Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

QUESTION: Tricyclic antidepressants are used to treat depression worldwide, but the adverse effects have not been systematically assessed. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of all tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing tricyclic antidepressants versus placebo or 'active placebo' for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were depressive symptoms measured on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), serious adverse events and quality of life. The minimal important difference was defined as three points on the HDRS-17. FINDINGS: We included 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low or low. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo (mean difference -3.77 HDRS-17 points; 95% CI -5.91 to -1.63; 17 trials). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo on serious adverse events (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.55; 35 trials), but the required information size was not reached. Only 2 out of 103 trials reported on quality of life and t-tests showed no evidence of a difference. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effects of tricyclic antidepressants and the effects on quality of life are unknown. Short-term results suggest that tricyclic antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms while also increasing the risks of serious adverse events, but these results were based on low and very low certainty evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226161.

Ketamine for Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe acute brain injury have a high risk of a poor clinical outcome due to primary and secondary brain injury. Ketamine reportedly inhibits cortical spreading depolarization, an electrophysiological phenomenon that has been associated with secondary brain injury, making ketamine potentially attractive for patients with severe acute brain injury. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the current literature regarding ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury. METHODS: We systematically searched international databases for randomized clinical trials comparing ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or any control drug for patients with severe acute brain injury. Two authors independently reviewed and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed analysis using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with an unfavorable functional outcome, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: We identified five randomized trials comparing ketamine versus sufentanil, fentanyl, other sedatives, or saline (total N = 149 participants). All outcomes were at overall high risk of bias. The proportions of participants with one or more serious adverse events did not differ between ketamine and sufentanil or fentanyl (relative risk 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.81-2.58; very low certainty). Trial sequential analysis showed that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence regarding the effects of ketamine on functional outcome and serious adverse events in patients with severe acute brain injury is very low. Ketamine may markedly, modestly, or not at all affect these outcomes. Large randomized clinical trials at low risk of bias are needed.

Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.

Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated review concerning 'Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit'. Supplementary oxygen is provided to most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent global and organ hypoxia (inadequate oxygen levels). Oxygen has been administered liberally, resulting in high proportions of patients with hyperoxemia (exposure of tissues to abnormally high concentrations of oxygen). This has been associated with increased mortality and morbidity in some settings, but not in others. Thus far, only limited data have been available to inform clinical practice guidelines, and the optimum oxygenation target for ICU patients is uncertain. Because of the publication of new trial evidence, we have updated this review. OBJECTIVES: To update the assessment of benefits and harms of higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2) or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registers and scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials. Literature searches for this updated review were conducted in November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2 or SaO2)) for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants to hypoxaemia (FiO2 below 0.21, SaO2/SpO2 below 80%, or PaO2 below 6 kPa) or to hyperbaric oxygen, and cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references identified in the literature searches and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life. We analysed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. Only three trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more SAEs as a composite outcome. However, most trials reported on events categorised as SAEs according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single SAE with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with an SAE in each trial. Two trials reported on quality of life. Secondary outcomes were lung injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. No trial reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, but four trials reported on the occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and five on pneumonia. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single lung injury event with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial. We assessed the risk of systematic errors by evaluating the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We used the GRADEpro tool to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We also evaluated the risk of publication bias for outcomes reported by 10b or more trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (10,385 participants), of which 17 reported relevant outcomes for this review (10,248 participants). For all-cause mortality, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and six at overall high risk of bias. For the reported SAEs, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and seven at overall high risk of bias. Two trials reported on quality of life, of which one was judged to be at overall low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias for this outcome. Meta-analysis of all trials, regardless of risk of bias, indicated no significant difference from higher or lower oxygenation strategies at maximum follow-up with regard to mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (C)I 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 14%; 16 trials; 9408 participants; very low-certainty evidence); occurrence of SAEs: the highest proportion of any specific SAE in each trial RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 36%; 9466 participants; 17 trials; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.5 points in participants assigned to higher oxygenation strategies (95% CI -2.75 to 1.75; I2 = 34%, 1649 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence)). Meta-analysis of the cumulated number of SAEs suggested benefit of a lower oxygenation strategy (RR 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; I2 = 74%; 9489 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty evidence)). However, trial sequential analyses, with correction for sparse data and repetitive testing, could reject a relative risk increase or reduction of 10% for mortality and the highest proportion of SAEs, and 20% for both the cumulated number of SAEs and quality of life. Given the very low-certainty of evidence, it is necessary to interpret these findings with caution. Meta-analysis of all trials indicated no statistically significant evidence of a difference between higher or lower oxygenation strategies on the occurrence of lung injuries at maximum follow-up (the highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 2048 participants; 8 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of all trials indicated harm from higher oxygenation strategies as compared with lower on the occurrence of sepsis at maximum follow-up (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93; I2 = 0%; 752 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated no differences regarding the occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adult ICU patients, it is still not possible to draw clear conclusions about the effects of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies on all-cause mortality, SAEs, quality of life, lung injuries, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis at maximum follow-up. This is due to low or very low-certainty evidence.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Dexmedetomidine for the prevention of delirium in adults admitted to the intensive care unit or post-operative care unit: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43-1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes.

