Systemic therapy in children and adolescents with mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) is a psychotherapeutic intervention in complex human systems (both psychological and interpersonal). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an established treatment for children and adolescents with mental disorders. As methodologically rigorous systematic reviews on ST in this population are lacking, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefit and harm of ST (and ST as an add-on to CBT) with CBT in children and adolescents with mental disorders. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other sources for randomised controlled trials in 14 mental disorder classes for the above comparisons in respect of effects on patient-relevant outcomes (search date: 7/2022). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed and results were graded into 3 different evidence categories: "proof", "indication", or "hint" (or none of these categories). PRISMA standards were followed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies in 5 mental disorder classes with usable data were identified. 2079 patients (mean age: 10 to 19 years) were analysed. 12/15 studies and 29/30 outcomes showed a high risk of bias. In 2 classes, statistically significant and clinically relevant effects in favour of ST were found, supporting the conclusion of a hint of greater benefit of ST for mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use and of ST as an add-on to CBT for obsessive-compulsive disorders. In 2 other classes (eating disorders; hyperkinetic disorders), there was no evidence of greater benefit or harm of ST. For affective disorders, a statistically significant effect to the disadvantage of ST was found for 1 outcome, supporting the conclusion of a hint of lesser benefit of ST. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a hint of greater benefit of ST (or ST as an add-on to CBT) compared with CBT for 2 mental disorder classes in children and adolescents (mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use, obsessive compulsive disorders). Given the importance of CBT as a control intervention, ST can therefore be considered a beneficial treatment option for children and adolescents with certain mental disorders. Limitations include an overall high risk of bias of studies and outcomes and a lack of data for several disorders.

Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public. METHODS: We developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13425.

Performance of the Peto odds ratio compared to the usual odds ratio estimator in the case of rare events.

For the calculation of relative measures such as risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) in a single study, additional approaches are required for the case of zero events. In the case of zero events in one treatment arm, the Peto odds ratio (POR) can be calculated without continuity correction, and is currently the relative effect estimation method of choice for binary data with rare events. The aim of this simulation study is a variegated comparison of the estimated OR and estimated POR with the true OR in a single study with two parallel groups without confounders in data situations where the POR is currently recommended. This comparison was performed by means of several performance measures, that is the coverage, confidence interval (CI) width, mean squared error (MSE), and mean percentage error (MPE). We demonstrated that the estimator for the POR does not outperform the estimator for the OR for all the performance measures investigated. In the case of rare events, small treatment effects and similar group sizes, we demonstrated that the estimator for the POR performed better than the estimator for the OR only regarding the coverage and MPE, but not the CI width and MSE. For larger effects and unbalanced group size ratios, the coverage and MPE of the estimator for the POR were inappropriate. As in practice the true effect is unknown, the POR method should be applied only with the utmost caution.

Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data.

BACKGROUND: Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments. Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported." For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall. We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes. The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

First-line allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of HLA-matched sibling donors compared with first-line ciclosporin and/or antithymocyte or antilymphocyte globulin for acquired severe aplastic anemia.

