Dataset Information

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological therapy that has been used to improve patient well-being across multiple mental and physical health problems. Its effectiveness has been examined in thousands of randomised control trials that have been synthesised into hundreds of systematic reviews. The aim of this overview is to map, synthesise and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CBT across all health conditions, patient groups and settings.

Methods and analysis

We will run our search strategy, to identify systematic reviews of CBT, within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, and OpenGrey between January 1992 and 25 April 2018. Independent reviewers will sift, perform data extraction in duplicate and assess the quality of the reviews using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (V.2) tool. The outcomes of interest include: health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, psychosis and physical/physiological outcomes prioritised in the individual reviews. The evidence will be mapped and synthesised where appropriate by health problem, patient subgroups, intervention type, context and outcome.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required as this is an overview of published systematic reviews. We plan to publish results in peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national academic, clinical and patient conferences.

Trial registration number

CRD42017078690.

SUBMITTER: Fordham B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303684 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Fordham Beth B Sugavanam Thavapriya T Hopewell Sally S Hemming Karla K Howick Jeremy J Kirtley Shona S das Nair Roshan R Hamer-Hunt Julia J Lamb Sarah E SE

BMJ open 20181214 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological therapy that has been used to improve patient well-being across multiple mental and physical health problems. Its effectiveness has been examined in thousands of randomised control trials that have been synthesised into hundreds of systematic reviews. The aim of this overview is to map, synthesise and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CBT across all health ...[more]

PMID: 30552285

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOxygen is routinely given to patients during and after surgery. Perioperative oxygen administration has been proposed as a potential strategy to prevent and treat hypoxaemia and reduce complications, such as surgical site infections, pulmonary complications and mortality. However, uncertainty exists as to which strategies in terms of amount, delivery devices and timing are clinically effective. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is to answer the research question, 'For which types of surgery, at which stages of care, in which sub-groups of patients and delivered under what conditions are different types of perioperative oxygen therapy clinically effective?'.MethodsWe will search key electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, the INAHTA International HTA Database and DARE archives) for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative oxygen strategies. Each review will be mapped according to type of surgery, surgical pathway timepoints and clinical comparison. The highest quality reviews with the most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage of relevant literature will be chosen as anchoring reviews. Standardised data will be extracted from each chosen review, including definition of oxygen therapy, summaries of interventions and comparators, patient population, surgical characteristics and assessment of overall certainty of evidence. For clinical outcomes and adverse events, the overall pooled findings and results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses (where available) will be extracted. Trial-level data will be extracted for surgical site infections, mortality, and potential trial-level effect modifiers such as risk of bias, outcome definition and type of surgery to facilitate quantitative data analysis. This analysis will adopt a multiple indication review approach with panoramic meta-analysis using review-level data and meta-regression using trial-level data. An evidence map will be produced to summarise our findings and highlight any research gaps.DiscussionThere is a need to provide a panoramic overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing peri-operative oxygen practice to both inform clinical practice and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty, where further research may be required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021272361.

Project description:Background Manual therapy has been used as an alternative approach to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA) for many years. Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) were published to evaluate its effectiveness and safety. Nevertheless, the conclusions of SRs/MAs are inconsistent, and the uneven quality needs to be critically appraised. Objectives To conduct a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy for KOA and the quality of relevant SRs/MAs, thus providing critical evidence and valuable direction for future researchers to promote the generation of advanced evidence. Methods The pre-defined search strategies were applied to eight electronic databases from inception to September 2022. Suitable SRs/MAs were included in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality were assessed by two independent reviewers who used respectively the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Version (PRISMA 2020), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) based on the method of narrative synthesis. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and performed a re-meta-analysis of the total effective rate. Results A total of eleven relevant SRs/MAs were included: nine SRs/MAs were rated critically low quality, and two were rated low quality by AMSTAR-2. According to ROBIS, all SRs/MAs were rated low risk in Phase 1 (assessing relevance) and Domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) of Phase 2. Three SRs/MAs (27.27%) were rated low risk in Domain 2 (identification and selection of studies). Ten SRs/MAs (90.91%) were rated low risk in Domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal). Five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Domain 4 (synthesis and findings). And five SRs/MAs (45.45%) were rated low risk in Phase 3 (risk of bias in the review). By PRISMA 2020, there were some reporting deficiencies in the aspects of abstract (2/11, 18.18%), search strategy (0/11, 0%), preprocessing of merging data (0/11, 0%), heterogeneity exploration (6/11, 54.55%), sensitivity analysis (4/11, 36.36%), publication bias (5/11, 45.45%), evidence quality (3/11, 27.27%), the list of excluded references (3/11, 27.27%), protocol and registration (1/11, 9.09%), funding (1/11, 9.09%), conflict of interest (3/11, 27.27%), and approach to relevant information (0/11, 0%). In GRADE, the evidence quality was defined as moderate quality (8 items, 21.05%), low quality (16 items, 42.11%), and critically low quality (14 items, 36.84%). Among the downgraded factors, risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were the main factors. A re-meta-analysis revealed that manual therapy can increase the total effective rate in KOA patients (risk ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval [1.12, 1.18], p < 0.00001; I2 = 0, p = 0.84). There are four reviews that narratively report adverse effects, and no severe adverse reactions occurred in the manual therapy group. Conclusions Manual therapy may be clinically effective and safe for patients with KOA. However, this conclusion must be interpreted with caution because of the generally unsatisfactory study quality and inconsistent conclusions of the included SRs/MAs. Further rigorous and normative SRs/MAs are expected to be carried out to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero, identifier: CRD42022364672.

