Dataset Information

Network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of family interventions for psychotic disorders: a protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Family interventions are effective and are strongly recommended for psychotic disorders. However, there is a variety of intervention types, and their differential efficacy is widely unclear. The aim of the planned network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy of family interventions that differ in content (eg, psychoeducation, mutual support, skills training) and format (eg, number of sessions, inclusion of patients, form of delivery).

Methods and analysis

We will include randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions directed at the adult relatives, friends or non-professional carers of people with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (schizophrenia spectrum) to any kind of control condition. The main outcomes will be global clinical state for the patients and coping with psychosis as well as attitudes towards psychosis for the relatives. Additional outcomes will be severity of symptoms, functioning, burden and compliance/drop-out. We conducted a comprehensive search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (8 August 2019) and reference lists of review articles. Full-text assessment of eligibility, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment will be done by two independent reviewers. An NMA will be conducted for any of the planned outcomes and intervention characteristics for which sufficient and appropriate data are available. The analyses will make use of a random effects model within a frequentist framework. Estimates for all pairwise treatment effects will be obtained using standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Interventions will be ranked according to their relative efficacy. We will address the assumption of transitivity, heterogeneity and inconsistency using theoretical and statistical approaches. The possibility of publication bias and the strength of evidence will also be examined.

Ethics and dissemination

There are no ethical concerns. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at practitioners' conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020148728.

SUBMITTER: Laskowski A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818829 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of family interventions for psychotic disorders: a protocol.

Laskowski Alina A Lincoln Tania M TM

BMJ open 20210120 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Family interventions are effective and are strongly recommended for psychotic disorders. However, there is a variety of intervention types, and their differential efficacy is widely unclear. The aim of the planned network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy of family interventions that differ in content (eg, psychoeducation, mutual support, skills training) and format (eg, number of sessions, inclusion of patients, form of delivery).<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>We ...[more]

PMID: 33472774

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Major depression is a leading cause of disability and has been associated with adverse effects in older persons. While many pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to be effective to address major depression in older persons, there has not been a meta-analysis that consolidates all the available interventions and compare the relative benefits of these available interventions. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and acceptability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for major depression in older persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of other review articles for articles related to the keywords of 'randomised trial', 'major depression', 'older persons' and 'treatments'. Two reviewers will independently select the eligible articles. For each included article, the two reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane revised tool for risk of bias. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to pool the depression scores (based on standardised mean difference) and the all-cause discontinuation across all included studies. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will also be performed to evaluate the effect of study-level covariates. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. They will provide the consolidated evidence to inform clinicians on the best choice of intervention to address major depression in older persons. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017075756.

Project description:BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073375.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.Methods and findingsWe conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d?=?-0.62 to d?=?-0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d?=?0.01 to d?=?-0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d?=?-0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (?d?=?0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p?=?0.063) and large size (?d?=?0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p?=?0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (?d?=?0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p?=?0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.ConclusionsOverall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chronic non-specific low back pain is a major public health problem. Evidence supports the effectiveness of exercise as an intervention. Due to a paucity of direct comparisons of different exercise categories, medical guidelines were unable to make specific recommendations regarding the type of exercise working best in improving chronic low back pain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials aims to investigate the comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched on November 2019 and without language restrictions. The search will be updated after data analysis. Studies on adults with non-specific low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration comparing exercise to either no specific intervention (ie, no treatment, wait-list or usual care at the treating physician's discretion) and/or functionally inert interventions (ie, sham or attention control interventions) will be eligible. Pain intensity and back-specific disability are defined as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include health-related physical and mental quality of life, work disability, frequency of analgesic use and adverse events. All outcomes will be analysed short-term, intermediate-term and long-term. Data will be extracted independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using the recommendations by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and be based on an adaptation of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This NMA will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses_NMA checklist. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, implemented in existing national and international guidelines and will be presented to health care providers and decision makers. The planned completion date of the study is 1 July 2021. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020151472.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative efficacy of the World Health Organization 2005 campaign (WHO-5) and other interventions to promote hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and to summarize associated information on use of resources.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library, and the EPOC register (December 2009 to February 2014); studies selected by the same search terms in previous systematic reviews (1980-2009).Review methodsIncluded studies were randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after trials, and interrupted time series studies implementing an intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and measuring compliance or appropriate proxies that met predefined quality inclusion criteria. When studies had not used appropriate analytical methods, primary data were re-analysed. Random effects and network meta-analyses were performed on studies reporting directly observed compliance with hand hygiene when they were considered sufficiently homogeneous with regard to interventions and participants. Information on resources required for interventions was extracted and graded into three levels.ResultsOf 3639 studies retrieved, 41 met the inclusion criteria (six randomised controlled trials, 32 interrupted time series, one non-randomised trial, and two controlled before-after studies). Meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed the addition of goal setting to WHO-5 was associated with improved compliance (pooled odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.76; I(2)=81%). Of 22 pairwise comparisons from interrupted time series, 18 showed stepwise increases in compliance with hand hygiene, and all but four showed a trend for increasing compliance after the intervention. Network meta-analysis indicated considerable uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of interventions, but nonetheless provided evidence that WHO-5 is effective and that compliance can be further improved by adding interventions including goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability. Nineteen studies reported clinical outcomes; data from these were consistent with clinically important reductions in rates of infection resulting from improved hand hygiene for some but not all important hospital pathogens. Reported costs of interventions ranged from $225 to $4669 (£146-£3035; €204-€4229) per 1000 bed days.ConclusionPromotion of hand hygiene with WHO-5 is effective at increasing compliance in healthcare workers. Addition of goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability strategies can lead to further improvements. Reporting of resources required for such interventions remains inadequate.

Dataset Information

Network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of family interventions for psychotic disorders: a protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of family interventions for psychotic disorders: a protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets