Dataset Information

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Individuals with psychosis may access emergency services due to aggression and agitation. When the de-escalation technique fails to achieve tranquillisation, several pharmacological options are available. However, evidence on which intervention to prefer in terms of efficacy and tolerability to achieve resolution of the acute episode (ie, rapid tranquillisation) of aggression and agitation is currently fragmentary.

Methods and analysis

We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing drugs or drug combinations or placebo for aggression or agitation episodes in adult individuals with psychosis. We will include individuals with psychosis (eg, schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, psychotic depression) but not substance or medication-induced psychosis or psychosis due to another medical condition. Our primary outcomes are the change in aggression or agitation scores within few hours since the administration of the intervention (efficacy outcome) and the proportion of participants who dropped out due to adverse effects (tolerability outcome). We will retrieve relevant studies from the register of studies of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. Also, we will run additional searches on CENTRAL, Embase and PubMed to retrieve potentially eligible studies focusing on other psychiatric diagnoses than those in the schizophrenia spectrum. We will conduct a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) for primary and secondary outcomes. In case of rare events of dichotomous outcomes, a common-effect Mantel-Haenszel NMA will be used instead. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank all available treatments. Local and global methods of evaluation of inconsistency will be employed. Quality of evidence contributing to network estimates of the main outcomes will also be assessed with Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019137945.

SUBMITTER: Ostinelli EG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6797276 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Ostinelli Edoardo G EG D'Agostino Armando A Shokraneh Farhad F Salanti Georgia G Furukawa Toshi A TA

BMJ open 20191010 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Individuals with psychosis may access emergency services due to aggression and agitation. When the de-escalation technique fails to achieve tranquillisation, several pharmacological options are available. However, evidence on which intervention to prefer in terms of efficacy and tolerability to achieve resolution of the acute episode (ie, rapid tranquillisation) of aggression and agitation is currently fragmentary.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>We will include all randomised c ...[more]

PMID: 31601607

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPatients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) often report psychological problems, unemployment, disability, sick leave and compromised quality of life. The effect of psychological interventions on health-related outcomes in IBD is controversial as previous reviews faced the obstacle of high heterogeneity among provided multimodular interventions. The heterogeneity can be addressed with network meta-analysis (NMA) and (multi)component NMA (CNMA). We aim to investigate whether psychological interventions can improve quality of life, clinical and social outcomes in IBD using NMA and CNMA. This is the study protocol.Methods and analysisWe will consider randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, including cluster randomised and cross-over trials with 2 months of minimum follow-up. The conditions to be studied comprise Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in children, adolescents and adults. We will include any psychological intervention aiming to change the health status of the study participant.We will search Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, LILACS, Psyndex, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and trial registries from inception (the search will be updated before the review completion). Two authors will independently screen all references based on titles and abstracts. For data extraction, standard forms are developed and tested before extraction. All information will be assessed independently by at least two reviewers, and disagreements solved by consensus discussion or a third rater if necessary.The data synthesis will include a pairwise meta-analysis supported by meta-regression. We will conduct NMA (all treatments will constitute single nodes of the network) and CNMA (we will define all treatments as sums of core components, eg, cognitive +behaviour, or cognitive +behaviour + relaxation, and additionally consider interactions) using the R Package netmeta.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. Reports will include the final report to the funder, conference presentation, peer-reviewed publication and a patient report.Prospero registration numberCRD42021250446.

Project description:ObjectiveCognitive compensatory interventions aim to alleviate psychosocial disability by targeting functioning directly using aids and strategies, thereby minimizing the impact of cognitive impairment. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive compensatory interventions for psychosis by examining the effects on functioning and symptoms, and exploring whether intervention factors, study design, and age influenced effect sizes.MethodsElectronic databases (Ovid Medline, PsychINFO) were searched up to October 2018. Records obtained through electronic and manual searches were screened independently by two reviewers according to selection criteria. Data were extracted to calculate estimated effects (Hedge's g) of treatment on functioning and symptoms at post-intervention and follow-up. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.ResultsTwenty-six studies, from 25 independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (1654 participants, mean age = 38.9 years, 64% male). Meta-analysis revealed a medium effect of compensatory interventions on functioning compared to control conditions (Hedge's g = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.60, P < .001), with evidence of relative durability at follow-up (Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19, 0.54, P < .001). Analysis also revealed small significant effects of cognitive compensatory treatment on negative, positive, and general psychiatric symptoms, but not depressive symptoms. Estimated effects did not significantly vary according to treatment factors (ie, compensatory approach, dosage), delivery method (ie, individual/group), age, or risk of bias. Longer treatment length was associated with larger effect sizes for functioning outcomes. No evidence of publication bias was identified.ConclusionCognitive compensatory interventions are associated with robust, durable improvements in functioning in people with psychotic illnesses.

Project description:BackgroundBack pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context.MethodsWe will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021232469.

Project description:ObjectiveTo find out if there is evidence on interventions to prevent aggression against doctors.DesignThis systematic review searched the literature and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesPubmed, Embase, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane and Psycharticle, GoogleScholar and www.guideline.gov were consulted.Eligibility criteriaAbstracts published in English between January 2000 and January 2018 were screened. Eligible studies focused on prevention and risk factors of type II workplace violence in general healthcare, psychiatric departments, emergency departments, emergency primary care, general practice.Data extraction and synthesisThe selected intervention studies were grouped into quantitative and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews were reported separately. For each study, the design, type of intervention and key findings were analysed. Quality rating was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQUAL).Results44 studies are included. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) provided moderate evidence that a violence prevention programme was effective in decreasing risks of violence. Major risk factors are long waiting times, discrepancy between patients' expectations and services, substance abuse by the patient and psychiatric conditions. Appropriate workplace design and policies aim to reduce risk factors but there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness. One RCT provided evidence that a patient risk assessment combined with tailored actions decreased severe aggression events in psychiatric wards. Applying de-escalation techniques during an aggressive event is highly recommended. Postincident reporting followed by root cause analysis of the incident provides the basic input for review and optimisation of violence prevention programmes.ConclusionsThis review documented interventions to prevent and de-escalate aggression against doctors. Aggression against physicians is a serious occupational hazard. There is moderate evidence that an integrated violence prevention programme decreases the risks of patient-to-worker violence. The review failed to gather sufficient numerical data to perform a meta-analysis. A large-scale cohort study would add to a better understanding of the effectiveness of interventions.

Dataset Information

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets