scholarly journals Systematic review of interventions for treating or preventing antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (43) ◽  
pp. 1-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Bergman ◽  
Dawn-Marie Walker ◽  
Adriani Nikolakopoulou ◽  
Karla Soares-Weiser ◽  
Clive E Adams
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Tardive Dyskinesia ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Antipsychotic Medication ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

BackgroundAntipsychotic medication can cause tardive dyskinesia (TD) – late-onset, involuntary, repetitive movements, often involving the face and tongue. TD occurs in > 20% of adults taking antipsychotic medication (first-generation antipsychotics for > 3 months), with this proportion increasing by 5% per year among those who continue to use these drugs. The incidence of TD among those taking newer antipsychotics is not different from the rate in people who have used older-generation drugs in moderate doses. Studies of TD have previously been found to be limited, with no treatment approach shown to be effective.ObjectivesTo summarise the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments for TD by updating past Cochrane reviews with new evidence and improved methods; to undertake public consultation to gauge the importance of the topic for people living with TD/the risk of TD; and to make available all data from relevant trials.Data sourcesAll relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.Review methodsCochrane review methods, network meta-analysis (NMA).DesignSystematic reviews, patient and public involvement consultation and NMA.SettingAny setting, inpatient or outpatient.ParticipantsFor systematic reviews, adults with TD who have been taking a stable antipsychotic drug dose for > 3 months.InterventionsAny, with emphasis on those relevant to UK NHS practice.Main outcome measuresAny measure of TD, global assessments and adverse effects/events.ResultsWe included 112 studies (nine Cochrane reviews). Overall, risk of bias showed little sign of improvement over two decades. Taking the outcome of ‘TD symptoms improved to a clinically important extent’, we identified two trials investigating reduction of antipsychotic dose [n = 17, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.04; very low quality]. Switching was investigated twice in trials that could not be combined (switching to risperidone vs. antipsychotic withdrawal: one RCT,n = 42, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; low quality; switching to quetiapine vs. haloperidol: one RCT,n = 45, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; low quality). In addition to RCTs, six observational studies compared antipsychotic discontinuation with decreased or increased dosage, and there was no clear evidence that any of these strategies had a beneficial effect on TD symptoms (very low-quality evidence). We evaluated the addition to standard antipsychotic care of several treatments, but not anticholinergic treatments, for which we identified no trials. We found no clear effect of the addition of either benzodiazepines (two RCTs,n = 32, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.09; very low quality) or vitamin E (six RCTs,n = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; low quality). Buspirone as an adjunctive treatment did have some effect in one small study (n = 42, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84; low quality), as did hypnosis and relaxation (one RCT,n = 15, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94; very low quality). We identified no studies focusing on TD in people with dementia. The NMA model found indirect estimates to be imprecise and failed to produce useful summaries on relative effects of interventions or interpretable results for decision-making. Consultation with people with/at risk of TD highlighted that management of TD remains a concern, and found that people are deeply disappointed at the length of time it has taken researchers to address the issue.LimitationsMost studies remain small and poorly reported.ConclusionsClinicians, policy-makers and people with/at risk of TD are little better informed than they were decades ago. Underpowered trials of limited quality repeatedly fail to provide answers.Future workTD reviews have data from current trials extracted, tabulated and traceable to source. The NMA highlights one context in which support for this technique is ill advised. All relevant trials, even if not primarily addressing the issue of TD, should report appropriate binary outcomes on groups of people with this problem. Randomised trials of treatments for people with established TD are indicated. These should be large (> 800 participants), necessitating accrual through accurate local/national registers, including an intervention with acceptable treatments and recording outcomes used in clinical practice.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4201502045.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (28) ◽  
pp. 1-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Bunn ◽  
Daksha Trivedi ◽  
Phil Alderson ◽  
Laura Hamilton ◽  
Alice Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by Cochrane, have been a key component of this movement. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) in the UK and it is important that this funding represents value for money.Aims and objectivesThe overall aim was to identify the impacts and likely impacts on health care, patient outcomes and value for money of Cochrane Reviews published by 20 NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007–11.DesignWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, undertook interviews with guideline developers (GDs) and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane Reviews. The evaluation was guided by a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 3187 new and updated reviews were published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2007 and 2011, 1502 (47%) of which were produced by the 20 CRGs funded by the NIHR. We found 40 examples where reviews appeared to have influenced primary research and reviews had contributed to the creation of new knowledge and stimulated debate. Twenty-seven of the 60 reviews had 100 or more citations in Google Scholar™ (Google, CA, USA). Overall, 483 systematic reviews had been cited in 247 sets of guidance. This included 62 sets of international guidance, 175 sets of national guidance (87 from the UK) and 10 examples of local guidance. Evidence from the interviews suggested that Cochrane Reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although reviews being a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and GDs were barriers to their use. Cochrane Reviews appeared to have led to a number of benefits to the health service including safer or more appropriate use of medication or other health technologies or the identification of new effective drugs or treatments. However, whether or not these changes were directly as a result of the Cochrane Review and not the result of subsequent clinical guidance was difficult to judge. Potential benefits of Cochrane Reviews included economic benefits through budget savings or the release of funds, improvements in clinical quality, the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures and improvements in patient and carer experiences.ConclusionsThis study identified a number of impacts and likely impacts of Cochrane Reviews. The clearest impacts of Cochrane Reviews are on research targeting and health-care policy, with less evidence of a direct impact on clinical practice and the organisation and delivery of NHS services. Although it is important for researchers to consider how they might increase the influence of their work, such impacts are difficult to measure. More work is required to develop suitable methods for defining and quantifying the impact of research.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Diverse mechanisms and treatment strategies to confront fatigue in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 563
Author(s):  
Sumanth Khadke ◽  
tehmina siddique
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Positive Effect

