmacological interventions are insufficient or unavailable. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis of the evidence for short-term (1-4 weeks) pharmacological treatment of newly onset symptoms of anxiety and distress. We searched the PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework (GRADE). We included 34 randomized trials comprising a total of 7044 patients with adjustment disorders or anxiety spectrum disorders. The network meta-analysis showed that regarding the critical outcome symptoms of anxiety within 1-4 weeks benzodiazepines (SMD - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.77 to - 0.40), quetiapine (SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.90 to - 0.13) and pregabalin (SMD - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.87 to - 0.28) all performed better than placebo with no statistically significant difference between the drugs. Data on other important outcomes were inconsistently reported. Adverse effects varied, but overall, it was uncertain whether adverse effects differed between interventions. The evidence regarding the risk of dependence was uncertain, but dependence may be a concern in susceptible individuals even with short-term treatment. Overall, the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was rated as low to very low across outcomes. Despite the limitations in the evidence, the results of this review can inform treatment guidelines, supporting clinicians in the choice of minor tranquillizer in this prevalent and help-seeking, clinically heterogeneous population.

Hip precautions after posterior-approach total hip arthroplasty among patients with primary hip osteoarthritis do not influence early recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies with 8,835 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hip precautions are routinely prescribed to patients with osteoarthritis to decrease dislocation rates after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a posterior approach. However, recommendations have been based on very low certainty of evidence. We updated the evidence on the influence of hip precautions on early recovery following THA by this systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized (NRS) studies in MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, and CINAHL published from 2016 to July 2022. 2 reviewers independently included studies comparing postoperative precautions with minimal or no precautions, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize the results. The certainty of the evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation approach. The critical outcome was the risk of hip dislocations within 3 months of surgery. Other outcomes were long-term risk of dislocation and reoperation, self-reported and performance-based assessment of function, quality of life, pain, and time to return to work. RESULTS: 4 RCTs and 5 NRSs, including 8,835 participants, were included. There may be no or negligible difference in early hip dislocations (RCTs: risk ratio [RR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-5.2; NRS: RR 0.9, CI 0.3-2.5). Certainty in the evidence was low for RCTs and very low for NRSs. Finally, precautions may reduce the performance-based assessment of function slightly, but the evidence was very uncertain. For all other outcomes, no differences were found (moderate to very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not support routinely prescribing hip precautions post-surgically for patients undergoing THA to prevent hip dislocations. However, the results might change with high-quality studies.

Supervised Training Compared With No Training or Self-training in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from inception to March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials comparing supervised training with (1) no training or (2) self-training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for at least 1 month. Critical outcomes were shoulder pain, function, and patient-perceived effect. Important outcomes included other potential benefits and adverse events at 3-month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data for the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 1, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies (n=597, 43% female) were included. Supervised training resulted in larger improvements than no training on pain (at rest: n=286; mean difference [MD], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-3.06 on 0-10 scale; during movement: n=353; MD, 1.84; 95% CI,0.91-2.76), function (n=396; standardized MD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.07-0.52), and patient-perceived effect (n=118; risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.87-2.34). Supervised training had potential benefits regarding quality of life, return to work, dropout, and training adherence, albeit more patients reported mild, transient pain after training. Supervised training and self-training showed equal improvements on pain (n=44) and function (n=76), with no data describing patient-perceived effect. Certainty of evidence was low for critical outcomes and low-moderate for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised training might be superior to no training and equally effective as self-training on critical and important outcomes. Based on low-moderate certainty of evidence, these findings support a weak recommendation for supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome.

National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy.

PURPOSE: To summarise recommendations about 20 non-surgical interventions for recent onset (<12 weeks) non-specific low back pain (LBP) and lumbar radiculopathy (LR) based on two guidelines from the Danish Health Authority. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary working groups formulated recommendations based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were based on evidence, and four on consensus. Management of LBP and LR should include information about prognosis, warning signs, and advise to remain active. If treatment is needed, the guidelines suggest using patient education, different types of supervised exercise, and manual therapy. The guidelines recommend against acupuncture, routine use of imaging, targeted treatment, extraforaminal glucocorticoid injection, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and opioids. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are based on low to moderate quality evidence or on consensus, but are well aligned with recommendations from international guidelines. The guideline working groups recommend that research efforts in relation to all aspects of management of LBP and LR be intensified.

Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis.

Objectives: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42014014842.

Defining conditions where long-term glucocorticoid treatment has an acceptably low level of harm to facilitate implementation of existing recommendations: viewpoints from an EULAR task force.

There is convincing evidence for the known and unambiguously accepted beneficial effects of glucocorticoids at low dosages. However, the implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines on the management of glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases is lagging behind. As a first step to improve implementation, we aimed at defining conditions under which long-term glucocorticoid therapy may have an acceptably low level of harm. A multidisciplinary European League Against Rheumatism task force group of experts including patients with rheumatic diseases was assembled. After a systematic literature search, breakout groups critically reviewed the evidence on the four most worrisome adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy (osteoporosis, hyperglycaemia/diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and infections) and presented their results to the other group members following a structured questionnaire for final discussion and consensus finding. Robust evidence on the risk of harm of long-term glucocorticoid therapy was often lacking since relevant study results were often either missing, contradictory or carried a high risk of bias. The group agreed that the risk of harm is low for the majority of patients at long-term dosages of ≤5 mg prednisone equivalent per day, whereas at dosages of >10 mg/day the risk of harm is elevated. At dosages between >5 and ≤10 mg/day, patient-specific characteristics (protective and risk factors) determine the risk of harm. The level of harm of glucocorticoids depends on both dose and patient-specific parameters. General and glucocorticoid-associated risk factors and protective factors such as a healthy lifestyle should be taken into account when evaluating the actual and future risk.

Efficacy and safety of biological agents for systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal biologic agent for systemic JIA (sJIA) based on safety and efficacy data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Through a systematic literature search, sJIA RCTs evaluating biologic agents were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a 30% improvement according to the modified American College of Rheumatology Paediatric 30 response criteria (JIA ACR30). The primary safety outcome was defined as serious adverse events (SAEs). Outcomes were analysed by pairwise and network meta-analyses. The quality of evidence between biologic agents was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: From the 493 citations originally identified, 5 RCTs were eligible for inclusion-one each for anakinra, canakinumab and tocilizumab and two for rilonacept: all vs placebo. While all were effective, the network meta-analysis indicated with low-quality evidence (due to indirect comparison and inconsistency) that rilonacept-treated patients were less likely to respond than those treated with canakinumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.10 (95% CI 0.02, 0.38), P = 0.001] or tocilizumab [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03, 0.44), P = 0.001]. Risks of SAEs were similar among the biologic agents (supported by very low-quality evidence) and not different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneous eligibility criteria and study designs across the five studies and different modified JIA ACR30 criteria, this meta-analysis of short-term RCTs presents empirical evidence that canakinumab and tocilizumab are more effective than rilonacept. Biologic agents in sJIA seem safe and comparable with respect to SAE risk in the short term.

Physiotherapy for pain: a meta-epidemiological study of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES: To empirically assess the clinical effects of physiotherapy on pain in adults. DESIGN: Using meta-epidemiology, we report on the effects of a 'physiotherapy' intervention on self-reported pain in adults. For each trial, the group difference in the outcome 'pain intensity' was assessed as standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. Stratified analyses were conducted according to patient population (International Classification of Diseases-10 classes), type of physiotherapy intervention, their interaction, as well as type of comparator group and risks of bias. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed based on GRADE methodology. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE and PEDro from 1 January 2004-31 December 2013. 174 trials (224 comparisons) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials using 'no intervention' or of a sham-controlled design were selected. Only articles written in English were eligible. RESULTS: An overall moderate effect of physiotherapy on pain corresponding to 0.65 SD-units (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) was found based on a moderate inconsistency (I(2)=51%). Stratified exploration showed that therapeutic exercise for musculoskeletal diseases tended to be more beneficial than multimodal interventions (difference 0.30 95% CI 0.03 to 0.57; p=0.03). Trials with a 'no intervention' comparator tended to have a higher overall effect size than trials with a sham comparator (difference 0.25; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; p=0.004). In general, our confidence in the estimates was low, mainly due to high risk of performance biases and between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy reduces pain in adults, but standardisation of interventions and focus on trial research with low risks of bias and reproducible treatment modalities are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014008754.