BACKGROUND: Acquired severe aplastic anemia is a rare and potentially fatal disease, which is characterized by hypocellular bone marrow and pancytopenia. The major signs and symptoms are severe infections, bleeding, and exhaustion. First-line allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) of a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched sibling donor (MSD) is a treatment for newly diagnosed patients with severe aplastic anemia. First-line treatment with ciclosporin and/or antithymocyte or antilymphocyte globulin (as first-line immunosuppressive therapy) is an alternative to MSD-HSCT and is indicated for patients where no MSD is found. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of first-line allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of HLA-matched sibling donors compared to first-line immunosuppressive therapy including ciclosporin and/or antithymocyte or antilymphocyte globulin in patients with acquired severe aplastic anemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library CENTRAL (Wiley) for published articles from 1946 to 22 April 2013. Further searches included trial registries, reference lists of recent reviews, and author contacts. SELECTION CRITERIA: The following prospective study designs were eligible for inclusion: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials if the allocation of patients to treatment groups was consistent with 'Mendelian randomization'. We included participants with newly diagnosed severe aplastic anemia who received MSD-HSCT or immunosuppressive therapy without prior HSCT or immunosuppressive therapy, and with a minimum of five participants per treatment group. We did not apply limits on publication year or languages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors abstracted the data on study and patient characteristics and assessed the risk of bias independently. We resolved differences by discussion or by appeal to a third review author. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were treatment-related mortality, graft failure, no response to first-line immunosuppressive therapy, graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), relapse after initial successful treatment, secondary clonal and malignant disease, health-related quality of life, and performance score. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three trials that met the inclusion criteria. None of these trials was a RCT. 302 participants are included in this review. The three included studies were prospectively conducted and had features consistent with the principle of 'Mendelian randomization' as defined in the present review. All studies had a high risk of bias due to the study design. All studies were conducted more than 10 years ago and may not be applicable to the standard of care of today. Primary and secondary outcome data showed no statistically significant difference between treatment groups. We present results for first-line allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of an HLA-matched sibling donor, which we denote as the MSD-HSCT group, versus first-line treatment with ciclosporin and/or antithymocyte or antilymphocyte globulin, which we denote as the immunosuppressive therapy group in the following section.The pooled hazard ratio for overall mortality for the MSD-HSCT group versus the immunosuppressive therapy group was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 2.12, P = 0.90, low quality evidence). Therefore, overall mortality was not statistically significantly different between the groups. Treatment-related mortality ranged from 20% to 42% for the MSD-HSCT group and was not reported for the immunosuppressive therapy group (very low quality evidence). The authors reported graft failure from 3% to 16% for the MSD-HSCT group and GVHD from 26% to 51% (both endpoints not applicable for the immunosuppressive therapy group, very low quality evidence). The authors did not report any data on response and relapse for the MSD-HSCT group. For the immunosuppressive therapy group, the studies reported no response from 15% (not time point stated) to 64% (three months) and relapse in one of eight responders after immunosuppressive therapy at 5.5 years (very low quality evidence). The authors reported secondary clonal disease or malignancies for the MSD-HSCT group versus the immunosuppressive therapy group in 1 of 34 versus 0 of 22 patients in one study and in 0 of 28 versus 4 of 86 patients in the other study (low quality evidence). None of the included studies addressed health-related quality of life. The percentage of the evaluated patients with a Karnofsky performance status score in the range of 71% to 100% was 92% in the MSD-HSCT group and 46% in the immunosuppressive therapy group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient and biased data that do not allow any conclusions to be made about the comparative effectiveness of first-line allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of an HLA-matched sibling donor and first-line treatment with ciclosporin and/or antithymocyte or antilymphocyte globulin (as first-line immunosuppressive therapy). We are unable to make firm recommendations regarding the choice of intervention for treatment of acquired severe aplastic anemia.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Unrelated donor stem cell transplantation in acquired severe aplastic anemia: a systematic review.

Acquired severe aplastic anemia is a rare disease characterized by an immune-mediated functional impairment of hematopoietic stem cells. Transplantation of these cells from unrelated donors is a treatment option frequently offered to patients after failed immunosuppressive therapy. The aim was to investigate the outcome of these patients treated with unrelated donor transplants. Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from inception to June 2009. Only full-text publications and studies including at least 10 patients were considered. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival from the day of transplantation and the secondary outcomes were graft failure and graft-versus-host disease. A meta-analysis of survival estimates was conducted and heterogeneity was investigated. A total of 18 studies, one controlled trial and 17 case series were identified. The overall survival at five years and the corresponding confidence interval was stated in 8 studies and ranged from 28% to 94%. A meta-analysis revealed considerable heterogeneity between the studies that could not be explained and was also present in subgroups of the studies. The proportion of acute graft failure was 45% in one study using only umbilical cord blood, and it was reported to be 0-26% in 15 studies using mainly bone marrow as stem cell source after different follow-up periods. Acute GVHD grade II-IV was reported for 8-86% and extensive chronic GVHD for 0-38% of the evaluated patients in 16 studies. Recipient age, human leukocyte antigen match, performance status, year of transplantation, and conditioning with serotherapy were identified as significant factors for improved survival. Unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acquired severe aplastic anemia after failure to immunosuppressive therapy is a treatment option. A stable physical condition of the patients before receiving the transplant (for example, performance and age) may be associated with a better survival. Detailed HLA-matching facilitated by DNA-based typing, among other factors, may have contributed to recent improvements on survival after unrelated donor HSCT as a second-line treatment.

Women need more propofol than men during EEG-monitored total intravenous anaesthesia / Frauen benötigen mehr Propofol als Männer während EEG-überwachter total-intravenöser Anästhesie.

Gender-related differences in the pharmacology of drugs used in anaesthesiology have been reported by different authors. The aim of this study was to compare propofol dosages in a greater number of male and female patients who had received electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring to maintain a defined depth of anaesthesia. Data from an EEG-controlled study were analysed with regard to gender differences in the consumption of the short-acting hypnotic propofol during maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia and with regard to recovery times. The 656 patients (239 male, 417 female) were 15 to 97 years old, underwent different surgical procedures, and received propofol in combination with remifentanil, a short-acting opioid. During the steady-state of anaesthesia the EEG stage D(2)/E(0), which corresponds to deep hypnosis, was the target level (EEG monitor: Narcotrend). Propofol dosages were calculated as mg/kg body weight/h and as mg/kg lean body mass/h. Significantly higher propofol dosages were observed in female patients compared to male patients, especially with lean body mass as a reference parameter. The dosages were characterised by a high interindividual variability. The time from stop of propofol until extubation was significantly shorter in women than in men. The propofol dosage for maintenance of anaesthesia at the EEG level D(2)/E(0) decreased with increasing age.

Communicating Uncertainty From Limitations in Quality of Evidence to the Public in Written Health Information: Protocol for a Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to design an experiment to examine how different degrees of uncertainty (Q1) and different types of uncertainty (Q2) impact patients' perception of treatment effectiveness, the body of evidence, text quality, and hypothetical treatment intention. The experiment also examines whether there is an additive effect when multiple sources of uncertainty are communicated (Q3). METHODS: We developed 8 variations of a research summary set in a hypothetical scenario for a treatment decision in the context of tinnitus. These were modified only in the degree of uncertainty relating to the evidence of the presented treatment. We recruited members of the German public from a Web-based research panel and randomized them to one of 8 variations of the research summary to examine the 3 research questions. The trial was only open to the members of the research panel. The outcomes are perception of the effectiveness of the treatment (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence relating to the treatment, text quality, and decisional intention (secondary). Outcomes were self-assessed. We aimed to recruit 1500 participants to the trial. The recruitment and data collection was fully automated. Ethical approval was waivered by an ethics committee because of the negligible risk to participants. RESULTS: This protocol is retrospectively published in its original format. In the meantime, the trial was set up and the data collection was completed. Data collection was conducted in May 2018. A total of 1727 eligible panel members were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of 2019. In addition, results will be presented at conferences and disseminated among developers of guidance for the development of evidence-based health information and decision aids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77zyZTGzk). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13425.

[Possibilities and limitations of statistical regression models for the calculation of threshold values for minimum provider volumes]. / Möglichkeiten und Grenzen statistischer Regressionsmodelle zur Berechnung von Schwellenwerten für Mindestmengen.

Inadequate statistical procedures are often applied for the derivation of threshold values in various medical research areas. The frequently applied method to establish threshold values on the basis of simple comparisons between arbitrarily defined low-volume and high-volume groups may be misleading because the result depends on the preceding classification. In this paper, the possibilities and limitations of statistical regression models for the calculation of threshold values are described. The features of these models for the selection of minimum volumes for hospitals or physicians are discussed. Simulated data examples are used to demonstrate that the definition of a useful minimum provider volume should not be based upon a calculated value of purely mathematical meaning without clinically assessing the risk curve. In the application of statistical regression models to retrospective observational data it should be noticed that calculated threshold values are only of a hypothesis-generating character. In order to verify that a minimum provider volume leads to the expected quality improvement, a prospective intervention study is required.

Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports.

BACKGROUND: When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations"). OBJECTIVE: To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCES: All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. DATA ANALYSIS: We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure.

Intraoperative electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold is related to the dosage of hypnotic drugs in general anesthesia.

Today cochlear implantation is a widely used means of treatment in deafness and severe hearing disorders in adults, children, and infants. Postoperative fitting of the externally worn speech processor is very important for successful use of the cochlear implant. However, especially in infants and young children, this fitting process can be difficult because of limited communication capabilities. The use of intraoperatively obtained stapedius reflex thresholds has been proposed for postoperative speech processor fitting, but the influence of anesthetics on threshold values needs to be taken into account. In a retrospective study with 20 patients between 3 and 43 years of age, a highly significant correlation between the dosage of methohexital and the mean stapedius reflex threshold value could be shown (r = 0.65, p = .002). We conclude that more reliable threshold values can be obtained by reducing the dosage of hypnotics to achieve a lighter level of hypnosis during stapedius reflex measurement. To achieve a light, but still sufficient level of hypnosis, electroencephalographic monitoring including automatic interpretation of the complex raw signal should be used.