Background: Firm conclusions about the applicability of treatment methods other than pharmacotherapy in treating fatigue in multiple sclerosis (MS) remain elusive. Our objective is to synthesize and review the epidemiological literature systematically and find an effective therapeutic plan for fatigue. The effect of individual treatment and combined treatment strategies are studied. Methods: An electronic database search included EBSCO, PubMed, SCIENCE DIRECT and Scopus from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2018. Search terms used are “Fatigue AND Multiple sclerosis AND therapy”. The articles included in the study are open access, published in last five years, not restricted to region and language. The search included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and systematic reviews. Results: We included 13 systematic reviews, 10 RCTs and 7 observational studies. A Cochrane review on 3206 patients showed exercise therapy to have a positive effect on fatigue in RRMS patients. The EPOC trial showed switching interferon therapy or glatiramer to fingolimod showed improved fatigue levels. The FACETS trial showed incorporating behavioral therapy to ongoing recommended therapy is beneficial. Few observational studies demonstrated that fatigue is influenced by pain, mood problems, and depression. Conclusions: The diverse pathology of fatigue related to MS is important in understanding and quantifying the role of each causal factor. Evidence reveals a positive effect on fatigue levels of RRMS patients with regular CBT and exercise-based combination therapy. Progressive forms of the disease have the worst prognosis. Individually aerobic exercises, behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy have positive effects. A modified amalgamation of the same is a better hope for MS patients.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of studies included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi ◽  
Pouria Iranparvar ◽  
Maryam Shakiba ◽  
Erfan Shamsoddin ◽  
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Performance Bias

AbstractObjectivesThe Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of randomized clinical trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were assessed.Study Design and SettingsAll the trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were examined. The RoB was evaluated for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study based on the criteria for determining the overall bias in Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each intended variable.ResultsA total of 2565 studies were included in our analysis. The majority of the studies (n=1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. As for blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB compared to 11.1% with low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had higher low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). The double-blind studies had the highest low ORoB (23.6%). The studies with a cross-over design had the highest low ORoB (28.8%).ConclusionOverall, the RoB for the studies on dentistry and oral health in Cochrane reviews was deemed high.

scholarly journals Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2019-111257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe Rose Marson Smith ◽  
Lynda Ware ◽  
Clive Adams ◽  
Iain Chalmers
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Statistical Significance Testing ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Treatment Claims

Estimates of treatment effects/differences derived from controlled comparisons are subject to uncertainty, both because of the quality of the data and the play of chance. Despite this, authors sometimes use statistical significance testing to make definitive statements that ‘no difference exists between’ treatments. A survey to assess abstracts of Cochrane reviews published in 2001/2002 identified unqualified claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in 259 (21.3%) out of 1212 review abstracts surveyed. We have repeated the survey to assess the frequency of such claims among the abstracts of Cochrane and other systematic reviews published in 2017. We surveyed the 643 Cochrane review abstracts published in 2017 and a random sample of 643 abstracts of other systematic reviews published in the same year. We excluded review abstracts that referred only to a protocol, lacked a conclusion or did not contain any relevant information. We took steps to reduce biases during our survey. 'No difference/no effect' was claimed in the abstracts of 36 (7.8%) of 460 Cochrane reviews and in the abstracts of 13 (6.0%) of 218 other systematic reviews. Incorrect claims of no difference/no effect of treatments were substantially less common in Cochrane reviews published in in 2017 than they were in abstracts of reviews published in 2001/2002. We hope that this reflects greater efforts to reduce biases and inconsistent judgements in the later survey as well as more careful wording of review abstracts. There are numerous other ways of wording treatment claims incorrectly. These must be addressed because they can have adverse effects on healthcare and health research.

scholarly journals Quality Assessment of Clinical Trials Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi ◽  
Pouria Iranparvar ◽  
Maryam Shakiba ◽  
Erfan Shamsoddin ◽  
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Health Studies ◽  
Performance Bias

Abstract Background: Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were assessed.Methods: All the trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were identified and examined. The RoB was evaluated for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study based on the criteria in Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each intended variable.Results: In a total of 2565 included studies, the majority (n=1600) had 50 or higher sample sizes. As for blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB compared to 11.1% with low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had higher low ORoB (14.8% vs 10.7%). The double-blind studies had the highest low ORoB (23.6%). The studies with a cross-over design had the highest low ORoB (28.8%).Conclusion: The RoB of oral health studies in Cochrane reviews was deemed high. Special efforts may be required to improve conducting and reporting of trials in this area.

scholarly journals Identifying the gaps, reducing the waste and setting priorities in Cochrane fertility research: Research article

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Showell ◽  
Kate Stedman ◽  
Cindy Farquhar ◽  
Vanessa Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
Fertility Problems

Objective The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR). Design A research article. Setting The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group’s specialised register of random controlled trials (RCTs). Sample Infertility trials contained in the CGF specialised register, published between the years 2010-2011. Methods Infertility trials from the CGF specialised register were matched, by the specific fertility issue and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were categorised to develop and prioritise new review topics. Main outcome measures Proportions Results 564 trials, published from 2010 to 2011, were exported from the specialised register and after removing duplicates, 318 trials were found to be already included in a Cochrane review. 187 (37%) of trials were found to be unused, however 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CGF SR, if it were updated. 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated ‘unused’ trials, was ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques’. Conclusions This project was used to consider unused trials, prioritise new review topics and identify those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for couples with fertility problems. Keywords research waste, gaps, fertility, infertility, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, prioritisation.

scholarly journals Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. e005491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie B Hansen ◽  
Carsten B Juhl ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
Elizabeth A T Ghogomu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThe validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis depends on methodological quality and unbiased dissemination of trials. Our objective is to evaluate the association of estimates of treatment effects with different bias-related study characteristics in meta-analyses of interventions used for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA). From the findings, we hope to consolidate guidance on interpreting OA trials in systematic reviews based on empirical evidence from Cochrane reviews.Methods and analysisOnly systematic reviews that compare experimental interventions with sham, placebo or no intervention control will be considered eligible. Bias will be assessed with the risk of bias tool, used according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations. Furthermore, center status, trial size and funding will be assessed. The primary outcome (pain) will be abstracted from the first appearing forest plot for overall pain in the Cochrane review. Treatment effect sizes will be expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs), where the difference in mean values available from the forest plots is divided by the pooled SD. To empirically assess the risk of bias in treatment benefits, we will perform stratified analyses of the trials from the included meta-analyses and assess the interaction between trial characteristics and treatment effect. A relevant study-level covariate is defined as one that decreases the between-study variance (τ2, estimated as Tau-squared) as a consequence of inclusion in the mixed effects statistical model.Ethics and disseminationMeta-analyses and randomised controlled trials provide the most reliable basis for treatment of patients with OA, but the actual impact of bias is unclear. This study will systematically examine the methodological quality in OA Cochrane reviews and explore the effect estimates behind possible bias. Since our study does not collect primary data, no formal ethical assessment and informed consent are required.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (CRD42013006924).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document