Tramadol for chronic pain in adults: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

Effect of metformin and insulin vs. placebo and insulin on whole body composition in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Some studies indicate potential beneficial effects of metformin on body composition and bone. This trial compared metformin + insulin vs placebo + insulin. Metformin treatment had a small but positive effect on bone quality in the peripheral skeleton, reduced weight gain, and resulted in a more beneficial body composition compared with placebo in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. INTRODUCTION: Glucose-lowering medications affect body composition. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on whole body bone and body composition measures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial, which was a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing 18-month treatment with metformin compared with placebo, in combination with different insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The sub-study evaluates the effects on bone mineral content (BMC), density (BMD), and body composition from whole body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans which were assessed at baseline and after 18 months. RESULTS: Metformin had a small, but positive, (p < 0.05) effect on subtotal, appendicular, and legs BMC and BMD compared with placebo. After adjustment for sex, age, vitamin D, smoking, BMI, T2DM duration, HbA1c, and insulin dose, the effects on appendicular BMC and BMD persisted (p < 0.05 for both). The changes in appendicular BMC and BMD corresponded approximately to a 0.7% and 0.5% increase in the metformin group and 0.4% and 0.4% decrease in the placebo group, respectively. These effects were mostly driven by an increase in BMC and BMD in the legs and a loss of BMC and BMD in the arms. During 18 months, all participants increased in weight, fat mass (FM), FM%, and lean mass (LM), but decreased in LM%. The metformin group increased less in weight (subtotal weight (weight-head) - 2.4 [- 3.5, - 1.4] kg, p value < 0.001) and FM (- 1.5 [- 2.3, - 0.8] kg, p value < 0.001) and decreased less in LM% (0.6 [0.2, 1.1] %, p value < 0.001) compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Metformin treatment had a small positive effect on BMC and BMD in the peripheral skeleton and reduced weight gain compared with placebo in insulin-treated patients with T2DM.

Ivabradine for coronary artery disease and/or heart failure-a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease and heart failure are both highly prevalent diseases with a global prevalence of 93 million and 40 million. These patients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The management of these patients involves medical therapy, and both diseases can be treated using the heart rate-lowering drug ivabradine. However, the evidence regarding the use of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure is unclear. Our objective is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review was undertaken using the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials assessing the use of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), and BIOSIS in order to identify relevant trials. We will begin the searches in February 2019. All included trials will be assessed and classified at low risk of bias or at high risk of bias. Our primary conclusions will be based on the results from the primary outcomes at low risk of bias. Extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager 5.3 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. We will create a 'Summary of Findings' table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcomes, and we will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: The systematic review will have the potential to aid clinicians in decision-making regarding ivabradine and to benefit patients with coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018112082.

[Glucocorticosteroids for people with alcoholic hepatitis (Cochrane review)].

Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is a form of alcoholic liver disease. Glucocorticosteroids (GCS) are used as anti - inflammatory drugs for people with alcoholic hepatitis. AIM: To assess the benefits and harms of GCS in people with AH. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We considered for inclusion randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing GCS versus placebo/no intervention in adult participants with AH. We allowed co - interventions in the trial groups if they were similar. We followed Cochrane methodology, CHB Group methodology using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis(TSA) to perform meta - analysis (M-A), assessed bias risk of the trials, certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sixteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Fifteen trials provided data for analysis (927 participants received GCS, 934 - placebo/no intervention). The GCS were administered to adult participants at different stages of AH orally or parenterally for a median of 28 days. There was no evidence of effect of GCCs on our primary outcomes all - cause mortality up to 3 months following randomisation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.15; n=1861), on health - related quality of life (MD - 0.04 points; 95% CI -0.11-0.03; n=377; trial = 1) (EQ-5D-3L scale), on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.29; n=1861). We found no evidence of a difference between the intervention groups. The risk of bias was high in all the trials except one. The certainty of evidence was very low or low. One of the trials seems to be not industry - funded. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of a difference between GCS and placebo or no intervention on all - cause mortality, health - related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment. We cannot exclude increases in adverse events and cannot rule out significant benefits and harms of GCSs. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data.

