Factors associated with physical function among people with systemic sclerosis: a SPIN cohort cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare physical function in systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma) to general population normative data and identify associated factors. METHODS: Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort participants completed the Physical Function domain of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Version 2 upon enrolment. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess associations of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and disease-related variables. RESULTS: Among 2,385 participants, mean physical function T-score (43.7, SD = 8.9) was ∼2/3 of a standard deviation (SD) below the US general population (mean = 50, SD = 10). Factors associated in multivariable analysis included older age (-0.74 points per SD years, 95% CI -0.78 to -1.08), female sex (-1.35, -2.37 to -0.34), fewer years of education (-0.41 points per SD in years, -0.75 to -0.07), being single, divorced, or widowed (-0.76, -1.48 to -0.03), smoking (-3.14, -4.42 to -1.85), alcohol consumption (0.79 points per SD drinks per week, 0.45-1.14), BMI (-1.41 points per SD, -1.75 to -1.07), diffuse subtype (-1.43, -2.23 to -0.62), gastrointestinal involvement (-2.58, -3.53 to -1.62), digital ulcers (-1.96, -2.94 to -0.98), moderate (-1.94, -2.94 to -0.93) and severe (-1.76, -3.24 to -0.28) small joint contractures, moderate (-2.10, -3.44 to -0.76) and severe (-2.54, -4.64 to -0.44) large joint contractures, interstitial lung disease (-1.52, -2.27 to -0.77), pulmonary arterial hypertension (-3.72, -4.91 to -2.52), rheumatoid arthritis (-2.10, -3.64 to -0.56) and idiopathic inflammatory myositis (-2.10, -3.63 to -0.56). CONCLUSION: Physical function is impaired for many individuals with SSc and associated with multiple disease factors.

Researcher and patient experiences of co-presenting research to people living with systemic sclerosis at a patient conference: content analysis of interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is important to ensure research questions address problems important to patients, that research is designed in a way that can effectively answer those questions, and that findings are applicable, relevant, and credible. Yet, patients are rarely involved in the dissemination stage of research. This study explored one way to engage patients in dissemination, through co-presenting research. METHODS: Semi-structured, one-on-one, audio-recorded interviews were conducted with researchers and patients who co-presented research at one patient conference (the 2022 Canadian National Scleroderma Conference) in Canada. A pragmatic orientation was adopted, and following verbatim transcription, data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Of 8 researchers who were paired with 7 patients, 5 researchers (mean age = 28 years, SD = 3.6 years) and 5 patients (mean age = 45 years, SD = 14.2 years) participated. Researcher and patient perspectives about their experiences co-presenting and how to improve the experience were captured across 4 main categories: (1) Reasons for accepting the invitation to co-present; (2) Degree that co-presenting expectations were met; (3) The process of co-presenting; and (4) Lessons learned: recommendations for co-presenting. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that the co-presenting experience was a rewarding and enjoyable way to tailor research dissemination to patients. We identified a patient-centred approach and meaningful and prolonged patient engagement as essential elements underlying co-presenting success.

Involving patients throughout the entire research process is important to ensure research effectively addresses problems important to patients and that findings are applicable, relevant, and credible. Yet, patients are rarely involved in the dissemination of research. We explored one way to engage patients in dissemination, through co-presenting research. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 5 researchers and 5 patients who co-presented research at a patient conference in Canada. Both researchers and patients indicated that the co-presenting experience was rewarding and enjoyable and a useful way to tailor dissemination to patients. We found that a patient-centred approach and meaningful and prolonged patient engagement were essential elements underlying co-presenting success.

A qualitative interview study exploring the psychological health impacts of the SPIN-CHAT program among people with systemic sclerosis at the onset of COVID-19: perceptions of trial participants and research team members.

PURPOSE: Explore trial participants' and research team members' perceptions of the impact of the videoconference-based, supportive care program (SPIN-CHAT Program) during early COVID-19 for individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: Data were collected cross-sectionally. A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and one-on-one videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews were conducted with SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and research team members. A hybrid inductive-deductive approach and reflexive thematic analysis were used. RESULTS: Of the 40 SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and 28 research team members approached, 30 trial participants (Mean age = 54.9; SD = 13.0 years) and 22 research team members agreed to participate. Those who took part in interviews had similar characteristics to those who declined. Five themes were identified: (1) The SPIN-CHAT Program conferred a range of positive psychological health outcomes, (2) People who don't have SSc don't get it: The importance of SSc-specific programming, (3) The group-based format of the SPIN-CHAT Program created a safe space to connect and meet similar others, (4) The structure and schedule of the SPIN-CHAT Program reduced feelings of boredom and contributed to enhanced psychological health, (5) The necessity of knowledge, skills, and tools to self-manage SSc and navigate COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Participants' and research team members' perspectives elucidated SPIN-CHAT Program benefits and how these benefits may have been realized. Results underscore the importance of social support from similar others, structure, and self-management to enhance psychological health during COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335279)IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe videoconference-based, supportive care SPIN-CHAT Program enhanced psychological health amongst individuals affected by systemic sclerosis.SPIN-CHAT Program participants and research team members shared that being around similar others, program structure, and self-management support were important and may have contributed to enhanced psychological health.Further efforts are required to explore experiences within supportive care programs to better understand if and how psychological health is impacted.

Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious adverse events (SAEs), taking into consideration confounding and temporal biases. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase Classic+Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to June 2021 for observational studies assessing associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and maternal non-obstetric SAEs and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age birth and congenital anomalies. Studies of live attenuated vaccines, single-arm cohort studies and abstract-only publications were excluded. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach initially, followed by a dual independent approach for full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence certainty. RESULTS: Of 9443 records screened, 63 studies were included. Twenty-nine studies (24 cohort and 5 case-control) evaluated seasonal influenza vaccination (trivalent and/or quadrivalent) versus no vaccination and were the focus of our prioritised syntheses; 34 studies of pandemic vaccines (2009 A/H1N1 and others), combinations of pandemic and seasonal vaccines, and seasonal versus seasonal vaccines were also reviewed. Control for confounding and temporal biases was inconsistent across studies, limiting pooling of data. Meta-analyses for preterm birth, spontaneous abortion and small-for-gestational-age birth demonstrated no significant associations with seasonal influenza vaccination. Immortal time bias was observed in a sensitivity analysis of meta-analysing risk-based preterm birth data. In descriptive summaries for stillbirth, congenital anomalies and maternal non-obstetric SAEs, no significant association with increased risk was found in any studies. All evidence was of very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of very low certainty suggests that seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with adverse birth outcomes or maternal non-obstetric SAEs. Appropriate control of confounding and temporal biases in future studies would improve the evidence base.

Epidemiological characteristics and prevalence rates of research reproducibility across disciplines: A scoping review of articles published in 2018-2019.

Background: Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018 and 2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences, and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature - CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol for the replication study was used, whether there was contact between the reproducing team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how reproducibilty was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully reproduced based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer. Results: Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single reproducibility study while the remaining 11 reported at least two reproducibility studies in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of reproduciblity success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies reproduced. Conclusions: This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to reproduce previous research. Such reproducibility studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a successfully reproduced study is ambiguous, and the reproducibility rate is overall modest. Funding: No external funding was received for this work.

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.

Exploring research team members' and trial participants' perceptions of acceptability and implementation within one videoconference-based supportive care program for individuals affected by systemic sclerosis during COVID-19: a qualitative interview study.

The SPIN-CHAT Program was designed to support mental health among individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc; commonly known as scleroderma) and at least mild anxiety symptoms at the onset of COVID-19. The program was formally evaluated in the SPIN-CHAT Trial. Little is known about program and trial acceptability, and factors impacting implementation from the perspectives of research team members and trial participants. Thus, the propose of this follow-up study was to explore research team members' and trial participants' experiences with the program and trial to identify factors impacting acceptability and successful implementation. Data were collected cross-sectionally through one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants (Mage = 54.9, SD = 13.0 years). A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and data were analyzed thematically. Data were organized into seven themes: (i) getting started: the importance of prolonged engagement and exceeding expectations; (ii) designing the program and trial: including multiple features; (iii) training: research team members are critical to positive program and trial experiences; (iv) offering the program and trial: it needs to be flexible and patient-oriented; (v) maximizing engagement: navigating and managing group dynamics; (vi) delivering a videoconference-based supportive care intervention: necessary, appreciated, and associated with some barriers; and (vii) refining the program and trial: considering modification when offered beyond the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Trial participants were satisfied with and found the SPIN-CHAT Program and Trial to be acceptable. Results offer implementation data that can guide the design, development, and refinement of other supportive care programs seeking to promote psychological health during and beyond COVID-19.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program, a videoconference-based supportive care program, was designed to protect and enhance mental health in individuals affected by systemic sclerosis (commonly known as scleroderma) with at least mild anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. A trial was conducted to evaluate the SPIN-CHAT Program, and results were generally positive. However, important gaps in knowledge remained. Specifically, research team members' and participants' perceptions of SPIN-CHAT Trial acceptability (including satisfaction) and factors impacting implementation of the SPIN-CHAT Program had not yet been explored. To fill this gap, we conducted one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviewed with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants. Interviews sought to gain insights into research team members' and trial participants' experiences within the SPIN-CHAT Program, delivery preferences, and aspects that were/were not beneficial. Findings suggest research team members and participants valued the SPIN-CHAT Program and found the trial to be acceptable. Results also highlight important factors to consider when designing, developing, and/or refining videoconference-based supportive care programs.

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. RESULTS: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut-offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. CONCLUSION: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence.

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction in Breast Cancer Survivors with Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of group-delivered mindfulness-based stress reduction as compared to a waitlist control group among breast cancer survivors living with CNP. Methods: A randomized controlled trial design was applied, and outcomes collected included pain, emotional function, quality of life, and global impression of change. Results: A total of 98 women were randomized and included in analyses. The sample included 49 women in the mindfulness-based stress reduction group, and 49 women in the waitlist control group. The intervention group participants (mean age 51.3 years, standard deviation = 11.4) and waitlist participants (mean age 55.1 years, standard deviation = 9.6) reported an average pain duration of approximately three years. No significant differences were found on the primary outcome of the proportions of women with reduced pain interference scores from the time of randomization to 3 months after the intervention was received. No significant changes were found among secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Our randomized clinical trial did not find significant benefits of group-based mindfulness-based stress reduction for the management of CNP. The current study findings should be replicated and are important to consider given ongoing concerns that nonsignificant results of mindfulness-based stress reduction are often unpublished.

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.

Sample size and precision of estimates in studies of depression screening tool accuracy: A meta-research review of studies published in 2018-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Depression screening tool accuracy studies should be conducted with large enough sample sizes to generate precise accuracy estimates. We assessed the proportion of recently published depression screening tool diagnostic accuracy studies that reported sample size calculations; the proportion that provided confidence intervals (CIs); and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity. In addition, we assessed whether these results have improved since a previous review of studies published in 2013-2015. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018, through May 21, 2021. RESULTS: Twelve of 106 primary studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review. Thirty-six studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs. Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, seven (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of ≤10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of ≥21%. Eighty-four studies (82%) had lower bounds of CIs <80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity. These results were similar to those reported previously. CONCLUSION: Few studies reported sample size calculations, and the number of included individuals in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates.

Inclusion of currently diagnosed or treated individuals in studies of depression screening tool accuracy: a meta-research review of studies published in 2018-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Screening is done to improve health outcomes by identifying and effectively treating individuals with unrecognized conditions. Depression screening has been proposed to identify previously unrecognized depression cases. Including individuals already diagnosed or treated for depression in screening test accuracy studies could exaggerate accuracy and the yield of new cases from screening. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of depression screening tool accuracy primary studies published in 2018-2021 that excluded individuals with a confirmed depression diagnosis or who were already undergoing treatment; and (2) whether this has improved since the last review of studies published in 2013-2015, which found that five of 89 (5.6%) primary studies appropriately excluded such individuals. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for primary studies on depression screening tool accuracy. RESULTS: Eighteen of 106 (17.0%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 11.0% to 25.3%) primary studies excluded currently diagnosed or treated individuals. This was 11.4% (95% CI, 2.8% to 20.0%) greater than in similar studies published in 2013-2015. CONCLUSION: There has been an improvement since 2015, but the proportion of studies that exclude individuals already known to have depression remains low. This may bias research findings intended to inform clinical practice.

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.