Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting. RESULTS: Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies. CONCLUSION: Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. RESULTS: As of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change 0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179703.

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic.

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

Effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to June 28, 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials assessed interventions among hospitalized COVID-19 patients that targeted mental health symptoms. Due to the poor quality of trials, we sought to verify accuracy of trial reports including results. RESULTS: We identified 47 randomized controlled trials from China (N = 42), Iran (N = 4) and Turkey (N = 1) of which 21 tested the efficacy of psychological interventions, 5 physical and breathing exercises, and 21 a combination of interventions. Trial information could only be verified for 3 trials of psychological interventions (cognitive behavioral, guided imagery, multicomponent online), and these were the only trials with low risk of bias on at least 4 of 7 domains. Results could not be pooled or interpreted with confidence due to the degree of poor reporting and trial quality, the frequency of what were deemed implausibly large effects, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Trials of interventions to address mental health in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, collectively, are not of sufficient quality to inform practice. Health care providers should refer to existing expert recommendations and standard hospital-based practices. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

Effects of COVID-19 Mental Health Interventions Among Children, Adolescents, and Adults Not Quarantined or Undergoing Treatment Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to assess the effects of mental health interventions for children, adolescents, and adults not quarantined or undergoing treatment due to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of interventions to address COVID-19 mental health challenges among people not hospitalised or quarantined due to COVID-19 infection. We synthesized results descriptively due to substantial heterogeneity of populations and interventions and risk of bias concerns. RESULTS: We identified 9 eligible trials, including 3 well-conducted, well-reported trials that tested interventions designed specifically for COVID-19 mental health challenges, plus 6 other trials with high risk of bias and reporting concerns, all of which tested standard interventions (e.g., individual or group therapy, expressive writing, mindfulness recordings) minimally adapted or not specifically adapted for COVID-19. Among the 3 well-conducted and reported trials, 1 (N = 670) found that a self-guided, internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry significantly reduced COVID-19 anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90) and depression symptoms (SMD 0.38, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.55) in Swedish general population participants. A lay-delivered telephone intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated education and support intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) significantly improved anxiety (SMD 0.35, 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.60; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.58) and depressive symptoms (SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.55) 6-week post-intervention, but these were not significant immediately post-intervention. No trials in children or adolescents were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that adapt evidence-based strategies for feasible delivery may be effective to address mental health in COVID-19. More well-conducted trials, including for children and adolescents, are needed.