Effect of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs on the C-reactive protein level in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with a prespecified focus on the different NSAIDs. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in Medline via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBase via OVID, the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science, and other sources. Eligible trials were parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oral NSAID therapy in RA patients for which there were extractable CRP data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated from the differences in means of CRP levels between groups (active treatment minus placebo) divided by the pooled SDs. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to estimate the overall change in CRP level, and stratified analysis was used to examine differences among NSAIDs. RESULTS: We included 19 trials of 10 different NSAIDs. Overall, NSAIDs showed no effect on the CRP level (SMD 0.01 [95% CI -0.03, 0.06], P = 0.62). However, the prespecified stratified analysis indicated varying effects on the CRP level according to the different NSAIDs; lumiracoxib caused a statistically significant and consistent (I(2) = 0%) increase in the CRP level (SMD 0.13 [95% CI 0.01, 0.25], P = 0.037), whereas naproxen caused a statistically significant and consistent (I(2) = 0%) decrease in the CRP level (SMD -0.11 [95% CI -0.20, -0.02], P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Overall, NSAIDs have no effect on the CRP level. However, the nonselective NSAID naproxen was associated with a significant decrease in the CRP level, whereas the cyclooxygenase 2-selective NSAID lumiracoxib was associated with a significant increase in the CRP level. This finding is interesting considering the suspected influence of NSAIDs on cardiovascular complications.

The short-term and long-term adverse effects of melatonin treatment in children and adolescents: a systematic review and GRADE assessment.

Background: Currently, melatonin is used to treat children and adolescents with insomnia without knowing the full extent of the short-term and long-term consequences. Our aim was to provide clinicians and guideline panels with a systematic assessment of serious-and non-serious adverse events seen in continuation of melatonin treatment and the impact on pubertal development and bone health following long-term administration in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and PsycINFO via Ovid, up to March 17, 2023, for studies on melatonin treatment among children and adolescents (aged 5-20 years) with chronic insomnia. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Outcomes were non-serious adverse events and serious adverse events assessed 2-4 weeks after initiating treatment and pubertal development and bone health, with no restriction on definition or time of measurement. Observational studies were included for the assessment of long-term outcomes, and serious and non-serious adverse events were assessed via randomised studies. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We identified 22 randomised studies with 1350 patients reporting on serious-and non-serious adverse events and four observational studies with a total of 105 patients reporting on pubertal development. Melatonin was not associated with serious adverse events, yet the number of patients experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.43, 17 studies, I2 = 47%). Three studies reported little or no influence on pubertal development following 2-4 years of treatment, whereas one study registered a potential delay following longer treatment durations (>7 years). These findings need further evaluation due to several methodological limitations. Interpretation: Children who use melatonin are likely to experience non-serious adverse events, yet the actual extent to which melatonin leads to non-serious adverse events and the long-term consequences remain uncertain. This major gap of knowledge on safety calls for caution against complacent use of melatonin in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia and for more research to inform clinicians and guideline panels on this key issue. Funding: The Danish Health Authority. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, supported by the Oak Foundation.

Use of melatonin for children and adolescents with chronic insomnia attributable to disorders beyond indication: a systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendation.