The effect of metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues on bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Some antihyperglycemic medications have been found to affect bone metabolism. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Metformin had no significant effect on BMD in the spine and hip or TBS compared with a placebo. INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of fractures despite a high bone mass. Some antihyperglycemic medications have been found to affect bone metabolism. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS). METHODS: This was a sub-study of a multicenter, randomized, 18-month placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial with metformin vs. placebo in combination with different insulin regimens (the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial) in patients with T2DM. BMD in the spine and hip and TBS in the spine were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after 18 months follow-up. RESULTS: Four hundred seven patients were included in this sub-study. There were no between-group differences in BMD or TBS. From baseline to 18 months, TBS decreased significantly in both groups (metformin group, - 0.041 [- 0.055, - 0.027]; placebo group - 0.046 [- 0.058, - 0.034]; both p < 0.001). BMD in the spine and total hip did not change significantly from baseline to 18 months. After adjustments for gender, age, vitamin D, smoking, BMI, duration of T2DM, HbA1c, and insulin dose, the TBS between-group differences increased but remained non-significant. HbA1c was negatively associated with TBS (p = 0.009) as was longer duration of diabetes, with the femoral neck BMD (p = 0.003). Body mass index had a positive effect on the hip and femoral neck BMD (p < 0.001, p = 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen months of treatment with metformin had no significant effect on BMD in the spine and hip or TBS in patients with T2DM compared with a placebo. TBS decreased significantly in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943).

Systematic overview and critical appraisal of meta-analyses of interventions in intensive care medicine.

RATIONALE: Meta-analysed intervention effect estimates are perceived to represent the highest level of evidence. However, such effects and the randomized clinical trials which are included in them need critical appraisal before the effects can be trusted. OBJECTIVE: Critical appraisal of a predefined set of all meta-analyses on interventions in intensive care medicine to assess their quality and assessed the risks of bias in those meta-analyses having the best quality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to select all meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials on interventions used in intensive care medicine. Selected meta-analyses were critically appraised for basic scientific criteria, (1) presence of an available protocol, (2) report of a full search strategy, and (3) use of any bias risk assessment of included trials. All meta-analyses which qualified these criteria were scrutinized by full "Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews" ROBIS evaluation of 4 domains of risks of bias, and a "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" PRISMA evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 467 meta-analyses. A total of 56 meta-analyses complied with these basic scientific criteria. We scrutinized the risks of bias in the 56 meta-analyses by full ROBIS evaluation and a PRISMA evaluation. Only 4 meta-analyses scored low risk of bias in all the 4 ROBIS domains and 41 meta-analyses reported all 27 items of the PRISMA checklist. CONCLUSION: In contrast with what might be perceived as the highest level of evidence only 0.9% of all meta-analyses were judged to have overall low risk of bias.

STRIDER (Sildenafil TheRapy in dismal prognosis early onset fetal growth restriction): an international consortium of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Severe, early-onset fetal growth restriction due to placental insufficiency is associated with a high risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity with long-lasting sequelae. Placental insufficiency is the result of abnormal formation and function of the placenta with inadequate remodelling of the maternal spiral arteries. There is currently no effective therapy available. Some evidence suggests sildenafil citrate may improve uteroplacental blood flow, fetal growth, and meaningful infant outcomes. The objective of the Sildenafil TheRapy In Dismal prognosis Early onset fetal growth Restriction (STRIDER) collaboration is to evaluate the effectiveness of sildenafil versus placebo in achieving healthy perinatal survival through the conduct of randomised clinical trials and systematic review including individual patient data meta-analysis. METHODS: Five national/bi-national multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trials have been launched. Women with a singleton pregnancy between 18 and 30 weeks with severe fetal growth restriction of likely placental origin, and where the likelihood of perinatal death/severe morbidity is estimated to be significant are included. Participants will receive either sildenafil 25 mg or matching placebo tablets orally three times daily from recruitment to 32 weeks gestation. DISCUSSION: The STRIDER trials were conceived and designed through international collaboration. Although the individual trials have different primary outcomes for reasons of sample size and feasibility, all trials will collect a standard set of outcomes including survival without severe neonatal morbidity at time of hospital discharge. This is a summary of all the STRIDER trial protocols and provides an example of a prospectively planned international clinical research collaboration. All five individual trials will contribute to a pre-planned systematic review of the topic including individual patient data meta-analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: New Zealand and Australia: ACTRN12612000584831 . Registered 30/05/2012. Canada: NCT02442492 . Registered 05/05/2015. Ireland: CT 900/572/1 . Registered 15/07/2015. The Netherlands: NCT02277132 . Registered 29/09/2014. United Kingdom: ISRCTN39133303 . Registered 31/07/2014.

Comment on: "Cell therapy for heart disease: Trial sequential analyses of two cochrane reviews".

Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) is a frequentist method to help researchers control the risks of random errors in meta-analyses.1 Fisher et al.2 used TSA on cell therapy for heart diseases. The present article discusses the usefulness of TSA and its dependence on the choice of the parameters for calculation of the required information size and the adjacent monitoring boundaries, and comments on the approach by Fisher et al.2.

Evidence on methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD is in fact of 'very low quality'.

Banaschewski and colleagues from the European Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) guideline group make a number of critical comments regarding our systematic review on methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. In this article, we present our views, showing that our trial selection was not flawed and was undertaken with scientific justification. Similarly, our data collection and interpretation was systematic and correct. We have followed a sound methodology for assessing risk of bias and our conclusions are not misleading. We acknowledge that different researchers might make risk of bias judgments at higher or lower thresholds, but we have been consistent and transparent in applying our pre-defined and per reviewed protocol. Although we made minor errors, we demonstrate that the effects are negligible and not affecting our conclusions. We are happy to correct such errors and to engage in debate on methodological and ethical issues. In terms of clinical implications, we are advocating that clinicians, patients and their relatives should weight carefully risks and benefits of methylphenidate. Clinical experience seems to suggest that there are people who benefit from this medication. Our systematic review does, however, raise questions regarding the overall quality of the methylphenidate trials.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for staging of fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: The progression of hepatic fibrosis into cirrhosis is a main prognostic factor for survival in people with alcoholic liver disease. The range of cut-off values characterising the stage of hepatic fibrosis seems to be dependent on the aetiology of the liver disease. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography (the index test) for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease when compared with liver biopsy (the reference standard), using the METAVIR scoring system. To establish the optimal cut-off values for the hepatic fibrosis stages. METHODS: We followed Cochrane Methodology for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. We identified 14 studies. Among the study participants with alcoholic liver disease, 834 provided numerical data for analysis (August 2014). Only half of the studies were monoaetiology studies. We used the bivariate model and estimated the summary sensitivities and summary specificities. Hence, we calculated the summary likelihood ratios (LRs) to rule in or rule out hepatic fibrosis. We investigated pre-defined sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Severe fibrosis (F3 or worse): summary (95% CI) sensitivity 0.92(0.89-0.96) and specificity 0.70(0.61-0.79); LR+ 3.1(2.1-4.1), LR- 0.11(95% CI 0.06-0.16). Cirrhosis (F4): summary (95% CI) sensitivity of 0.95(0.87-0.98) and specificity 0.71(0.56-0.82); LR+ 3.3(2.1-5.0); LR- 0.07(0.03-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Transient elastography may be used as a diagnostic method to exclude cirrhosis or severe fibrosis when the test is negative. Cut-off values of around 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis may be used in clinical practice, but caution is needed, as the values reported in the review are not yet prospectively validated.

Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticosteroids (steroids) are widely used for sepsis patients. However, the potential benefits and harms of both high and low dose steroids remain unclear. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) might shed light on this clinically important question. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to a published protocol and The Cochrane Handbook methodology including meta-analyses, TSA of randomised clinical trials, and external validity estimation (GRADE). Randomised clinical trials evaluating steroids were included for sepsis patients (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock) aged >18 years. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl were searched until 18 February 2015. No language restrictions were applied. Primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 35 trials randomising 4682 patients were assessed and reviewed in full text. All trials but two had high risk of bias. No statistically significant effect was found for any dose of steroids versus placebo or no intervention on mortality at maximal follow-up [relative risk (RR) 0.89; TSA adjusted confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08]. Two trials with low risk of bias also showed no statistically significant difference (random-effects model RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06-2.42). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to high (>500 mg) or low (≤ 500 mg) dose hydrocortisone (or equivalent) (RR 0.87; TSA-adjusted CI 0.38-1.99; and RR 0.90; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49-1.67, respectively). There were also no statistically significant effects on serious adverse events other than mortality (RR 1.02; TSA-adjusted CI 0.7-1.48). The effects did not vary according to the degree of sepsis. TSA showed that many more randomised patients are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn. CONCLUSION: Evidence to support or negate the use of steroids in any dose in sepsis patients is lacking. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large randomised clinical trials are needed.

Five-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial comparing subtotal with total abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the rates of urinary incontinence (UI) and other complications of subtotal abdominal hysterectomy (SAH) with total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) at 5 years after surgery. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial with central, computer-generated randomisation. SETTING: Danish multi-centre trial performed in 11 departments of gynaecology. POPULATION: Women referred with benign uterine diseases scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: Women were randomised to either SAH (n = 161) or TAH (n = 158). Follow-up data were collected from participants using postal questionnaires sent out 5 years after surgery. Complications of hysterectomy were further examined by scrutinising registered discharge summaries following hospitalisation. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted. Potential bias caused by missing data was handled using multiple imputation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was UI. Secondary outcomes included constipation, prolapse of the vaginal vault or cervical stump, satisfaction with sexual life, pelvic pain, postoperative complications and vaginal bleeding. RESULTS: The response rate was 234/319 (73.4%). A significantly higher proportion of respondents had urinary incontinence 5 years after SAH 34/113 (30.1%) than TAH 21/119 (17.6%) (RR 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.75, P = 0.026). This difference reduced after multiple imputation to account for missing data (RR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 0.99-1.89, P = 0.052). Eleven of the 101 women (11%) in the SAH group still experienced vaginal bleeding. No other differences were found between the two types of abdominal hysterectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A smaller proportion of women suffered from UI after TAH than after SAH 5 years postoperatively. Around one in ten women continued to experience vaginal bleeding 5 years after SAH.

Cognitive remediation combined with an early intervention service in first episode psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: This randomised clinical trial assessed the effects of a 16-week cognitive remediation programme (NEUROCOM) combined with an early intervention service (EIS) vs. EIS alone. METHOD: One hundred and seventeen patients with first episode psychosis were randomly assigned to 4 months cognitive remediation combined with EIS vs. EIS alone. Statistical analysis of effect was based on intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (83.8%) participated in post-training assessments at 4 months and 92 (78.6%) in 12-month follow-up assessments. No effects were found on the primary outcome measure functional capacity. At the post-training assessment, the intervention group had improved significantly on Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Cohen's d=0.54, P=0.01), Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), General Psychopathology Scale (Cohen's d=0.51, P=0.05) and the verbal learning domain (Cohen's d=0.46, P=0.02). At follow-up assessment, the intervention group retained the significant improvements on the verbal learning domain (Cohen's d=0.58, P<0.05). Furthermore, significant improvements were observed on the working memory domain (Cohen's d=0.56, P=0.01) and PANSS positive symptoms (Cohen's d=0.44, P=0.04), while improvement on the composite score was marginally significant (Cohen's d=0.34, P=0.05). CONCLUSION: In accordance with other cognitive remediation programmes, this programme demonstrates some immediate and long-term effect on cognitive functioning, symptoms and self-esteem.

Specialized psychosocial treatment plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for patients with cannabis use disorder and psychosis: the CapOpus randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis abuse in psychotic patients is associated with rehospitalizations, reduced adherence and increased symptom severity. Previous psychosocial interventions have been ineffective in cannabis use, possibly because of low sample sizes and short interventions. We investigated whether adding CapOpus to treatment as usual (TAU) reduces cannabis use in patients with cannabis use disorder and psychosis. Method A total of 103 patients with psychosis and cannabis use disorder were centrally randomized to 6 months of CapOpus plus TAU (n = 52) or TAU (n = 51). CapOpus consisted mainly of motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). TAU was targeted primarily at the psychotic disorder. The primary outcome was self-reported days with cannabis use in the preceding month. RESULTS: Pre-randomization cannabis use frequency was 14.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.1] days/month. Post-treatment, the ratio of days/month with cannabis use in CapOpus versus TAU was 0.76 (95% CI 0.38-1.50) (p = 0.42), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.21-3.10) (p = 0.75) at the 4-month follow-up. From 46.4 (95% CI 36.4-56.3) monthly joints pre-randomization, consumption fell to 27.3 (95% CI 12.6-41.9) joints in CapOpus and 48.2 (95% CI 31.8-64.6) in TAU (p = 0.06). Follow-up amounts were 28.4 (95% CI 13.5-43.2) and 41.6 (95% CI 25.2-58.0) joints (p = 0.23). Several subgroup analyses suggested benefits of CapOpus. CONCLUSIONS: CapOpus did not reduce the frequency, but possibly the amount, of cannabis use. This is similar to the findings of previous trials in this population. Implementation of CapOpus-type interventions is thus not warranted at present but subgroup analyses call for further trials.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.

