Increased risks for random errors are common in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of article was to assess the risk for random errors in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence (CoE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomly selected 100 Cochrane reviews with dichotomous outcomes rated as high CoE using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. To detect increased risks for random errors, two investigators independently conducted trial sequential analysis using conventional thresholds for type I (α = 0.05) and type II (ß = 0.10) errors. We dually regraded all outcomes with increased risks for random errors and conducted multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine predictors of increased risks for random errors. RESULTS: Overall, 38% (95% confidence interval: 28-47%) of high CoE outcomes had increased risks for random errors. Outcomes assessing harms were more frequently affected than outcomes assessing benefits (47% vs. 12%). Regrading of outcomes with increased random errors showed that 74% should have been downgraded based on current guidance. Regression analyses rendered small absolute risk differences (P = 0.009) and low number of events (P = 0.001) as significant predictors of increased risks for random errors. CONCLUSION: Decisionmakers need to be aware that outcomes rated as high CoE often have increased risks for false-positive or false-negative findings.

Tuberculosis Knowledge, Awareness, and Stigma Among African-Americans in Three Southeastern Counties in the USA: a Qualitative Study of Community Perspectives.

To inform strategies to address the tuberculosis (TB) excess among US-born African-Americans, we sought to understand the TB experience in the most highly affected southeastern communities. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups in three communities with a TB excess-urban (Georgia and Tennessee) and rural (North Carolina). Participants from five groups provided diverse perspectives-African-Americans: patients with TB disease or latent TB infection (LTBI), or at high risk of contracting TB; and local community leaders and TB program staff. Few differences emerged between sites. Many participants demonstrated low levels of knowledge and awareness and held many misconceptions about TB. Patients expressed a preference for verbal communication of medical information. Patients reported fear of stigmatization and shunning, but few experienced discrimination. Patient trust for TB program staff was high, though community leaders often assumed the opposite. The findings will help guide interventions to improve knowledge and awareness regarding TB, including specific attention to the role of public and private health care providers in dispelling persistent misinformation about TB. The insight from these communities will help build the scientific foundation required to effectively eliminate health inequities.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and 2 or more prior antidepressant treatment failures (often referred to as treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). These patients are less likely to recover with medications alone and often consider nonpharmacologic treatments such as rTMS. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for studies comparing rTMS with a sham-controlled treatment in TRD patients ages 18 years or older. STUDY SELECTION: We included 18 good- or fair-quality TRD studies published from January 1, 1980, through March 20, 2013. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted relevant data, assessed each study's internal validity, and graded strength of evidence for change in depressive severity, response rates, and remission rates. RESULTS: rTMS was beneficial compared with sham for all outcomes. rTMS produced a greater decrease in depressive severity (high strength of evidence), averaging a clinically meaningful decrease on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) of more than 4 points compared with sham (mean decrease = -4.53; 95% CI, -6.11 to -2.96). rTMS resulted in greater response rates (high strength of evidence); those receiving rTMS were more than 3 times as likely to respond as patients receiving sham (relative risk = 3.38; 95% CI, 2.24 to 5.10). Finally, rTMS was more likely to produce remission (moderate strength of evidence); patients receiving rTMS were more than 5 times as likely to achieve remission as those receiving sham (relative risk = 5.07; 95% CI, 2.50 to 10.30). Limited evidence and variable treatment parameters prevented conclusions about which specific treatment options are more effective than others. How long these benefits persist remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: For MDD patients with 2 or more antidepressant treatment failures, rTMS is a reasonable, effective consideration.