Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVE: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews of intervention studies. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We did a meta-research study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics. RESULTS: We included 1172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for systematic reviews without meta-analysis was 17.5 out of a maximum of 23 and, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 22 out of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section was suboptimal. Systematic reviews that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009. CONCLUSION: Reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies.

crossnma: An R package to synthesize cross-design evidence and cross-format data using network meta-analysis and network meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Although aggregate data (AD) from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are used in the majority of network meta-analyses (NMAs), other study designs (e.g., cohort studies and other non-randomised studies, NRS) can be informative about relative treatment effects. The individual participant data (IPD) of the study, when available, are preferred to AD for adjusting for important participant characteristics and to better handle heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network. RESULTS: We developed the R package crossnma to perform cross-format (IPD and AD) and cross-design (RCT and NRS) NMA and network meta-regression (NMR). The models are implemented as Bayesian three-level hierarchical models using Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) software within the R environment. The R package crossnma includes functions to automatically create the JAGS model, reformat the data (based on user input), assess convergence and summarize the results. We demonstrate the workflow within crossnma by using a network of six trials comparing four treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The R package crossnma enables the user to perform NMA and NMR with different data types in a Bayesian framework and facilitates the inclusion of all types of evidence recognising differences in risk of bias.

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023402365.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism for psychosis: a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human data.

Background: Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism shows promise for treating psychosis, prompting us to synthesise data from human and non-human studies. Methods: We co-produced a living systematic review of controlled studies examining TAAR1 agonists in individuals (with or without psychosis/schizophrenia) and relevant animal models. Two independent reviewers identified studies in multiple electronic databases (until 17.11.2023), extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were standardised mean differences (SMD) for overall symptoms in human studies and hyperlocomotion in animal models. We also examined adverse events and neurotransmitter signalling. We synthesised data with random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomised trials provided data for two TAAR1 agonists (ulotaront and ralmitaront), and 15 animal studies for 10 TAAR1 agonists. Ulotaront and ralmitaront demonstrated few differences compared to placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (N=4 studies, n=1291 participants; SMD=0.15, 95%CI: -0.05, 0.34), and ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (N=1, n=156, SMD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.86, -0.20). Large placebo response was observed in ulotaront phase-III trials. Limited evidence suggested a relatively benign side-effect profile for TAAR1 agonists, although nausea and sedation were common after a single dose of ulotaront. In animal studies, TAAR1 agonists improved hyperlocomotion compared to control (N=13 studies, k=41 experiments, SMD=1.01, 95%CI: 0.74, 1.27), but seemed less efficacious compared to dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists (N=4, k=7, SMD=-0.62, 95%CI: -1.32, 0.08). Limited human and animal data indicated that TAAR1 agonists may regulate presynaptic dopaminergic signalling. Conclusions: TAAR1 agonists may be less efficacious than dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists already licensed for schizophrenia. The results are preliminary due to the limited number of drugs examined, lack of longer-term data, publication bias, and assay sensitivity concerns in trials associated with large placebo response. Considering their unique mechanism of action, relatively benign side-effect profile and ongoing drug development, further research is warranted. Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

There is a need for more effective treatments for psychosis, including schizophrenia. Psychosis is a collection of mental health symptoms, such as hearing voices, that can cause distress and impair functioning. These symptoms are thought to be caused by changes in a chemical messenger system in the brain called dopamine. Currently used antipsychotic medications target brain receptors that respond to dopamine. They are not effective in some people and can cause uncomfortable adverse events, such as weight gain and movement disorders, especially with long-term use. A new type of drug is the trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists. These drugs act on different brain receptors that can affect the activity of the dopamine system, but do not directly bind to dopamine receptors. We aimed to understand if TAAR1 agonists can reduce symptoms of psychosis, what adverse events they might have, and how they work. We did this by reviewing and collating all available evidence until November 2023. This is a "living" systematic review, so it will be regularly updated in the future. We looked at both human and animal studies investigating TAAR1 agonists. Human studies suggested that two TAAR1 agonists (namely, ulotaront or ralmitaront) might have little to no effect on reducing symptoms of psychosis compared to placebo in people with schizophrenia. They seemed to cause fewer adverse events than current antipsychotics. Data from animal studies suggested that TAAR1 agonists had some positive effects but potentially smaller than other antipsychotics. There were little to no data from both human and animal studies about how TAAR1 agonists actually work. From the current evidence we are uncertain about these results. With the ongoing development of new TAAR1 agonists, more evidence is needed to understand their potential role in the treatment of psychosis.

Changes in the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the pandemic: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

AIM: To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends. METHODS: We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems. RESULTS: We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.

