RESUMO
In the past years, network meta-analysis (NMA) has been widely used among clinicians, guideline makers, and health technology assessment agencies and has played an important role in clinical decision-making and guideline development. To inform further development of NMAs, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the current status of published NMA methodological studies, summarized the methodological progress of seven types of NMAs, and discussed the current challenges of NMAs.
Assuntos
Publicações , Metanálise em RedeRESUMO
AIM: to evaluate the performance and accuracy of Controlled attenuation parameter CAP for hepatic steatosis detection. METHODS: PubMed, EBSCO, Elsevier Science, Ovid, and Wiley were selected to search studies until August 31, 2014. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist was used to assess the quality of included studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Q test. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under curve (AUC) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the accuracy of CAP for assessment of hepatic steatosis stage (≥ S1, ≥ S2 and ≥ S3). RESULTS: Totally 11 studies (13 cohorts) with high methodological qualities were identified. The summary point estimations with 95% CIs of sensitivity, specificity, AUC and DORs were 0.78 (0.71, 0.84), 0.79 (0.70, 0.86), 0.86 (0.82, 0.88), and 14 (7, 27) for ≥ S1; 0.82 (0.74, 0.88), 0.79 (0.73, 0.85), 0.88 (0.85, 0.90) and 18 (10, 30) for ≥ S2; 0.86 (0.82, 0.89), 0.89 (0.86, 0.92), 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 51 (35, 76) for ≥ S3. Significant heterogeneity was found among the studies in ≥ S1 and ≥ S3. Threshold effect was existed in ≥ S3, but not in ≥ S1 and ≥ S2. Publication bias was not existed in ≥ S1 and ≥ S2 except ≥ S3. CONCLUSION: CAP provides good sensitivity and specificity for detection of ≥ S1, ≥ S2, and ≥ S3 steatosis. However, future studies with large samples are still necessary to confirm the clinical application.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the efficacy of placebos in the treatment of mental disorders. In randomized control trials (RCTs) about the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, the administration of a psychological placebo or placement on a waiting list are the two most common control conditions. But there has never been a systematic comparison of the clinical effect of these different strategies. AIM: Compare the change in symptom severity among individuals treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, provided a psychological placebo, or placed on a waiting list using data from RCTs on generalized anxiety disorder. METHODS: The following databases were searched for RCTs on generalized anxiety disorder: PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Chongqing VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database, and Taiwan Electronic Periodical Services. Studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and the quality of each included study - based on the risk of bias and the level of evidence - was formally assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan5.3 and network meta-analyses comparing the three groups were conducted using R. RESULTS: Twelve studies with a combined sample size of 531 were included in the analysis. Compared to either control method (placebo or waiting list), cognitive behavioral therapy was more effective for generalized anxiety disorder. Provision of a psychological placebo was associated with a significantly greater reduction of symptoms than placement on a waiting list. Eight of the studies were classified as 'high risk of bias', and the overall level of evidence was classified as 'moderate', indicating that further research could change the overall results of the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs about the treatment of generalized anxiety disorders are generally of moderate quality; they indicate the superiority of CBT but the results cannot, as yet, be considered robust. There is evidence of a non-negligible treatment effect of psychological placebos used as control conditions in research studies. This effect should be considered when designing and interpreting the results of randomized controlled trials about the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions.