Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines.

Importance: Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms. Objective: To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children. Evidence Review: Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed. Findings: For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

An analysis of quality of life and functional outcomes as reported in randomized trials for red cell transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion typically focus on mortality; however, other outcomes are highly relevant. The aim of this study is to summarize the effects of different transfusion thresholds on the outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and function. STUDY DESIGN: We extracted data from RCTs identified in a recently published Cochrane systematic review. Primary analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 23 RCTs with 13,743 adult participants were included. Fifteen RCTs included patients in the postoperative period, of which 9 RCTs were conducted in hip (n = 3024) and 6 (n = 8672) in cardiac surgeries; 5 RCTs (n = 489) were in patients with hematological malignancies; 2 in the setting of bleeding (gastrointestinal bleed [n = 936] and postpartum [n = 521]); and one RCT (n = 936) included critically ill patients. QoL and function were reported using a variety of questionnaires and tools. The timing of assessments varied between trials. No clear clinical differences in QoL outcomes were identified in comparisons between restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. DISCUSSION: There is no evidence that a liberal transfusion strategy improves QoL and functional outcomes. However, the substantial limitations of many included studies indicate the need for further well-designed and adequately powered trials.

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for people with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: About two thirds of people with chronic pain report problems sleeping. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological sleep interventions for improving sleep in people with chronic pain. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of non-pharmacological and non-invasive interventions to improve sleep quality or duration for adults with chronic non-cancer pain evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Our primary outcome of interest was sleep; secondary outcomes included pain, health-related quality of life, and psychological wellbeing. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to April 2020. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: We included 42 trials involving 3346 people randomised to 94 groups, of which 56 received an intervention targeting sleep. 10 studies were of fair and 32 of good methodological quality. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low in 11, high in 10 and unclear in 21 studies. In 9 studies with 385 people randomised, cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia showed benefit post-treatment compared with controls for improved sleep quality, standardised mean difference - 1.23 (95%CI -1.76, - 0.70; p < 0.00001). The effect size was only slightly reduced in meta-analysis of 3 studies at low risk of bias. The difference between groups was lower at 3 and 6 months after treatment but still favoured cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Pain, anxiety and depression were reduced post-treatment, but evidence of longer term benefit was lacking. There was no evidence that sleep hygiene interventions were effective in improving sleep and there was some evidence in comparative studies to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was more effective than sleep hygiene. Numerous other interventions were evaluated in small numbers of studies, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is an effective treatment to improve sleep for people with chronic pain, but further high-quality primary research is required to explore combined CBT content that will ensure additional improvements to pain, quality of life and psychological health and longer-term maintenance of benefits. Primary research is also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for which insufficient evidence exists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019093799 .

Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion.

BACKGROUND: The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care.  OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL). SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We  checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL.  Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure.  Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.

Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for oral paraquat poisoning.