Non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there are multiple available techniques and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS techniques as an add-on to antipsychotics for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: We will include single- and double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) comparing any NIBS technique with each other or with a control intervention as an add-on to antipsychotics in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We will exclude studies focusing on predominant negative symptoms, maintenance treatment, and single sessions. The primary outcome will be a change in overall symptoms, and secondary outcomes will be a change in symptom domains, cognitive performance, quality of life, functioning, response, dropouts, and side effects. We will search for eligible studies in previous reviews, multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registries from inception onwards. At least two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will measure the treatment differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We will conduct pairwise and network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework using a random-effects model, except for rare event outcomes where we will use a fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. We will investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. Reporting bias will be assessed with funnel plots and the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool. The certainty in the evidence will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: Our network meta-analysis would provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence from all available RCTs on the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This information could guide evidence-based clinical practice and improve the outcomes of patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID CRD42023410645.

Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression.

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.

Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion. SETTING: England. POPULATION: Women treated for CIN. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted. RESULTS: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold. CONCLUSIONS: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.

Combining randomized and non-randomized data to predict heterogeneous effects of competing treatments.

Some patients benefit from a treatment while others may do so less or do not benefit at all. We have previously developed a two-stage network meta-regression prediction model that synthesized randomized trials and evaluates how treatment effects vary across patient characteristics. In this article, we extended this model to combine different sources of types in different formats: aggregate data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) from randomized and non-randomized evidence. In the first stage, a prognostic model is developed to predict the baseline risk of the outcome using a large cohort study. In the second stage, we recalibrated this prognostic model to improve our predictions for patients enrolled in randomized trials. In the third stage, we used the baseline risk as effect modifier in a network meta-regression model combining AD, IPD randomized clinical trial to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects. We illustrated the approach in the re-analysis of a network of studies comparing three drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Several patient characteristics influence the baseline risk of relapse, which in turn modifies the effect of the drugs. The proposed model makes personalized predictions for health outcomes under several treatment options and encompasses all relevant randomized and non-randomized evidence.

Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment. METHODS: The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617). FINDINGS: Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10-30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10-35%) for the full sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits. IMPLICATIONS: While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.

Condom use and HIV testing among adults in Switzerland: repeated national cross-sectional surveys 2007, 2012, and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention is important for guiding national sexual health programmes for both the general population and key populations. The objectives of this study were to examine trends and patterns of condom use at last intercourse and lifetime HIV testing in 2007, 2012 and 2017 in Switzerland, and to explore factors associated with these behaviours in men and women with opposite-sex partners and with same sex partners. METHODS: We analysed data from the 2007, 2012 and 2017 Swiss Health Survey. For each time point, outcome and population group, we conducted a descriptive analysis of weighted data and conducted multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and compared outcomes between the timepoints. RESULTS: In total, 46,320 people were interviewed: 21,847 men and 23,141 women, who reported having sex only with partners of the opposite sex, 633 men who reported sex with a male partner and 699 women who reported sex with a female partner. Among the three surveys the prevalence of condom did not change but varied from 22 to 26% of men and 15 to 21% in women with only opposite-sex partners (aOR men, 0.93, 95% CI 0.82, 1.06; women 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). In men with any same sex partner the prevalence of condom use was 40% in 2007, 33% in 2012 and 54% in 2017 (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 0.97, 3.34). In multivariable analysis, the factor most strongly associated with condom use was sex with an occasional partner at last intercourse. HIV testing ever increased across all three survey years in people with opposite sex partners: 2017 vs. 2007, aOR men with only opposite-sex partners 1.64 (95% CI 1.49, 1.82), women with only opposite-sex partners 1.67 (1.51, 1.85), men with any same sex partner 0.98 (0.49, 1.96), women with any same sex partner 1.31 (0.74, 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of condom use, and HIV testing should continue and contribute to the development of the national sexual health programme. Stronger promotion of condoms for people with opposite-sex partners might be needed, since overall condom use at last intercourse has not changed since 2007.

Estimating and visualising the trade-off between benefits and harms on multiple clinical outcomes in network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The relative treatment effects estimated from network meta-analysis can be employed to rank treatments from the most preferable to the least preferable option. These treatment hierarchies are typically based on ranking metrics calculated from a single outcome. Some approaches have been proposed in the literature to account for multiple outcomes and individual preferences, such as the coverage area inside a spie chart, that, however, does not account for a trade-off between efficacy and safety outcomes. We present the net-benefit standardised area within a spie chart, [Formula: see text] to explore the changes in treatment performance with different trade-offs between benefits and harms, according to a particular set of preferences. METHODS: We combine the standardised areas within spie charts for efficacy and safety/acceptability outcomes with a value λ specifying the trade-off between benefits and harms. We derive absolute probabilities and convert outcomes on a scale between 0 and 1 for inclusion in the spie chart. RESULTS: We illustrate how the treatments in three published network meta-analyses perform as the trade-off λ varies. The decrease of the [Formula: see text] quantity appears more pronounced for some drugs, e.g. haloperidol. Changes in treatment performance seem more frequent when SUCRA is employed as outcome measures in the spie charts. CONCLUSIONS: [Formula: see text] should not be interpreted as a ranking metric but it is a simple approach that could help identify which treatment is preferable when multiple outcomes are of interest and trading-off between benefits and harms is important.

Semi-automated assessment of the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis: a guidance paper for the ROB-MEN web-application.

Network meta-analysis compares multiple interventions and estimates the relative treatment effects between all interventions, combining both direct and indirect evidence. Recently, a framework was developed to assess the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) which is part of the more comprehensive framework to evaluate the Confidence In the evidence for Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). To produce an overall risk of bias judgement for each network estimate, ROB-MEN: performs an assessment of the bias due to missing evidence in each possible pairwise comparison; combines the assessment with the contribution from the direct pairwise comparisons; considers the potential for small-study effects. To facilitate and semi-automate this process, ROB-MEN has been implemented in a user-friendly web-application ( https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/rob-men ). Here we provide a tutorial detailing the functionality and use of the application consisting of data upload, analysis configuration, output visualisation, and production of the tool's output tables for recording the risk of bias assessment. We also illustrate an example application using the demo dataset available for download on the application's homepage. The ROB-MEN web-application is open-source and freely available ( https://github.com/esm-ispm-unibe-ch/rob-men ).

Tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH).

OBJECTIVE: There is no standard tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies. For the purposes of a living systematic review during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a tool to evaluate RoB in studies measuring the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH) and tested inter-rater reliability. METHODS: We decided on items and signalling questions to include in RoB-PrevMH through iterative discussions. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users with two sets of prevalence studies. The first set included a random sample of 50 studies from our living systematic review. The second set included 33 studies from a systematic review of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorders, major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We assessed the inter-rater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item. RESULTS: RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signalling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The inter-rater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa scores were 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RoB-PrevMH is a brief, user-friendly and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for inter-rater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability and applicability should be assessed in future projects.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide.

BACKGROUND: The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature. METHODS: In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review. RESULTS: We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Estimating Patient-Specific Relative Benefit of Adding Biologics to Conventional Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Current evidence remains ambiguous regarding whether biologics should be added to conventional treatment of rheumatoid arthritis for specific patients, which may cause potential overuse or treatment delay. Objectives: To estimate the benefit of adding biologics to conventional antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis given baseline characteristics. Data Sources: Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, MEDLINE, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for articles published from database inception to March 2, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing certolizumab plus conventional antirheumatic drugs with placebo plus conventional drugs were selected. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data of the prespecified outcomes and covariates were acquired from the Vivli database. A 2-stage model was fitted to estimate patient-specific relative outcomes of adding certolizumab vs conventional drugs only. Stage 1 was a penalized logistic regression model to estimate the baseline expected probability of the outcome regardless of treatment using baseline characteristics. Stage 2 was a bayesian individual participant data meta-regression model to estimate the relative outcomes for a particular baseline expected probability. Patient-specific results were displayed interactively on an application based on a 2-stage model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was low disease activity or remission at 3 months, defined by 3 disease activity indexes (ie, Disease Activity Score based on the evaluation of 28 joints, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Simplified Disease Activity Index). Results: Individual participant data were obtained from 3790 patients (2996 female [79.1%] and 794 male [20.9%]; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [12.3] years) from 5 large randomized clinical trials for moderate to high activity rheumatoid arthritis with usable data for 22 prespecified baseline covariates. Overall, adding certolizumab was associated with a higher probability of reaching low disease activity. The odds ratio for patients with an average baseline expected probability of the outcome was 6.31 (95% credible interval, 2.22-15.25). However, the benefits differed in patients with different baseline characteristics. For example, the estimated risk difference was smaller than 10% for patients with either low or high baseline expected probability. Conclusions and Relevance: In this individual participant data meta-analysis, adding certolizumab was associated with more effectiveness for rheumatoid arthritis in general. However, the benefit was uncertain for patients with low or high baseline expected probability, for whom other evaluations were necessary. The interactive application displaying individual estimates may help with treatment selection.

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis.

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world.

Predicting outcomes at the individual patient level: what is the best method?

OBJECTIVE: When developing prediction models, researchers commonly employ a single model which uses all the available data (end-to-end approach). Alternatively, a similarity-based approach has been previously proposed, in which patients with similar clinical characteristics are first grouped into clusters, then prediction models are developed within each cluster. The potential advantage of the similarity-based approach is that it may better address heterogeneity in patient characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether it improves the overall predictive performance. We illustrate the similarity-based approach using data from people with depression and empirically compare its performance with the end-to-end approach. METHODS: We used primary care data collected in general practices in the UK. Using 31 predefined baseline variables, we aimed to predict the severity of depressive symptoms, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire-9, 60 days after initiation of antidepressant treatment. Following the similarity-based approach, we used k-means to cluster patients based on their baseline characteristics. We derived the optimal number of clusters using the Silhouette coefficient. We used ridge regression to build prediction models in both approaches. To compare the models' performance, we calculated the mean absolute error (MAE) and the coefficient of determination (R2) using bootstrapping. RESULTS: We analysed data from 16 384 patients. The end-to-end approach resulted in an MAE of 4.64 and R2 of 0.20. The best-performing similarity-based model was for four clusters, with MAE of 4.65 and R2 of 0.19. CONCLUSIONS: The end-to-end and the similarity-based model yielded comparable performance. Due to its simplicity, the end-to-end approach can be favoured when using demographic and clinical data to build prediction models on pharmacological treatments for depression.