BACKGROUND: The design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should incorporate characteristics (such as concealment of randomised allocation and blinding of participants and personnel) that avoid biases resulting from lack of comparability of the intervention and control groups. Empirical evidence suggests that the absence of such characteristics leads to biased intervention effect estimates, but the findings of different studies are not consistent. OBJECTIVES: To examine the influence of unclear or inadequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and unclear or absent double blinding, on intervention effect estimates and between-trial heterogeneity, and whether or not these influences vary with type of clinical area, intervention, comparison and outcome measure. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: Data were combined from seven contributing meta-epidemiological studies (collections of meta-analyses in which trial characteristics are assessed and results recorded). The resulting database was used to identify and remove overlapping meta-analyses. Outcomes were coded such that odds ratios < 1 correspond to beneficial intervention effects. Outcome measures were classified as mortality, other objective or subjective. We examined agreement between assessments of trial characteristics in trials assessed in more than one contributing study. We used hierarchical Bayesian bias models to estimate the effect of trial characteristics on average bias [quantified as ratios of odds ratios (RORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) comparing trials with and without a characteristic] and in increasing between-trial heterogeneity. RESULTS: The analysis data set contained 1973 trials included in 234 meta-analyses. Median kappa statistics for agreement between assessments of trial characteristics were: sequence generation 0.60, allocation concealment 0.58 and blinding 0.87. Intervention effect estimates were exaggerated by an average 11% in trials with inadequate or unclear (compared with adequate) sequence generation (ROR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.82 to 0.96); between-trial heterogeneity was higher among such trials. Bias associated with inadequate or unclear sequence generation was greatest for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.74 to 0.94) and the increase in heterogeneity was greatest for such outcomes [standard deviation (SD) 0.20, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.32]. The effect of inadequate or unclear (compared with adequate) allocation concealment was greatest among meta-analyses with a subjectively assessed outcome intervention effect (ROR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.75 to 0.95), and the increase in between-trial heterogeneity was also greatest for such outcomes (SD 0.20, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.33). Lack of, or unclear, double blinding (compared with double blinding) was associated with an average 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ROR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.79 to 0.96), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD 0.14, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.30). Average bias (ROR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.65 to 0.92) and between-trial heterogeneity (SD 0.37, 95% CrI 0.19 to 0.53) were greatest for meta-analyses assessing subjective outcomes. Among meta-analyses with subjectively assessed outcomes, the effect of lack of blinding appeared greater than the effect of inadequate or unclear sequence generation or allocation concealment. CONCLUSIONS: Bias associated with specific reported study design characteristics leads to exaggeration of beneficial intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity. For each of the three characteristics assessed, these effects were greatest for subjectively assessed outcomes. Assessments of the risk of bias in RCTs should account for these findings. Further research is needed to understand the effects of attrition bias, as well as the relative importance of blinding of patients, care-givers and outcome assessors, and thus separate the effects of performance and detection bias. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effects of cognitive therapy versus interpersonal psychotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetime at tremendous suffering and cost. Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy are treatment options, but their effects have only been limitedly compared in systematic reviews. METHOD: Using Cochrane systematic review methodology we compared the benefits and harm of cognitive therapy versus interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Psychlit, PsycInfo, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2010. Continuous outcome measures were assessed by mean difference and dichotomous outcomes by odds ratio. We conducted trial sequential analysis to control for random errors. RESULTS: We included seven trials randomizing 741 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the four trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed no significant difference between the two interventions [mean difference -1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to 0.32]. Meta-analysis of the five trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Beck Depression Inventory showed comparable results (mean difference -1.29, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.14). Trial sequential analysis indicated that more data are needed to definitively settle the question of a differential effect. None of the included trial reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed, although the effects of cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy do not seem to differ significantly regarding depressive symptoms. Future trials should report on adverse events.

Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding - an updated Cochrane review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis seems to decrease the incidence of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is considered standard of care. However, there is no updated information regarding the effects of this intervention. AIM: To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding by performing a systematic review of randomised trials. METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index EXPANDED until June 2010. We statistically combined data calculating relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve trials (1241 patients) evaluating antibiotic prophylaxis against placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.98), mortality from bacterial infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.97), bacterial infections (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26-0.47), rebleeding (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74) and days of hospitalisation (MD -1.91, 95% CI -3.80-0.02). Trials analysing rebleeding rate and hospitalisation length are still scarce, thus, caution should be exerted when interpreting the results. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding significantly reduced bacterial infections, and reduce all-cause mortality, bacterial infection mortality, rebleeding events and hospitalisation length. Novel clinically significant outcomes were included in this meta-analysis. Some benefits are biased and the risks are not yet properly assessed, this encourages future research in this field.