BACKGROUND: This an update of a Cochrane Review. Paraquat is a widely used herbicide, but is also a lethal poison. In some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) paraquat is commonly available and inexpensive, making poisoning prevention difficult. Most of the people poisoned by paraquat have taken it as a means of self-poisoning. Standard treatment for paraquat poisoning prevents further absorption and reduces the load of paraquat in the blood through haemoperfusion or haemodialysis. The effectiveness of standard treatments is extremely limited. The immune system plays an important role in exacerbating paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. Immunosuppressive treatment using glucocorticoid and cyclophosphamide in combination has been developed and studied as an intervention for paraquat poisoning. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for moderate to severe oral paraquat poisoning. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent searches were run in September 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Injuries Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), and trials registries. We also searched the following three resources: China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI ); Wanfang Data (); and VIP () on 12 November 2020. We examined the reference lists of included studies and review papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). For this update, in accordance with Cochrane Injuries' Group policy (2015), we included only prospectively registered RCTs for trials published after 2010. We included trials which assessed the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide delivered in combination. Eligible comparators were standard care (with or without a placebo), or any other therapy in addition to standard care. Outcomes of interest included mortality and infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated the mortality risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Where possible, we summarised data for all-cause mortality at relevant time periods (from hospital discharge to three months after discharge) in meta-analysis, using a fixed-effect model. We conducted sensitivity analyses based on factors including whether participants were assessed at baseline for plasma paraquat levels. We also reported data on infections within one week after initiation of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials with a total of 463 participants. The included studies were conducted in Taiwan (Republic of China), Iran, and Sri Lanka. Most participants were male. The mean age of participants was 28 years. We judged two of the four included studies, including the largest and most recently conducted study (n = 299), to be at low risk of bias for key domains including sequence generation. We assessed one study to be at high risk of selection bias and another at unclear risk, since allocation concealment was either not mentioned in the trial report or explicitly not undertaken. We assessed three of the four studies to be at unclear risk of selective reporting, as no protocols could be identified. An important source of heterogeneity amongst the included studies was the method of assessment of participants' baseline severity using analysis of plasma levels (two studies employed this method, whilst the other two did not). No studies assessed the outcome of mortality at 30 days following ingestion of paraquat. Low-certainty evidence from two studies indicates that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce the risk of death in hospital compared to standard care alone ((RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99; participants = 322); results come from sensitivity analysis excluding studies not assessing plasma at baseline). However, we have limited confidence in this finding as heterogeneity was high (I2 = 77%) and studies varied in terms of size and comparators. A single large study provided data showing that there may be little or no effect of treatment at three months post discharge from hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 1 study, 293 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, analysis of long-term results amongst participants whose injuries arose from self-poisoning must be interpreted with caution. We remain uncertain of the effect of glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide on infection within one week after initiation of the treatment; this outcome was assessed by two small studies only (31 participants, very low-certainty evidence) that considered leukopenia as a proxy or risk factor for infection. Neither study reported infections in any participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainly evidence suggests that glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may slightly reduce mortality in hospitalised people with oral paraquat poisoning. However, we have limited confidence in this finding because of substantial heterogeneity and concerns about imprecision. Glucocorticoids with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may have little or no effect on mortality at three months after hospital discharge. We are uncertain whether glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide puts patients at an increased risk of infection due to the limited evidence available for this outcome. Future research should be prospectively registered and CONSORT-compliant. Investigators should attempt to ensure an adequate sample size, screen participants for inclusion rigorously, and seek long-term follow-up of participants. Investigators may wish to research the effects of glucocorticoid in combination with other treatments.

Choice between implants in knee replacement: protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis, analysis of joint registries and economic decision model to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knee implants for NHS patients-The KNee Implant Prostheses Study (KNIPS).

INTRODUCTION: Knee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Systematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient-public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015.

Effects of presurgical interventions on chronic pain after total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Nearly 100 000 primary total knee replacements (TKR) are performed in the UK annually. The primary aim of TKR is pain relief, but 10%-34% of patients report chronic pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of presurgical interventions in preventing chronic pain after TKR. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched from inception to December 2018. Screening and data extraction were performed by two authors. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Pain at 6 months or longer; adverse events. INTERVENTIONS: Presurgical interventions aimed at improving TKR outcomes. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with data from 960 participants were included. The studies involved nine eligible comparisons. We found moderate-quality evidence of no effect of exercise programmes on chronic pain after TKR, based on a meta-analysis of 6 interventions with 229 participants (standardised mean difference 0.20, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.47, I2=0%). Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies at overall low risk of bias confirmed findings. Another RCT of exercise with no data available for meta-analysis showed no benefit. Studies evaluating combined exercise and education intervention (n=1) and education alone (n=1) suggested similar findings. Adverse event data were reported by most studies, but events were too few to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: We found low to moderate-quality evidence to suggest that neither preoperative exercise, education nor a combination of both is effective in preventing chronic pain after TKR. This review also identified a lack of evaluations of other preoperative interventions, such as multimodal pain management, which may improve long-term pain outcomes after TKR. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017041382.

Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.

Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the ICP. Hypertonic saline (HTS) is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of HTS compared with other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI is still debated, both in the short and the long term. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches using four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HTS versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute TBI of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long term outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled ICP (defined as failure to decrease the ICP to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events (AEs) (e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, involving data from 295 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (89%) had a diagnosis of severe TBI. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than TBI and in one trial, there were concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one study and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two studies. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an ICP-lowering agent and one at discharge from ICU. Only three studies collected data after release from hospital. Due to variation in modes of drug administration, follow-up times, and ways of reporting changes in ICP, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled ICP', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated ICP but that HTS had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain hemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. Evidence for all outcomes is considered very low, as assessed by GRADE. All conclusions were downgraded due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of patients without TBI), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects (AEs) - a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). No data were reported on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, investigators do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review set out to find trials comparing HTS to a potential range of other ICP-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that HTS is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute TBI. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Issues such as the type of TBI suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given should be investigated.

Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: High intracranial pressure (ICP) is the most frequent cause of death and disability after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is usually treated with general maneuvers (normothermia, sedation, etc.) and a set of first-line therapeutic measures (moderate hypocapnia, mannitol, etc.). When these measures fail, second-line therapies are initiated, which include: barbiturates, hyperventilation, moderate hypothermia, or removal of a variable amount of skull bone (secondary decompressive craniectomy). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of secondary decompressive craniectomy (DC) on outcomes of patients with severe TBI in whom conventional medical therapeutic measures have failed to control raised ICP. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent search was run on 8 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S). We also searched trials registries and contacted experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized studies assessing patients over the age of 12 months with severe TBI who either underwent DC to control ICP refractory to conventional medical treatments or received standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected potentially relevant studies from the search results, and obtained study reports. Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (590 participants). One single-site trial included 27 children; another multicenter trial (three countries) recruited 155 adults, the third trial was conducted in 24 countries, and recruited 408 adolescents and adults. Each study compared DC combined with standard care (this could include induced barbiturate coma or cooling of the brain, or both). All trials measured outcomes up to six months after injury; one also measured outcomes at 12 and 24 months (the latter data remain unpublished). All trials were at a high risk of bias for the criterion of performance bias, as neither participants nor personnel could be blinded to these interventions. The pediatric trial was at a high risk of selection bias and stopped early; another trial was at risk of bias because of atypical inclusion criteria and a change to the primary outcome after it had started. Mortality: pooled results for three studies provided moderate quality evidence that risk of death at six months was slightly reduced with DC (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.01; 3 studies, 571 participants; I2 = 38%; moderate-quality evidence), and one study also showed a clear reduction in risk of death at 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Neurological outcome: conscious of controversy around the traditional dichotomization of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scale, we chose to present results in three ways, in order to contextualize factors relevant to clinical/patient decision-making. First, we present results of death in combination with vegetative status, versus other outcomes. Two studies reported results at six months for 544 participants. One employed a lower ICP threshold than the other studies, and showed an increase in the risk of death/vegetative state for the DC group. The other study used a more conventional ICP threshold, and results favoured the DC group (15.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR) (95% CI 6% to 25%). The number needed to treat for one beneficial outcome (NNTB) (i.e. to avoid death or vegetative status) was seven. The pooled result for DC compared with standard care showed no clear benefit for either group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.13; 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 86%; low-quality evidence). One study reported data for this outcome at 12 months, when the risk for death or vegetative state was clearly reduced by DC compared with medical treatment (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). Second, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' evaluated on a non-traditional dichotomized GOS-Extended scale (GOS-E), that is, grouping the category 'upper severe disability' into the 'good outcome' grouping. Data were available for two studies (n = 571). Pooling indicated little difference between DC and standard care regarding the risk of an unfavorable outcome at six months following injury (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.63; 544 participants); heterogeneity was high, with an I2 value of 82%. One trial reported data at 12 months and indicated a clear benefit of DC (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; 373 participants). Third, we assessed the risk of an 'unfavorable outcome' using the (traditional) dichotomized GOS/GOS-E cutoff into 'favorable' versus 'unfavorable' results. There was little difference between DC and standard care at six months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 3 studies, 571 participants; low-quality evidence), and heterogeneity was high (I2 = 78%). At 12 months one trial suggested a similar finding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study, 373 participants; high-quality evidence). With regard to ICP reduction, pooled results for two studies provided moderate quality evidence that DC was superior to standard care for reducing ICP within 48 hours (MD -4.66 mmHg, 95% CI -6.86 to -2.45; 2 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Data from the third study were consistent with these, but could not be pooled. Data on adverse events are difficult to interpret, as mortality and complications are high, and it can be difficult to distinguish between treatment-related adverse events and the natural evolution of the condition. In general, there was low-quality evidence that surgical patients experienced a higher risk of adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decompressive craniectomy holds promise of reduced mortality, but the effects of long-term neurological outcome remain controversial, and involve an examination of the priorities of participants and their families. Future research should focus on identifying clinical and neuroimaging characteristics to identify those patients who would survive with an acceptable quality of life; the best timing for DC; the most appropriate surgical techniques; and whether some synergistic treatments used with DC might improve patient outcomes.