Clinical effectiveness of stress-reduction techniques in patients with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on patient-relevant outcomes and blood pressure was conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of stress-reduction techniques in adults with essential hypertension. METHODS: Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified as part of a systematic search in six electronic databases ending September 2012. RCTs comparing stress-reduction techniques versus no such techniques with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks and published in English or German were included. Outcomes of interest were death, cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, end-stage renal disease, health-related quality of life, adverse events, changes in blood pressure, and changes in antihypertensive medication. When appropriate, meta-analyses were used to combine data. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs analyzing different stress-reduction techniques such as biofeedback, relaxation or combined interventions were identified. Data were not reported for most of the patient-relevant outcomes, and meta-analyses could only be used to evaluate effects on blood pressure. The data indicated a blood pressure-lowering effect, but the studies had methodological shortcomings and heterogeneity between them was high. Mean group differences for DBP ranged from -10 to 1 mmHg and for SBP from -12 to 10 mmHg. In terms of antihypertensive medication, no favorable effects of stress-reduction techniques could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: The available RCTs on stress-reduction techniques used for at least 24 weeks appeared to indicate a blood pressure-lowering effect in patients with essential hypertension, but this should be interpreted with caution because of major methodological limitations. A benefit of specific stress-reduction techniques in hypertensive patients remains unproven.

A note on the graphical presentation of prediction intervals in random-effects meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is used to combine the results of several related studies. Two different models are generally applied: the fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Although the two approaches estimate different parameters (that is, the true effect versus the expected value of the distribution of true effects) in practice, the graphical presentation of results is the same for both models. This means that in forest plots of RE meta-analyses, no estimate of the between-study variation is usually given graphically, even though it provides important information about the heterogeneity between the study effect sizes. FINDINGS: In addition to the point estimate of the between-study variation, a prediction interval (PI) can be used to determine the degree of heterogeneity, as it provides a region in which about 95% of the true study effects are expected to be found. To distinguish between the confidence interval (CI) for the average effect and the PI, it may also be helpful to include the latter interval in forest plots. We propose a new graphical presentation of the PI; in our method, the summary statistics in forest plots of RE meta-analyses include an additional row, '95% prediction interval', and the PI itself is presented in the form of a rectangle below the usual diamond illustrating the estimated average effect and its CI. We then compare this new graphical presentation of PIs with previous proposals by other authors. The way the PI is presented in forest plots is crucial. In previous proposals, the distinction between the CI and the PI has not been made clear, as both intervals have been illustrated either by a diamond or by extra lines added to the diamond, which may result in misinterpretation. CONCLUSIONS: To distinguish graphically between the results of an FE and those of an RE meta-analysis, it is helpful to extend forest plots of the latter approach by including the PI. Clear presentation of the PI is necessary to avoid confusion with the CI of the average effect estimate.

First-line matched related donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation compared to immunosuppressive therapy in acquired severe aplastic anemia.

INTRODUCTION: Acquired severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare and progressive disease characterized by an immune-mediated functional impairment of hematopoietic stem cells. Transplantation of these cells is a first-line treatment option if HLA-matched related donors are available. First-line immunosuppressive therapy may be offered as alternative. The aim was to compare the outcome of these patients in controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. To show an overview of various outcomes by treatment group we conducted a meta-analysis on overall survival. We evaluated whether studies reported statistically significant factors for improved survival. RESULTS: 26 non-randomized controlled trials (7,955 patients enrolled from 1970 to 2001) were identified. We did not identify any RCTs. Risk of bias was high except in 4 studies. Young age and recent year of treatment were identified as factors for improved survival in the HSCT group. Advanced age, SAA without very severe aplastic anemia, and combination of anti-lymphocyte globulin with cyclosporine A were factors for improved survival in the IST group. In 19 studies (4,855 patients), summary statistics were sufficient to be included in meta-analysis. Considerable heterogeneity did not justify a pooled estimate. Adverse events were inconsistently reported and varied significantly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Young age and recent year of treatment were identified as factors for improved survival in the transplant group. Advanced age, SAA without very severe aplastic anemia, and combination of anti-lymphocyte globulin with cyclosporine A were factors for improved survival in the immunosuppressive group. Considerable heterogeneity of non-randomized controlled studies did not justify a pooled estimate. Adverse events were inconsistently reported and varied significantly across studies.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation for metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma--a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) have a poor prognosis. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with metastatic RMS has additional benefit or harm compared to standard chemotherapy. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from inception to February 2010. PubMed was searched in June 2010 for a last update. In addition to randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, case series and case reports were included to complement results from scant data. The primary outcome was overall survival. A meta-analysis was performed using the hazard ratio as primary effect measure, which was estimated from Cox proportional hazard models or from summary statistics of Kaplan Meier product-limit estimations. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies with 287 transplant patients with metastatic RMS (age range 0 to 32 years) were included in the assessment. We identified 3 non-randomized controlled trials. The 3-year overall survival ranged from 22% to 53% in the transplant groups vs. 18% to 55% in the control groups. Meta-analysis on overall survival in controlled trials showed no difference between treatments. Result of meta-analysis of pooled individual survival data of case series and case reports, and results from uncontrolled studies with aggregate data were in the range of those from controlled data. The risk of bias was high in all studies due to methodological flaws. CONCLUSIONS: HDCT followed by autologous HSCT in patients with RMS remains an experimental treatment. At present, it does not appear justifiable to use this treatment except in appropriately designed controlled trials.

Permanent interstitial low-dose-rate brachytherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of randomised and nonrandomised controlled clinical trials.

CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Permanent interstitial low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is a short-distance radiation therapy in which low-energy radioactive sources are implanted permanently into the prostate. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of LDR-BT compared to treatment alternatives in men with localised PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception until June 2010 for randomised and nonrandomised controlled trials comparing LDR-BT with radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or no primary therapy (NPT). Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported severe adverse events (SAE), and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 31 studies, including 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), were identified. Risk of bias was high for all 31 studies. OS was reported in one nonrandomised controlled study; however, these data were not interpretable because of strong residual confounding. DFS was not reported. Comparison of bRFS between treatment groups is not validated; thus, results were not interpretable. Physician-reported urogenital late toxicity grade 2 to 3 was more common in the LDR-BT group when compared to the EBRT group. With respect to PRO, better scores for sexual and urinary function as well as urinary incontinence were reported for LDR-BT compared to RP. Better scores for bowel function were reported for LDR-BT compared to EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: We found a low amount of evidence in studies that exclusively compared LDR-BT with other treatment modalities. LDR-BT may have some different physician-reported SAE and patient-reported outcomes. The current evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive conclusion about OS. Randomised trials focusing on long-term survival are needed to clarify the relevance of LDR-BT in patients with localised PCa.

Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of reboxetine versus placebo or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the acute treatment of depression, and to measure the impact of potential publication bias in trials of reboxetine. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis including unpublished data. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, and Cochrane Library), clinical trial registries, trial results databases, and regulatory authority websites up until February 2009, as well as unpublished data from the manufacturer of reboxetine (Pfizer, Berlin). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Double blind, randomised, controlled trials of acute treatment (six weeks or more) with reboxetine versus placebo or SSRIs in adults with major depression. OUTCOME MEASURES: Remission and response rates (benefit outcomes), as well as rates of patients with at least one adverse event and withdrawals owing to adverse events (harm outcomes). DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: The procedures for data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were always conducted by one person and checked by another. If feasible, data were pooled by meta-analyses (random effects model). Publication bias was measured by comparing results of published and unpublished trials. RESULTS: We analysed 13 acute treatment trials that were placebo controlled, SSRI controlled, or both, which included 4098 patients. Data on 74% (3033/4098) of these patients were unpublished. In the reboxetine versus placebo comparison, no significant differences in remission rates were shown (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.51; P=0.216). Substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=67.3%) was shown in the meta-analysis of the eight trials that investigated response rates for reboxetine versus placebo. A sensitivity analysis that excluded a small inpatient trial showed no significant difference in response rates between patients receiving reboxetine and those receiving placebo (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.56; P=0.071; I(2)=42.1%). Reboxetine was inferior to SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, and citalopram) for remission rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; P=0.015) and response rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01). Reboxetine was inferior to placebo for both harm outcomes (P<0.001 for both), and to fluoxetine for withdrawals owing to adverse events (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.05; P=0.031). Published data overestimated the benefit of reboxetine versus placebo by up to 115% and reboxetine versus SSRIs by up to 23%, and also underestimated harm. CONCLUSIONS: Reboxetine is, overall, an ineffective and potentially harmful antidepressant. Published evidence is affected by publication bias, underlining the urgent need for mandatory publication of trial data.

Flexible regression models are useful tools to calculate and assess threshold values in the context of minimum provider volumes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to review different approaches for the derivation of threshold values and to discuss their strengths and limitations in the context of minimum provider volumes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The following methods for the calculation of threshold values are compared and discussed: The value of acceptable risk limit, the value of acceptable risk gradient, the benchmark value proposed by Budtz-Jørgensen and Ulm's breakpoint model. The latter is extended to account for two different breakpoints. The methods are applied to German quality assurance data concerning total knee replacement. RESULTS: The discussed methods for calculating threshold values differ in the kind of information that has to be specified beforehand. For the value of acceptable risk limit approach an absolute number, the acceptable risk, has to be predetermined. The value of acceptable risk gradient approach and the method of Budtz-Jørgensen require the specification of a relative change expressed in gradient and in odds, respectively. On the other hand, the threshold value according to the method of Ulm is defined as a parameter of a statistical model and no a priori specification is required. CONCLUSION: Each of the proposed methods has benefits and drawbacks. The choice of the most appropriate approach depends on the specific problem and the available data.