Background: Melatonin has become a widely used sleeping aid for young individuals currently not included in existing guidelines. The aim was to develop a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 2-20 years, with chronic insomnia due to disorders beyond indication. Methods: We performed a systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomised trials (RCTs) in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A separate search for adverse events was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 17, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (2-20 years of age) with chronic insomnia due to underlying disorders, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. Studies exclusively on autism spectrum disorders or attention deficit hyperactive disorder were excluded. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events, assessed at 2-4 weeks post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, non-serious adverse events, and all-cause dropouts (assessed at 2-4 weeks post-treatment), plus quality of sleep and daytime functioning (assessed at 3-6 months post-treatment). Pooled estimates were calculated using inverse variance random effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. A multidisciplinary guideline panel constructed the recommendation using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation and its impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We identified 13 RCTs, including 403 patients with a wide range of conditions. Melatonin reduced sleep latency by 14.88 min (95% CI 23.42-6.34, 9 studies, I2 = 60%) and increased total sleep time by 18.97 min (95% CI 0.37-37.57, 10 studies, I2 = 57%). The funnel plot for total sleep time showed no apparent indication of publication bias. No other clinical benefits were found. The number of patients experiencing adverse events was not statistically increased however, safety data was scarce. Certainty of evidence was low. Interpretation: Low certainty evidence supports a moderate effect of melatonin in treating sleep continuity parameters in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia due to primarily medical disorders beyond indication. The off-label use of melatonin for these patients should never be the first choice of treatment, but may be considered by medical specialists with knowledge of the underlying disorder and if non-pharmacological interventions are inadequate. If treatment with melatonin is initiated, adequate follow-up to evaluate treatment effect and adverse events is essential. Funding: The Danish Health Authority. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, supported by the Oak Foundation.

Use of melatonin in children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical recommendation.

Background: Melatonin prescriptions for children and adolescents have increased substantially during the last decade. Existing clinical recommendations focus on melatonin as a treatment for insomnia related to neurodevelopmental disorders. To help guide clinical decision-making, we aimed to construct a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 5-20 years with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Methods: A systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A search for adverse events in otherwise healthy children and adolescents was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 18, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (5-20 years of age) with idiopathic chronic insomnia, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption, or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, all-cause dropouts, and non-serious adverse events. Outcomes were assessed at different time points to assess short-term and long-term effects. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random-effects model and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. If possible, funnel plots would be constructed to investigate publication bias. Heterogeneity was calculated via I2 statistics. A multidisciplinary guideline panel formulated the recommendation according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was subsequently used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation alongside the impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We included eight RCTs with 419 children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Melatonin led to a moderate increase in total sleep time by 30.33 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.96-41.70, 4 studies, I2 = 0%) and a moderate reduction in sleep latency by 18.03 min (95% CI -26.61 to -9.44, 3 studies, I2 = 0%), both as assessed by sleep diary. No other beneficial effects were found. None of the studies provided information on serious adverse events, yet the number of participants experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 3.44, 95% CI 1.25-9.42, 4 studies, I2 = 0%). Funnel plots were not constructed due to the low number of studies. The certainty of evidence was very low on the quality of sleep and low for daytime functioning. Interpretation: Evidence of very low certainty shows that benefits are limited and unwanted events are likely when melatonin is used to treat otherwise healthy children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Melatonin should never be the first choice of treatment for this particular population, yet carefully monitored short-term use may be considered if sleep hygiene practices and non-pharmacological interventions have proven inadequate, and only if daytime function is compromised. Funding: The Danish Health Authority and the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital supported by the Oak Foundation.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 26 December 2021, for randomised trials of pharmacological interventions for people with hand OA. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the effect sizes for pain (standardised mean differences) using Bayesian random effects models for network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. Based on a pre-specified protocol, we prospectively registered the study at PROSPERO, CRD42021215393. RESULTS: We included 72 trials with 7609 participants. 65 trials (n=5957) were eligible for the quantitative synthesis, investigating 29 pharmacological interventions. Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral glucocorticoids' NMA effect sizes were -0.18 (95% credible interval -0.36 to 0.02) and -0.54 (-0.83 to -0.24), respectively, compared with placebo, and the result was consistent when limiting evidence to the pairwise meta-analysis of trials without high risk of bias. Intra-articular hyaluronate, intra-articular glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and topical NSAIDs' NMA effect sizes were 0.22 (-0.08 to 0.51), 0.25 (0.00 to 0.51), -0.01 (-0.19 to 0.18), and -0.14 (-0.33 to 0.08), respectively, compared with placebo. Oral NSAIDs were inferior to oral glucocorticoids with an NMA effect size of 0.36 (0.01 to 0.72). No intervention was superior to placebo when stratifying for thumb and finger OA. CONCLUSION: Oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoids are apparently effective pharmacological interventions in hand OA. Intra-articular therapies and topical NSAIDs were not superior to placebo.

Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Inflammatory Arthritis and Osteoarthritis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms associated with biopsychosocial rehabilitation in patients with inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data were collected through electronic searches of Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases up to March 2019. Trials examining the effect of biopsychosocial rehabilitation in adults with inflammatory arthritis and/or OA were considered eligible, excluding rehabilitation adjunct to surgery. The primary outcome for benefit was pain and total withdrawals for harm. RESULTS: Of the 27 trials meeting the eligibility criteria, 22 trials (3,750 participants) reported sufficient data to be included in the quantitative synthesis. For patient-reported outcome measures, biopsychosocial rehabilitation was slightly superior to control for pain relief (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.19 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.31, -0.07]), had a small effect on patient global assessment score (SMD -0.13 [95% CI -0.26, -0.00]), with no apparent effect on health-related quality of life, fatigue, self-reported disability/physical function, mental well-being, and reduction in pain intensity ≥30%. Clinician-measured outcomes displayed a small effect on observed disability/physical function (SMD -0.34 [95% CI -0.57, -0.10]), a large effect on physician global assessment score (SMD -0.72 [95% CI -1.18, -0.26]), and no effect on inflammation. No difference in harms existed in terms of the number of withdrawals, adverse events, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Biopsychosocial rehabilitation produces a significant but clinically small beneficial effect on patient-reported pain among patients with inflammatory arthritis and OA, with no difference in harm. Methodologic weaknesses were observed in the included trials, suggesting low-to-moderate confidence in the estimates of effect.

A Meta-Analysis of Antipsychotic-Induced Hypo- and Hyperprolactinemia in Children and Adolescents.

Objective: Antipsychotic-related prolactin changes may expose children and adolescents to severe adverse reactions (ARs) related to pubertal development and growth. We therefore aimed to assess the effects of antipsychotics on prolactin levels and associated somatic ARs in children and adolescents. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and CENTRAL for placebo-controlled randomized trials of antipsychotics in children and adolescents aged ≤18 years, reporting prolactin levels and related ARs. We conducted a random-effect meta-analysis and assessed risk of bias version 2 (ROB2). Results: Thirty-two randomized controlled trials with an average trial duration of 6 weeks, covering 4643 participants with an average age of 13 years and a male majority of 65.3%. Risk of bias across domains was low or unclear. The following antipsychotic compounds: aripiprazole (n = 810), asenapine (n = 506), lurasidone (n = 314), olanzapine (n = 179), paliperidone (n = 149), quetiapine (n = 381), risperidone (n = 609), and ziprasidone (n = 16) were compared with placebo (n = 1658). Compared with placebo, statistically significant higher prolactin increase occurred with risperidone (mean difference [MD] = 28.24 ng/mL), paliperidone (20.98 ng/mL), and olanzapine (11.34 ng/mL). Aripiprazole significantly decreased prolactin (MD = -4.91 ng/mL), whereas quetiapine, lurasidone, and asenapine were not associated with significantly different prolactin levels than placebo. Our results on ziprasidone are based on a single study, making it insufficient to draw strong conclusions. On average, 20.8% of patients treated with antipsychotic developed levels of prolactin that were too high (hyperprolactinemia), whereas only 1.03% of patients reported prolactin-related ARs. Data were highly limited for long-term effects. Conclusions: In children and adolescents, risperidone, paliperidone, and olanzapine are associated with significant prolactin increase, whereas aripiprazole is associated with significant decrease. Despite the significant changes in prolactin level, few ARs were reported. Study protocol on PROSPERO: CRD42018116451.

Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

Evidence-Based Research on Effectiveness of Periodontal Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To gauge the evidence of periodontal therapy's impact on measures of disease activity and systemic inflammatory burden in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A search for randomized trials and controlled cohort studies of RA patients with periodontitis was conducted on April 7, 2019, with an update on December 17, 2020 in PubMed, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform portal. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and selected papers for full-text review. We used Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-endorsed outcome domains for RA trials and summarized continuous outcomes using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We evaluated inconsistency using the I2 statistic and combined SMDs using random-effects models for the meta-analyses; fixed-effect meta-analyses were used for sensitivity analysis. To explore heterogeneity, we added stratified/meta-regression analyses, expressed in T2 . RESULTS: Of the 1,909 studies identified, 9 (including 10 comparisons) were eligible for quantitative synthesis (n = 388). Evidence suggested a favorable effect of periodontal treatment on disease activity (SMD -0.88 [95% CI -1.38, -0.38]; n = 311). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge the estimates' certainty; evidence rated as having low or very low certainty indicated that any possible effect of periodontal treatment in RA is likely to change as more evidence is provided. Selection bias and RA medication stability were highlighted as sources of heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for a well-designed prospective cohort study (preferably a randomized controlled trial) of patients with RA and periodontitis using rigorous protocols, standardized diagnostic criteria, data collection, and adequate duration of follow-up.

The Effect of a Combined Gluten- and Casein-Free Diet on Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There has been a growing interest in the gastrointestinal system and its significance for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including the significance of adopting a gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) diet. The objective was to investigate beneficial and safety of a GFCF diet among children with a diagnosis of ASD. We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020 for existing systematic reviews and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were included if they investigated a GFCF diet compared to a regular diet in children aged 3 to 17 years diagnosed with ASD, with or without comorbidities. The quality of the identified existing reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and overall quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We identified six relevant RCTs, which included 143 participants. The results from a random effect model showed no effect of a GFCF diet on clinician-reported autism core symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.31 (95% Cl. -0.89, 0.27)), parent-reported functional level (mean difference (MD) 0.61 (95% Cl -5.92, 7.14)) or behavioral difficulties (MD 0.80 (95% Cl -6.56, 10.16)). On the contrary, a GFCF diet might trigger gastrointestinal adverse effects (relative risk (RR) 2.33 (95% Cl 0.69, 7.90)). The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low due to serious risk of bias, serious risk of inconsistency, and serious risk of imprecision. Clinical implications of the present findings may be careful consideration of introducing a GFCF diet to children with ASD. However, the limitations of the current literature hinder the possibility of drawing any solid conclusion, and more high-quality RCTs are needed. The protocol is registered at the Danish Health Authority website.

Parent-Mediated Interventions for Children and Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There has been increasing interest in parent-mediated interventions (PMIs) for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of PMIs compared to no PMI for children with ASD aged 2-17 years. The primary outcome was adaptive functioning rated by a parent or clinician. The secondary outcomes were long-term adaptive functioning rated by the parents, adverse events, core symptoms of ASD, disruptive behavior, parental well-being, quality of life of the child rated by the parents and anxiety. The MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched in March 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to rate the individual studies, and the certainty in the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. We identified 30 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 1,934 participants. A clinically relevant effect of PMIs on parent-rated adaptive functioning was found with a low certainty of evidence [Standard mean difference (SMD): 0.28 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.57)] on Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), whereas no clinically relevant effect was seen for clinician-rated functional level, with a very low certainty of evidence [SMD on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity scale: SMD -0.45 [95% CI: -0.87, -0.03)]. PMIs may slightly improve clinician-rated autism core symptoms [SMD: -0.35 (95% CI: -0.71, 0.02)]. Additionally, no effect of PMIs on parent-rated core symptoms of ASD, parental well-being or adverse effects was identified, all with a low certainty of evidence. There was a moderate certainty of evidence for a clinically relevant effect on disruptive behavior [SMD: 0.55 (95% Cl: 0.36, 0.74)]. The certainty in the evidence was downgraded due to serious risk of bias, lack of blinding, and serious risk of imprecision due to few participants included in meta-analyses. The present findings suggest that clinicians may consider introducing PMIs to children with ASD, but more high-quality RCTs are needed because the effects are not well-established, and the results are likely to change with future studies. The protocol for the systematic review is registered at the Danish Health Authority website (www.sst.dk).