Are perioperative interventions effective in preventing chronic pain after primary total knee replacement? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective treatment for relieving pain and improving function. Features of perioperative care may be associated with the adverse event of chronic pain 6 months or longer after surgery; effects may be direct, for example, through nerve damage or surgical complications, or indirect through adverse events. This systematic review aims to evaluate whether non-surgical perioperative interventions prevent long-term pain after TKR. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of perioperative interventions for adults with osteoarthritis receiving primary TKR evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL until February 2018. After screening, two reviewers evaluated articles. Studies at low risk of bias according to the Cochrane tool were included. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative non-surgical interventions; control receiving no intervention or alternative treatment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain or score with pain component assessed at 6 months or longer postoperative. RESULTS: 44 RCTs at low risk of bias assessed long-term pain. Intervention heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and definitive statements on effectiveness. Good-quality research provided generally weak evidence for small reductions in long-term pain with local infiltration analgesia (three studies), ketamine infusion (one study), pregabalin (one study) and supported early discharge (one study) compared with no intervention. For electric muscle stimulation (two studies), anabolic steroids (one study) and walking training (one study) there was a suggestion of more clinically important benefit. No concerns relating to long-term adverse events were reported. For a range of treatments there was no evidence linking them with unfavourable pain outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent chronic pain after TKR, several perioperative interventions show benefits and merit further research. Good-quality studies assessing long-term pain after perioperative interventions are feasible and necessary to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis achieve good long-term outcomes after TKR.

Effectiveness of postdischarge interventions for reducing the severity of chronic pain after total knee replacement: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of postdischarge interventions commenced in the first 3 months after surgery in reducing the severity of chronic pain after TKR. DESIGN: The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017041382). MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016. Randomised controlled trials of postdischarge intervention which commenced in the first 3 months after TKR surgery were included. The primary outcome of the review was self-reported pain severity at 12 months or longer after TKR. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Seventeen trials with data from 2485 randomised participants were included. The majority of trials evaluated physiotherapy interventions (n=13); other interventions included nurse-led interventions (n=2), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n=1) and a multidisciplinary intervention (n=1). Opportunities for meta-analysis were limited by heterogeneity. No study found a difference in long-term pain severity between trial arms, with the exception of one trial which found home-based functional exercises aimed at managing kinesiophobia resulted in lower pain severity scores at 12 months postoperatively compared with advice to stay active. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and narrative synthesis found no evidence that one type of physiotherapy intervention is more effective than another at reducing the severity of chronic pain after TKR. Further research is needed to evaluate non-physiotherapy interventions, including the provision of care as part of a stratified and multidisciplinary care package. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017041382.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement. There is little evidence for effective interventions for the management of this pain, and current healthcare provision is patchy and inconsistent. Given the complexity of this condition, multimodal and individualised interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed. We have undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to develop a care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement. This protocol describes the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention care pathway compared with usual care. METHODS: This is a pragmatic two-armed, open, multi-centred randomised controlled trial conducted within secondary care in the UK. Patients will be screened at 2 months after total knee replacement and 381 patients with chronic pain at 3 months postoperatively will be recruited. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Patients are randomised using a 2:1 intervention:control allocation ratio. All participants receive usual care as provided by their hospital. The intervention comprises an assessment clinic appointment at 3 months postoperatively with an Extended Scope Practitioner and up to six telephone follow-up calls over 12 months. In the assessment clinic, a standardised protocol is followed to identify potential underlying causes for the chronic pain and enable appropriate onward referrals to existing services for targeted and individualised treatment. Outcomes are assessed by questionnaires at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The co-primary outcomes are pain severity and pain interference assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes relate to resource use, function, neuropathic pain, mental well-being, use of pain medications, satisfaction with pain relief, pain frequency, capability, health-related quality of life and bodily pain. After trial completion, up to 30 patients in the intervention group will be interviewed about their experiences of the care pathway. DISCUSSION: If shown to be clinically and cost-effective, this care pathway intervention could improve the management of chronic pain after total knee replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN92545361 ), prospectively registered on 30 August 2016.

Rating the quality of a body of evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions: A systematic review and mapping of evidence domains.

INTRODUCTION: Rating the quality of a body of evidence is an increasingly common component of research syntheses on intervention effectiveness. This study sought to identify and examine existing systems for rating the quality of a body of evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions. METHODS: We used a multicomponent search strategy to search for full-length reports of systems for rating the quality of a body of evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions published in English from 1995 onward. Two independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible system on the evidence domains included, as well as the development and dissemination processes for each system. RESULTS: Seventeen systems met our eligibility criteria. Across systems, we identified 13 discrete evidence domains: study design, study execution, consistency, measures of precision, directness, publication bias, magnitude of effect, dose-response, plausible confounding, analogy, robustness, applicability, and coherence. We found little reporting of rigorous procedures in the development and dissemination of evidence rating systems. CONCLUSION: We identified 17 systems for rating the quality of a body of evidence on intervention effectiveness across health and social policy. Existing systems vary greatly in the domains they include and how they operationalize domains, and most have important limitations in their development and dissemination. The construct of the quality of the body of evidence was defined in a few systems largely extending the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was found to be unique in its comprehensive guidance, rigorous development, and dissemination strategy.

Development of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement: the STAR care pathway.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people who have total knee replacement experience chronic pain afterwards, but there is little evidence about effective interventions for managing this type of pain. This article describes the systematic development and refinement of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement. The intervention is a care pathway involving an assessment clinic and onward referral, with telephone follow-up as required. In the design of this multistage study, we chose to focus on ensuring that the intervention was deliverable, implementable and acceptable. METHODS: In line with the UK Medical Research Council's recommendations for comprehensive development of complex interventions, multiple phases of work were undertaken. Following on from initial development work to design the intervention, the draft intervention content was refined through consensus questionnaires with 22 health professionals and discussion at meetings with 18 healthcare professionals. Testing of intervention delivery and acceptability to patients was undertaken by two health professionals delivering the assessment clinic to ten patients. Views about future implementation within the context of a randomised trial were evaluated through a questionnaire based on the Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) instrument with ten health professional stakeholders. RESULTS: Consensus work with health professionals ensured the components of the intervention were appropriate and informed a number of substantive changes to improve the intervention. Testing of intervention delivery identified a number of logistical issues that were then addressed in the development of a comprehensive intervention training manual. Engagement with stakeholders indicated that the intervention could be successfully implemented in a clinical setting for evaluation in a randomised trial. CONCLUSIONS: This work has informed the development and refinement of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement. The next stage is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway in a multicentre randomised trial.

Post-operative patient-related risk factors for chronic pain after total knee replacement: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify postoperative patient-related risk factors for chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: The systematic review protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016041374). MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to October 2016 with no language restrictions. Key articles were also tracked in the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science. Cohort studies evaluating the association between patient-related factors in the first 3 months postoperatively and pain at 6 months or longer after primary TKR surgery were included. Screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were undertaken by two reviewers. The primary outcome was pain severity in the replaced knee measured with a patient-reported outcome measure at 6 months or longer after TKR. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and other aspects of pain recommended by the core outcome set for chronic pain after TKR. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 16 430 articles were screened, of which 805 were considered potentially relevant. After detailed evaluation of full-text articles, 14 studies with data from 1168 participants were included. Postoperative patient-related factors included acute pain (eight studies), function (five studies) and psychosocial factors (four studies). The included studies had diverse methods for assessment of potential risk factors and outcomes, and therefore narrative synthesis was conducted. For all postoperative factors, there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the association with chronic pain after TKR. Selection bias was a potential risk for all studies, as none were reported to be conducted at multiple centres. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the association between any postoperative patient-related factors and chronic pain after TKR. Further high-quality research is required to provide a robust evidence base on postoperative risk factors, and inform the development and evaluation of targeted interventions to optimise patients' outcomes after TKR.

Pharmacological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending.