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for organ dysfunction and death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no guidelines exist for its management. We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of a single loop diuretic, the predominant treatment used for fluid overload in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of a single loop diuretic vs. other interventions reported in randomised clinical trials, adhering to our published protocol, the Cochrane Handbook, and PRISMA statement. We assessed the risks of bias with the ROB2-tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020184799). RESULTS: We included 10 trials (804 participants), all at overall high risk of bias. For loop diuretics vs. placebo/no intervention, we found no difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-1.06; 4 trials; 359 participants; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI 0.15-3.48; very low certainty of evidence). Fewer serious adverse events were registered in the group treated with loop diuretics (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99; 6 trials; 476 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty of evidence), though contested by TSA (TSA-adjusted CI 0.55-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of loop diuretics on mortality and serious adverse events in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. Loop diuretics may reduce the occurrence of these outcomes, but large randomised placebo-controlled trials at low risk of bias are needed.

Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SOURCES: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.

Long-term effects of lower versus higher oxygenation levels in adult ICU patients-A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy is a common treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) with both potentially desirable and undesirable long-term effects. This systematic review aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygenation strategies in adult ICU survivors. METHODS: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing lower versus higher oxygen supplementation or oxygenation strategies in adults admitted to the ICU. We searched major electronic databases and trial registers. We included all non-mortality long-term outcomes. Prespecified co-primary outcomes were the long-term cognitive function measures, the overall score of any valid health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evaluation, standardised 6-min walk test, and lung diffusion capacity. The protocol was published and prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021223630). RESULTS: The review included 17 RCTs comprising 6592 patients, and six trials with 825 randomised patients reported one or more outcomes of interest. We observed no difference in cognitive evaluation via Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (one trial, 409 patients) (mean score: 30.6 ± 4.5 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 30.4 ± 4.3 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged at overall high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was very low. Any difference was neither observed in HRQoL measured via EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level questionnaire and EQ Visual Analogue Score (one trial, 499 patients) (mean score: 70.1 ± 22 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 67.6 ± 22.4 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged as having high risk of bias, the certainty of evidence was very low. No trial reported neither the standardised 6-min walk test nor lung diffusion test. CONCLUSION: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of a lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy on both the cognitive function and HRQoL. A lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy may have a little to no effect on both outcomes but the certainty of evidence is very low. No evidence was found for the effects on the standardised 6-min walking test and diffusion capacity test.

The long-term effects of lower versus higher oxygenation levels in adult ICU patients - protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many organs can remain impaired after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) leading to temporal or permanent dysfunctions. Long-term impairments may be affected by supplemental oxygen, a common treatment in ICU, having both potential beneficial and harmful long-lasting effects. This systematic review aims to assess the long-term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygen supplementation and/or oxygenation levels in adults admitted to ICU. METHODS: We will include trials differentiating between a lower and a higher oxygen supplementation or a lower and a higher oxygenation strategy in adults admitted to the ICU. We will search major electronic databases and trial registers for randomised clinical trials. Two authors will independently screen and select references for inclusion using Covidence and predefined data will be extracted. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Meta-analysis will be performed if two or more trials with comparable outcome measures will be included. Otherwise, a narrative description of the trials' results will be presented instead. To assess the certainty of evidence, we will create a 'Summary of findings' table containing all prespecified outcomes using the GRADE system. The protocol is submitted on the PROSPERO database (ID 223630). CONCLUSION: No systematic reviews on the impact of oxygen treatment in the ICU on long-term outcomes, other than mortality and quality of life, have been reported yet. This systematic review will provide an overview of the current evidence and will help future research in the field.

Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy.

In a recent paper, Chen et al. report the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis concerning conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy for critically ill patients. We wish to commend the authors for their interest in the matter. However, the authors appear to misquote findings, fail to report results for all specified analyses, do not identify all relevant trials, have post hoc changed the eligibility criteria, and have seemingly switched directions of effects in analyses of secondary outcomes. These issues have led to incorrect conclusions concerning the effects of targeted oxygen therapy in critically ill patients.

Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. METHODS: This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .

Duloxetine versus 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, 'active placebo', or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020220279.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Prophylactic acid suppressants in children in the intensive care unit: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill children are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. Acid suppressants are frequently used in intensive care units even though there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms. With this systematic review, we aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in children in intensive care. METHODS: We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook, and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). We included randomised clinical trials comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors vs placebo/no prophylaxis in children admitted for intensive care. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and overt gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, hospital-acquired pneumonia, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischemia, acute kidney injury and quality of life. RESULTS: We included a total of seven trials (n = 504) with eight trial comparisons. We found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-2.37), overt gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42-1.35) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77-1.82) between SUP vs placebo/no prophylaxis. No trials reported on remaining secondary outcomes. TSA was unable to draw firm conclusions for all outcomes and certainty of evidence for all outcomes was "very low." CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in all-cause mortality, overt gastrointestinal bleeding or hospital-acquired pneumonia in children in intensive care receiving acid suppressants compared with placebo/no prophylaxis. However, the quantity and quality of evidence was very low with no firm evidence for benefit or harm.

Higher vs Lower Oxygenation Strategies in Acutely Ill Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm. RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults. RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence). INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.