Dataset Information

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project).

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19.

Methods/design

We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

Discussion

COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

SUBMITTER: Juul S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7210799 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19.Methods/designWe will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; "active placebo;" no intervention; standard care; an "active" intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately.DiscussionCOVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020196492.

Project description:IntroductionHypothalamic hamartomas (HHs) are deep-seated congenital lesions that typically lead to pharmacoresistant epilepsy and a catastrophic encephalopathic syndrome characterised by severe neuropsychological impairment and decline in quality of life. A variety of surgical approaches and technologies are available for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy. There remains, however, a paucity of literature directly comparing their relative efficacy and safety. This protocol aims to facilitate a systematic review and meta-analysis that will characterise and compare the probability of seizure freedom and relevant postoperative complications across different surgical techniques performed for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy.Methods and analysisThis protocol was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Individual Participant Data guidelines. Three major databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus, will be systematically searched from database inception and without language restrictions for relevant articles using our predefined search strategy. Title-abstract and full text screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria created a priori will be performed by two independent reviewers to identify eligible articles. Conflicts will be resolved via discussion with a third team member. Following data extraction of both study-level and individual patient data (IPD), a study-level and IPD meta-analysis will be performed. Study-level analysis will focus on assessing the degree of heterogeneity in the data and quantifying overall seizure outcomes for each surgical technique. The IPD analysis will use multivariable regression to determine perioperative predictors of seizure freedom and complications that can guide patient and technique selection.Ethics and disseminationThis work will not require ethics approval as it will be solely based on previously published and available data. The results of this review will be shared via conference presentation and submission to peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals.Prospero registrationCRD42022378876.

Project description:BackgroundCompared to subgroup analyses in a single study or in a traditional meta-analysis, an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) offers important potential advantages. We studied how many IPDMAs report on surgical interventions, how many of those surgical IPDMAs perform subgroup analyses, and whether these subgroup analyses have changed decision-making in clinical practice.MethodsSurgical IPDMAs were identified using a comprehensive literature search. The last search was conducted on 24 April 2012. For each IPDMA included, we obtained information using a standardized data extraction form, and the quality of reporting was assessed. We also checked whether results were implemented in clinical guidelines.ResultsOf all 583 identified IPDMAs, 22 (4%) reported on a surgical intervention. Eighteen (82%) of these IPDMAs presented subgroup analyses. Subgroups were mainly based on patient and disease characteristics. The median number of reported subgroup analyses was 3.5 (IQR 1.25-6.5). Statistical methods for subgroup analyses were mentioned in 11 (61%) surgical IPDMAs.Eleven (61%) of the 18 IPDMAs performing subgroup analyses reported a significant overall effect estimate, whereas six (33%) reported a non-significant one. Of the IPDMAs that reported non-significant overall results, three IPDMAs (50%) reported significant results in one or more subgroup analyses. Results remained significant in one or more subgroups in eight of the IPDMAs (73%) that reported a significant overall result.Eight (44%) of the 18 significant subgroups appeared to be implemented in clinical guidelines. The quality of reporting among surgical IPDMAs varied from low to high quality.ConclusionMany of the surgical IPDMAs performed subgroup analyses, but overall treatment effects were more often emphasized than subgroup effects. Although, most surgical IPDMAs included in the present study have only recently been published, about half of the significant subgroups were already implemented in treatment guidelines.

Project description:IntroductionSeveral evidence-based treatments are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet a substantial proportion of patients do not respond or dropout of treatment. We describe the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aimed at assessing the effectiveness and adverse effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for treating PTSD. Additionally, we seek to examine moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes.Method and analysisThis IPD-MA includes randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for PTSD. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CENTRAL will be screened up till the 11th of January 2021. The target population is adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms on any standardised self-report measure. Trials will only be eligible if at least 70% of the study sample have been diagnosed with PTSD by means of a structured clinical interview. The primary outcomes of this IPD-MA are PTSD symptom severity, and response rate. Secondary outcomes include treatment dropout and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers will screen major bibliographic databases and past reviews. Authors will be contacted to contribute their participant-level datasets. Datasets will be merged into a master dataset. A one-stage IPD-MA will be conducted focusing on the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions on PTSD symptom severity, response rate, treatment dropout and adverse effects. Subsequent analyses will focus on examining the effect of moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. These will include sociodemographic, treatment-related, symptom-related, resilience, intervention, trauma and combat-related characteristics. By determining the individual factors that influence the effectiveness of specific PTSD treatments, we will gain insight into personalised treatment options for PTSD.Ethics and disseminationSpecific ethics approval for an IPD-MA is not required as this study entails secondary analysis of existing anonymised data. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations.

Project description:BackgroundSpeech and language therapy (SLT) benefits people with aphasia following stroke. Group level summary statistics from randomised controlled trials hinder exploration of highly complex SLT interventions and a clinically relevant heterogeneous population. Creating a database of individual participant data (IPD) for people with aphasia aims to allow exploration of individual and therapy-related predictors of recovery and prognosis.AimTo explore the contribution that individual participant characteristics (including stroke and aphasia profiles) and SLT intervention components make to language recovery following stroke.Methods and proceduresWe will identify eligible IPD datasets (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparison studies, observational studies and registries) and invite their contribution to the database. Where possible, we will use meta- and network meta-analysis to explore language performance after stroke and predictors of recovery as it relates to participants who had no SLT, historical SLT or SLT in the primary research study. We will also examine the components of effective SLT interventions.Outcomes and resultsOutcomes include changes in measures of functional communication, overall severity of language impairment, auditory comprehension, spoken language (including naming), reading and writing from baseline. Data captured on assessment tools will be collated and transformed to a standardised measure for each of the outcome domains.ConclusionOur planned systematic-review-based IPD meta- and network meta-analysis is a large scale, international, multidisciplinary and methodologically complex endeavour. It will enable hypotheses to be generated and tested to optimise and inform development of interventions for people with aphasia after stroke.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42018110947).

Project description:BackgroundSelf-management interventions are widely implemented in the care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, trials show inconsistent results, and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in patients with HF and whether subgroups of patients respond differently.Methods and resultsA systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data from 20 studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed with the use of mixed-effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models, including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced the risk of time to the combined end point of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.00-0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on the number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years of age (mean, 0.70 versus 5.35 days; interaction P=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69-1.06), whereas in patients with moderate/severe depression, self-management reduced survival (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83, interaction P=0.01).ConclusionsThis study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death and HF-related hospitalization alone and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of patients with HF, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

Project description:IntroductionDelayed prescribing can be a useful strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing, but it is not clear for whom delayed prescribing might be effective. This protocol outlines an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies to explore the overall effect of delayed prescribing and identify key patient characteristics that are associated with efficacy of delayed prescribing.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from inception to October 2017. Outcomes of interest include duration of illness, severity of illness, complication, reconsultation and patient satisfaction. Study authors of eligible papers will be contacted and invited to contribute raw IPD data. IPD data will be checked against published data, harmonised and aggregated to create one large IPD database. Multilevel regression will be performed to explore interaction effects between treatment allocation and patient characteristics. The economic evaluation will be conducted based on IPD from the combined trial and observational studies to estimate the differences in costs and effectiveness for delayed prescribing compared with normal practice. A decision model will be developed to assess potential savings and cost-effectiveness in terms of reduced antibiotic usage of delayed prescribing and quality-adjusted life years.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 30068). Findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as General Practice trade journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. The results will have important public health implications, shaping the way in which antibiotics are prescribed in the future and to whom delayed prescriptions are issued.Prospero registration numberCRD42018079400.