BACKGROUND: Sexual offending is a serious social problem, a public health issue, and a major challenge for social policy. Victim surveys indicate high incidence and prevalence levels and it is accepted that there is a high proportion of hidden sexual victimisation. Surveys report high levels of psychiatric morbidity in survivors of sexual offences.Biological treatments of sex offenders include antilibidinal medication, comprising hormonal drugs that have a testosterone-suppressing effect, and non-hormonal drugs that affect libido through other mechanisms. The three main classes of testosterone-suppressing drugs in current use are progestogens, antiandrogens, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Medications that affect libido through other means include antipsychotics and serotonergic antidepressants (SSRIs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions on target sexual behaviour for people who have been convicted or are at risk of sexual offending. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 15 other databases in July 2014. We also searched two trials registers and requested details of unidentified, unpublished, or ongoing studies from investigators and other experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective controlled trials of antilibidinal medications taken by individuals for the purpose of preventing sexual offences, where the comparator group received a placebo, no treatment, or 'standard care', including psychological treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors, working independently, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information, including details of methods and outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies with a total of 138 participants, with data available for 123. Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 37. Judgements for categories of risk of bias varied: concerns were greatest regarding allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data (dropout rates in the five community-based studies ranged from 3% to 54% and results were usually analysed on a per protocol basis).Participant characteristics in the seven studies were heterogeneous, but the vast majority had convictions for sexual offences, ranging from exhibitionism to rape and child molestation.Six studies examined the effectiveness of three testosterone-suppressing drugs: cyproterone acetate (CPA), ethinyl oestradiol (EO), and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA); a seventh evaluated two antipsychotics (benperidol and chlorpromazine). Five studies were placebo-controlled; in two, MPA was administered as an adjunctive treatment to a psychological therapy (assertiveness training or imaginal desensitisation). Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of interventions, comparators, study designs, and other issues. The quality of the evidence overall was poor. In addition to methodological issues, much evidence was indirect. PRIMARY OUTCOME: recividism. Two studies reported recidivism rates formally. One trial of intramuscular MPA plus imaginal desensitisation (ID) found no reports of recividism at two-year follow-up for the intervention group (n = 10 versus one relapse within the group treated by ID alone). A three-armed trial of oral MPA, alone or in combination with psychological treatment, reported a 20% rate of recidivism amongst those in the combined treatment arm (n = 15) and 50% of those in the psychological treatment only group (n = 12). Notably, all those in the 'oral MPA only' arm of this study (n = 5) dropped out immediately, despite treatment being court mandated.Two studies did not report recidivism rates as they both took place in one secure psychiatric facility from which no participant was discharged during the study, whilst another three studies did not appear directly to measure recividism but rather abnormal sexual activity alone. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The included studies report a variety of secondary outcomes. Results suggest that the frequency of self reported deviant sexual fantasies may be reduced by testosterone-suppressing drugs, but not the deviancy itself (three studies). Where measured, hormonal levels, particularly levels of testosterone, tended to correlate with measures of sexual activity and with anxiety (two studies). One study measured anxiety formally; one study measured anger or aggression. Adverse events: Six studies provided information on adverse events. No study tested the effects of testosterone-suppressing drugs beyond six to eight months and the cross-over design of some studies may obscure matters (given the 'rebound effect' of some hormonal treatments). Considerable weight gain was reported in two trials of oral MPA and CPA. Side effects of intramuscular MPA led to discontinuation in some participants after three to five injections (the nature of these side effects was not described). Notable increases in depression and excess salivation were reported in one trial of oral MPA. The most severe side effects (extra-pyramidal movement disorders and drowsiness) were reported in a trial of antipsychotic medication for the 12 participants in the study. No deaths or suicide attempts were reported in any study. The latter is important given the association between antilibidinal hormonal medication and mood changes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only seven small trials (all published more than 20 years ago) that examined the effects of a limited number of drugs. Investigators reported issues around acceptance and adherence to treatment. We found no studies of the newer drugs currently in use, particularly SSRIs or GnRH analogues. Although there were some encouraging findings in this review, their limitations do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn regarding pharmacological intervention as an effective intervention for reducing sexual offending.The tolerability, even of the testosterone-suppressing drugs, was uncertain given that all studies were small (and therefore underpowered to assess adverse effects) and of limited duration, which is not consistent with current routine clinical practice. Further research is required before it is demonstrated that their administration reduces sexual recidivism and that tolerability is maintained.It is a concern that, despite treatment being mandated in many jurisdictions, evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions is so sparse and that no RCTs appear to have been published in two decades. New studies are therefore needed and should include trials with larger sample sizes, of longer duration, evaluating newer medications, and with results stratified according to category of sexual offenders. It is important that data are collected on the characteristics of those who refuse and those who drop out, as well as those who complete treatment.

The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern in the literature that harm from interventions is insufficiently documented in clinical trials in general, and in those assessing psychological treatments in particular. A recent decision by a trial steering committee to stop recruitment into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a psychological intervention for personality disorder led to an investigation of the recording of harm in trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). METHODS: The protocols and final reports of all 82 NIHR trials funded between 1995 and 2013 were examined for the reporting of adverse events. These were subdivided by category of intervention. RESULTS: None of the psychological intervention trials mentioned the occurrence of an adverse event in their final report. Trials of drug treatments were more likely to mention adverse events in their protocols compared with those using psychological treatments. When adverse events were mentioned, the protocols of psychological interventions relied heavily on severe adverse events guidelines from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES), which were developed for drug rather than psychological interventions and so may not be appropriate for the latter. CONCLUSIONS: This survey supported the belief that the reporting of adverse events in psychological treatments is weak and the criteria used may not be appropriate. Recommendations are made as to how current practice might be improved.