Project description:BackgroundMyopia is a common visual disorder with increasing prevalence among developed countries of the world. Myopia constitutes a substantial risk factor for several ocular conditions that can lead to blindness. The purpose of this study is to conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in order to identify and appraise robust research evidence regarding the management of myopia progression in children and adolescents.MethodsA literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). We will search for systematic reviews or meta-analyses that examine optical or pharmaceutical modalities for myopia control. Two independent overview authors will screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Individual study's methodological quality and quality of evidence for each outcome of interest will be assessed by two independent authors using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating, respectively. In cases of disagreement, consensus will be reached with the help of a third author. Our primary outcomes will be the mean change in refractive error, mean axial length change, and adverse events. A citation matrix will be generated, and the corrected covered area (CCA) will be estimated, in order to identify overlapping primary studies. Possible meta-biases and measures of heterogeneity will be described, and cases of dual co-authorship will be identified and discussed. If any recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are detected, these will be appraised and their findings will be presented. An overall summary of outcomes will be provided using descriptive statistics and will be supplemented by narrative synthesis.DiscussionThis overview will examine the high level of existing evidence for treatment of myopia progression. Efficient interventions will be identified, and side effects will be reported. The expected benefit is that all robust recent research evidence will be compiled in a single study. The results may inform future research in this area, which should provide insight into the appropriate regimes for the administration of these modalities and contribute to future guideline development.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068204.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has shown to be highly effective for treating youth anxiety; yet, there is ongoing debate as to whether involving parents improves outcomes. For example, parents who attend may learn CBT skills to help their child in an ongoing way; yet, they could also distract their child from treatment depending on how they interact. As evidence has accumulated, reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to examine the most effective treatment format. These reviews often have high impact in the field; however, they use varied methodologies and draw on different primary studies. Different formats of CBT for youth anxiety have been developed in relation to parental involvement, including youth-only CBT (Y-CBT; where the youth alone attends treatment), youth and parent or family CBT (F-CBT; where youths and their parents attend together), and, most recently, parent-only CBT (P-CBT; where the parent alone attends).ObjectiveThis protocol describes an overview of systematic reviews comparing the relative efficacy of different formats of CBT for youth anxiety (Y-CBT, F-CBT, and P-CBT) over the study period. The protocol will also examine the moderating effects of variables on the efficacy of different formats; for example, youths' age and long-term outcomes.MethodsWe will analyze the results of systematic reviews that compare different levels and types of parental involvement in CBT for youth anxiety over the study period. A systematic review of medical and psychological databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) will identify reviews comparing the efficacy of different formats of parent involvement in CBT for youth anxiety. Data extraction will include (1) author names (and year of publication), (2) review design, (3) age range, (4) analysis type, (5) conclusions, and (6) moderators. This overview will present the relative efficacy of formats chronologically in a table and then describe the main results longitudinally in a narrative summary. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, 2nd Edition (AMSTAR 2), quality rating will be given to each review, and the amount of primary study overlap across reviews will be quantified.ResultsThe last search was conducted on July 1, 2022. The reviews were published between 2005 and 2022. We found a total of 3529 articles, of which we identified 25 for the final analysis.ConclusionsThis overview will compare and report the relative efficacy of Y-CBT, P-CBT, and F-CBT for youth anxiety over the study period, describe the heterogeneity across reviews and primary studies, and consider the moderating effect of relevant variables. It will describe the limitations of an overview, including the potential for nuance in the data to be lost, and provide conclusions and recommendations for conducting systematic reviews regarding parental involvement for CBT for youth anxiety.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/48077.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets