High frequency of spin bias in controlled trials of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues: A meta-epidemiologic study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and perform a qualitative analysis of spin bias in publications of controlled trials assessing the therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-epidemiologic study carried out at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil. RESULTS: A total of 65 publications with at least one efficacy primary outcome were considered. The results analysis for the primary outcome indicated statistically significant effects in 44.6% (29/65) of the publications, and 70.7% (45/65) of the conclusions were considered favorable to the intervention. Among the 36 publications that found statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcome, 44.4% (16/36) presented conclusions favorable to or recommending the intervention, which represents spin bias according to the definition adopted in this study. Qualitative analysis of the 16 studies with spin bias showed selective outcomes reporting (elevating secondary outcomes that had positive results or reporting only subgroup results), deviations from the planned statistical analysis, and failure to consider or report uncertainty in the estimates of treatment effects. CONCLUSION: The frequency of spin bias among publications of controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results assessing the therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues reached 44.4%. When not observed by readers, such deviation can lead to misconduct in clinical practice through the adoption of interventions that are not effective or whose effectiveness is uncertain.

Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary. METHODS: This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.

ANTECEDENTES: El tabaquismo es una causa principal de enfermedad y muerte en todo el mundo. En las personas que fuman, dejar de fumar puede revertir gran parte del daño. Muchas personas utilizan intervenciones conductuales para ayudarles a dejar de fumar y estas intervenciones pueden variar considerablemente en contenido y efectividad. OBJETIVOS: Resumir la evidencia de las revisiones Cochrane que evaluaron el efecto de las intervenciones conductuales diseñadas para apoyar los intentos de abandono del hábito de fumar y realizar un metanálisis en red para determinar cómo las modalidades de prestación; la persona que administra la intervención; y la naturaleza, el enfoque y la intensidad de las intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar influyen en la probabilidad de lograr la abstinencia seis meses después de intentar dejar de fumar; y si los efectos de las intervenciones conductuales dependen de otras características, como la población, el contexto y la administración de farmacoterapia. Resumir la disponibilidad y los hallazgos principales de las evaluaciones económicas de intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar, en términos de costes y coste­efectividad, mediante un breve comentario económico. MÉTODOS: Este artículo comprende dos elementos principales. 1. Se realizó una revisión global Cochrane de revisiones según los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Mediante una búsqueda en la Biblioteca Cochrane en julio de 2020 se identificaron las revisiones Cochrane de intervenciones conductuales (incluidas todas las intervenciones no farmacológicas, p.ej., orientación, ejercicio, hipnoterapia, materiales de autoayuda) para el abandono del hábito de fumar. La calidad metodológica de las revisiones se evaluó mediante AMSTAR 2 y los datos de las revisiones se resumieron de manera narrativa. 2. Las revisiones incluidas se utilizaron para identificar los ensayos controlados aleatorizados de intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar en comparación con otras intervenciones conductuales o ninguna intervención para el abandono del hábito de fumar. Para ser incluidos, los estudios debían incluir a fumadores adultos y medir la abstinencia de fumar a los seis meses o más. La selección, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo siguieron los métodos Cochrane estándar. Los datos se resumieron mediante un metanálisis en red de componentes (MARC) bayesiano, y se examinaron los efectos de 38 componentes diferentes en comparación con una intervención mínima. Los componentes incluyeron elementos conductuales y motivacionales, proveedores de la intervención, modos de administración, naturaleza, enfoque e intensidad de la intervención conductual. Se utilizó la metarregresión en red de componentes (MRRC) para evaluar la influencia de las características de la población, la administración de farmacoterapia y la intensidad de la intervención sobre los efectos de los componentes. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los dominios de GRADE. Se presupuso un efecto aditivo para los componentes individuales. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 33 revisiones Cochrane, de las cuales 312 ensayos controlados aleatorizados, que representaban a 250 563 participantes y 845 grupos de estudio distintos, cumplieron los criterios para su inclusión en el metanálisis en red de componentes. Esto representó 437 combinaciones diferentes de componentes. De las 33 revisiones, la confianza en los hallazgos de la revisión fue alta en cuatro y moderada en nueve, medida con la herramienta de lectura crítica AMSTAR 2. Las 20 revisiones restantes tuvieron una confianza baja o críticamente baja debido a una o más deficiencias graves, las más habituales fueron una investigación o discusión (o ambas) insuficiente acerca del impacto del sesgo de publicación. Cabe señalar que las debilidades críticas identificadas no afectaron los elementos de la búsqueda, la selección o la extracción de los datos del proceso de revisión, que mantienen una relación directa en este MARC. Entre los estudios incluidos, 125/312 tuvieron un riesgo general de sesgo bajo, 50 un riesgo de sesgo alto y el resto un riesgo de sesgo poco claro. Los análisis de las revisiones contribuyentes y de este MARC mostraron que las intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar pueden aumentar las tasas de abandono del hábito, pero la efectividad varía según las características del apoyo proporcionado. Hubo evidencia de certeza alta de un efecto beneficioso de la prestación de orientación (odds ratio [OR] 1,44; intervalo de credibilidad [ICr] del 95%: 1,22 a 1,70, 194 estudios, n = 72 273) y de los incentivos económicos garantizados (OR 1,46; ICr del 95% 1,15 a 1,85, 19 estudios, n = 8877). La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso se mantuvo cuando se eliminaron los estudios con alto riesgo de sesgo. Estos hallazgos fueron concordantes con los metanálisis pareados de las revisiones contribuyentes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de un efecto beneficioso de las intervenciones administradas a través de mensajes de texto (la certeza se disminuyó debido a una heterogeneidad estadística inexplicada en la comparación pareada), y de los siguientes componentes en los que las estimaciones puntuales indicaron un efecto beneficioso pero los ICr no incorporaron una diferencia clínicamente significativa: personalización; contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales; contenido de la intervención centrado en cómo dejar de fumar. Los otros componentes de la intervención tuvieron evidencia de certeza muy baja a baja, y sus problemas principales fueron la imprecisión y el riesgo de sesgo. No hubo evidencia que indicara un aumento de los efectos perjudiciales en los grupos que recibieron apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar. Los efectos de la intervención no cambiaron al ajustar las características de la población, pero los datos fueron limitados. El aumento de la intensidad del apoyo conductual, medido a través del número de contactos, la duración de cada contacto y la duración del programa, tuvo estimaciones puntuales asociadas con un modesto aumento de las posibilidades de dejar de fumar, pero los ICr no incluyeron una diferencia. El efecto del apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar pareció ser ligeramente menos pronunciado cuando las personas ya recibían farmacoterapias para dejar de fumar. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: El apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar puede aumentar las tasas de abandono a los seis meses o más, sin evidencia de que este apoyo aumente los efectos perjudiciales. Esto es así tanto si se proporciona una farmacoterapia para dejar de fumar como si no, pero el efecto es ligeramente más pronunciado sin farmacoterapia. La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso es más sólida para la prestación de cualquier tipo de orientación y de incentivos económicos garantizados. La evidencia indicó un posible efecto beneficioso, pero la necesidad de realizar más estudios para evaluar: la personalización; la administración mediante mensajes de texto, correos electrónicos y grabaciones de audio; la administración por parte de un asesor de salud no profesional; y el contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales y centrada en cómo dejar de fumar. Se identificaron 23 evaluaciones económicas; la evidencia no indicó de manera homogénea que un tipo de intervención conductual para el abandono del hábito de fumar fuera más coste­efectiva que otra. Las revisiones futuras deberían examinar a fondo el sesgo de publicación. Se necesitan herramientas para investigar el sesgo de publicación y evaluar la certeza en MARC.

A Quantitative Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Herbal Medicine Research: The Road to Improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify different aspects of the quality of reporting of herbal medicine clinical trials, to determine how that quality is affecting the conclusions of meta-analyses, and to target areas for improvement in future herbal medicine research reporting. STUDY DESIGN: The Electronic databases PubMed, Academic Search Premier, ScienceDirect, and Alt HealthWatch were searched for meta-analyses of herbal medicines in refereed journals and Cochrane Reviews in the years 2000-2004 and 2010-2014. The search was limited to meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials involving humans and published in English. Judgments and descriptions within the meta-analyses were used to report on risks of bias in the included clinical trials and the meta-analyses themselves. RESULTS: Out of 3264 citations, 9 journal-published meta-analyses were selected from 2000 to 2004, 116 from 2010 to 2014, and 44 Cochrane Reviews from 2010 to 2014. Across both time frames and categories of publication, <42% of the trials included in the meta-analyses described adequate randomization; <19% described concealment methods; <26% described double blinding; <29% described outcome assessment blinding, ≤53% discussed incomplete data, and <36% were nonselective in their reporting. Less than 54% of trials reported on adverse events and 64% of meta-analyses did not include a single trial with a low risk of bias. Taxonomic verification and chemical characterization of test products were infrequent in trials. Only 40% of meta-analyses considered publication bias and, of those that did, 90% found evidence for it. Cochrane Reviews were more likely than other sources to make negative conclusions of efficacy or to defer conclusions because of the absence of high quality trials. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of herbal medicines include a significant number of clinical trials that do not meet the recommended standards for clinical trial reporting. This quantitative assessment identified significant publication bias and other bias risks that may be due to inadequate trial design or incomplete reporting of outcomes. Suggested improvements to herbal medicine clinical trial reporting are discussed.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Chinese and Western integrative medicine on medium and advanced lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the effectiveness of Chinese and Western integrative medicine in treating medium and advanced lung cancer, and to provide guidelines for clinical application. METHODS: For this metaanalysis, a comparative search of Chinese medicine data in Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) was undertaken to identify articles related to randomized comparative research of Chinese and Western integrative medicine in treating medium and advanced lung cancer between 1996 to 2006. Quality of life (QOL) was estimated using RevMan 4.2 software for data processing, adopting the odd ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Through meta-analysis of 10 qualified articles, the results were as follows: the merging effectiveness of QOL [OR=3.80, 95% CI (2.65, 5.47)]; the rate of survival [OR=3.44, 95% CI (2.04, 5.80)]; the tumor response rate [OR=1.88, 95% CI (1.37, 2.58)]; the tumor developing rate [OR=0.33, 95% CI (0.23, 0.48)]. Significant differences existed between the Chinese and Western integrative medicine treatment group and the Western treatment group (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Chinese and Western integrative medicine treatment of medium and advanced lung cancer has shown to improve patients' QOL and survival rate; it also can control tumor development in the short term.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of depression: systematic review and meta-analysis.

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of omega-3 fatty acid (FA) treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in order to determine efficacy and to examine sources of heterogeneity between trials. PubMed (1965-May 2010) was searched for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of omega-3 FAs for MDD. Our primary outcome measure was standardized mean difference in a clinical measure of depression severity. In stratified meta-analysis, we examined the effects of trial duration, trial methodological quality, baseline depression severity, diagnostic indication, dose of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in omega-3 preparations, and whether omega-3 FA was given as monotherapy or augmentation. In 13 randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of omega-3 FAs involving 731 participants, meta-analysis demonstrated no significant benefit of omega-3 FA treatment compared with placebo (standard mean difference (SMD)=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.04, 0.26). Meta-analysis demonstrated significant heterogeneity and publication bias. Nearly all evidence of omega-3 benefit was removed after adjusting for publication bias using the trim-and-fill method (SMD=0.01, 95% CI: -0.13, 0.15). Secondary analyses suggested a trend toward increased efficacy of omega-3 FAs in trials of lower methodological quality, trials of shorter duration, trials which utilized completers rather than intention-to-treat analysis, and trials in which study participants had greater baseline depression severity. Current published trials suggest a small, non-significant benefit of omega-3 FAs for major depression. Nearly all of the treatment efficacy observed in the published literature may be attributable to publication bias.

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to examine, in a random sample of published systematic reviews, measures taken to prevent, reduce and detect dissemination bias. DATA SOURCES: The main literature search, in August 2008, covered the Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL. In May 2009, PubMed, PsycINFO and OpenSIGLE were also searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were also examined. REVIEW METHODS: In Part I, studies were classified as evidence or method studies and data were extracted according to types of dissemination bias or methods for dealing with it. Evidence from empirical studies was summarised narratively. In Part II, 300 systematic reviews were randomly selected from MEDLINE and the methods used to deal with publication and related biases were assessed. RESULTS: Studies with significant or positive results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant or negative results, thereby confirming findings from a previous HTA report. There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews. Studies with significant results tended to be published earlier than studies with non-significant results, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Exclusion of non-English-language studies appeared to result in a high risk of bias in some areas of research such as complementary and alternative medicine. In a few cases, publication and related biases had a potentially detrimental impact on patients or resource use. Publication bias can be prevented before a literature review (e.g. by prospective registration of trials), or detected during a literature review (e.g. by locating unpublished studies, funnel plot and related tests, sensitivity analysis modelling), or its impact can be minimised after a literature review (e.g. by confirmatory large-scale trials, updating the systematic review). The interpretation of funnel plot and related statistical tests, often used to assess publication bias, was often too simplistic and likely misleading. More sophisticated modelling methods have not been widely used. Compared with systematic reviews published in 1996, recent reviews of health-care interventions were more likely to locate and include non-English-language studies and grey literature or unpublished studies, and to test for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can be taken to minimise the impact of dissemination bias by systematically searching for and including relevant studies that are difficult to access. Statistical methods can be useful for sensitivity analyses. Further research is needed to develop methods for qualitatively assessing the risk of publication bias in systematic reviews, and to evaluate the effect of prospective registration of studies, open access policy and improved publication guidelines.

Caffeine exposure and the risk of Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Several studies conducted worldwide report an inverse association between caffeine/coffee consumption and the risk of developing Parkinson's disease (PD). However, heterogeneity and conflicting results between studies preclude a correct estimation of the strength of this association. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published epidemiological studies to better estimate the effect of caffeine exposure on the incidence of PD. Data sources searched included Medline, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science and reference lists, up to September 2009. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies were included. Three independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data on to standardized forms. Twenty-six studies were included: 7 cohort, 2 nested case-control, 16 case-control, and 1 cross-sectional study. Quantitative data synthesis of the most precise estimates from each study was accomplished through random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. The summary RR for the association between caffeine intake and PD was 0.75 [[95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 0.68-0.82], with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2= 28.8%). Publication bias for case-control/cross-sectional studies may exist (Egger's test, p=0.053). When considering only the cohort studies, the RR was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.71-90; I2=8.1%). The negative association was weaker when only women were considered (RR=0.86, 95%CI: 0.73-1.02; I2=12.9%). A linear relation was observed between levels of exposure to caffeine and the RR estimates: RR of 0.76 (95%CI: 0.72-0.80; I2= 35.1%) per 300 mg increase in caffeine intake. This study confirm an inverse association between caffeine intake and the risk of PD, which can hardly by explained by bias or uncontrolled confounding.

Garlic consumption and cancer prevention: meta-analyses of colorectal and stomach cancers.

BACKGROUND: Animal and in vitro studies have provided evidence of an anticarcinogenic effect of active ingredients in garlic. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct meta-analyses of the epidemiologic literature on the association between garlic consumption and risk of stomach, colon, head and neck, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. DESIGN: Meta-analyses were conducted for all cancers mutually and separately for colorectal and stomach cancers in relation to consumption of exclusively raw garlic, cooked garlic, or both (RC garlic). Eighteen studies reported a relative risk estimate for RC garlic consumption and cancer risk. RESULTS: In the meta-analyses of colorectal and stomach cancer, the reference categories ranged from no consumption to consumption of 3.5 g/wk, whereas the highest categories ranged from any consumption to >28.8 g/wk. The average difference between the highest and lowest categories was 16 g/wk. The random-effects relative risk (RR) estimate of colorectal cancer and RC garlic consumption, excluding garlic supplements, was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.89). For stomach cancer, the random-effects RR estimate was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.92). The heterogeneity among studies for the latter outcome (P: = 0.0002) indicates the questionableness of the generalizability of this summary estimate. An indication of publication bias for all cancers combined is evident from a funnel plot of RC garlic consumption and cancer risk and from the results of the Begg and Mazumdar test (P: = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: High intake of RC garlic may be associated with a protective effect against stomach and colorectal cancers. Heterogeneity of effect estimates, differences in dose estimation, publication bias, and possible alternative hypotheses (eg, confounding by total vegetable consumption) preclude sole reliance on summary effect estimates.