Dataset Information

Psychological interventions for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients 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 analysis

We 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 dissemination

No ethical approval is required. Reports will include the final report to the funder, conference presentation, peer-reviewed publication and a patient report.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021250446.

SUBMITTER: Tiles-Sar N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420).FindingsWe identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component.InterpretationOur findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks.FundingNational Institute for Health and Care Research.

Project description:IntroductionThe US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products.Methods and analysisGiven the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use.Prospero registration numberCRD42018084720.

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by hyperinflation and expiratory airflow limitation due to long-term exposure to irritants. The variety and complexity of COPD treatment and the possible added comorbidities may make the patients find it difficult to cope with the required medications. That is why supporting patients' adherence is critical because not taking medications correctly increases the risk of complications and creates an additional financial burden. A range of interventions aiming to improve patient adherence were used, and most of them are complex since they involve a mix of elements. Furthermore, despite the variety of available tools, assessing adherence is challenging because clinicians usually do not get a concrete judgement if their patients followed their treatment plan reliably. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions for COPD patients, explore which intervention (component) works for which patients and check the factors influencing the implementation and participant responses.MethodsWe will perform a comprehensive literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, trial registries) without restrictions on language and publication status, and we will include all controlled studies investigating the effect of adherence-enhancing intervention on patients with COPD. We plan to involve COPD patients in the systematic review development through two patient interviews (one before and one after the systematic review). Two reviewers will perform the screening, data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment. For ROB, we will use ROB 2.0 to assess randomised controlled trials, and ROBINS-I to assess non-randomised studies. We will perform pair-wise random-effects meta-analyses and component network meta-analyses to identify the most effective components and combinations of components. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. To determine the degree of complexity, we will use the iCAT_SR checklist, and then, following a logical model, we will group the interventions according to prespecified criteria.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to point out the most effective and implementable adherence-enhancing interventions by using methods for synthesising evidence on complex interventions and involving COPD patients all along with the review process.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022353977.