Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis

Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of current maintenance strategies in preventing exacerbations of asthma. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics. Data sources Cochrane systematic reviews on chronic asthma, complemented by an updated search when appropriate. Eligibility criteria Trials of adults with asthma randomised to maintenance treatments of at least 24 weeks duration and that reported on asthma exacerbations in full text. Low dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment was the comparator strategy. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations. The secondary outcome was the composite of moderate or severe exacerbations. The rate of withdrawal was analysed as a safety outcome. Results 64 trials with 59 622 patient years of follow-up comparing 15 strategies and placebo were included. For prevention of severe exacerbations, combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists as maintenance and reliever treatment and combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists in a fixed daily dose performed equally well and were ranked first for effectiveness. The rate ratios compared with low dose inhaled corticosteroids were 0.44 (95% credible interval 0.29 to 0.66) and 0.51 (0.35 to 0.77), respectively. Other combined strategies were not superior to inhaled corticosteroids and all single drug treatments were inferior to single low dose inhaled corticosteroids. Safety was best for conventional best (guideline based) practice and combined maintenance and reliever therapy. Conclusions Strategies with combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists are most effective and safe in preventing severe exacerbations of asthma, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DESIGN Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease. DATA SOURCES Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE All cause mortality. RESULTS 100 trials in 93 553 patients with 262 090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment. CONCLUSION Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Integrating fragmented evidence by network meta-analysis: relative effectiveness of psychological interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder

BACKGROUND To summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD We searched bibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses for randomized controlled trials that compared specific psychological interventions for adults with PTSD symptoms either head-to-head or against control interventions using non-specific intervention components, or against wait-list control. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed trial characteristics. RESULTS The analyses included 4190 patients in 66 trials. An initial network meta-analysis showed large effect sizes (ESs) for all specific psychological interventions (ESs between -1.10 and -1.37) and moderate effects of psychological interventions that were used to control for non-specific intervention effects (ESs -0.58 and -0.62). ES differences between various types of specific psychological interventions were absent to small (ES differences between 0.00 and 0.27). Considerable between-trial heterogeneity occurred (τ 2 = 0.30). Stratified analyses revealed that trials that adhered to DSM-III/IV criteria for PTSD were associated with larger ESs. However, considerable heterogeneity remained. Heterogeneity was reduced in trials with adequate concealment of allocation and in large-sized trials. We found evidence for small-study bias. CONCLUSIONS Our findings show that patients with a formal diagnosis of PTSD and those with subclinical PTSD symptoms benefit from different psychological interventions. We did not identify any intervention that was consistently superior to other specific psychological interventions. However, the robustness of evidence varies considerably between different psychological interventions for PTSD, with most robust evidence for cognitive behavioral and exposure therapies.

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic embolism: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Up to 40% of ischaemic strokes are cryptogenic. A strong association between cryptogenic stroke and the prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) suggests paradoxical embolism via PFO as a potential cause. Randomized trials failed to demonstrate superiority of PFO closure over medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS Randomized trials comparing percutaneous PFO closure against medical therapy or devices head-to-head published or presented by March 2013 were identified through a systematic search. We performed a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure with different devices when compared with medical therapy. We included four randomized trials (2963 patients with 9309 patient-years). Investigated devices were Amplatzer (AMP), STARFlex (STF), and HELEX (HLX). Patients allocated to PFO closure with AMP were less likely to experience a stroke than patients allocated to medical therapy [rate ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.84]. No significant differences were found for STF (RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.44-2.41), and HLX (RR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.17-2.78) when compared with medical therapy. The probability to be best in preventing strokes was 77.1% for AMP, 20.9% for HLX, 1.7% for STF, and 0.4% for medical therapy. No significant differences were found for transient ischaemic attack and death. The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation was more pronounced for STF (RR 7.67; 95% CI: 3.25-19.63), than AMP (RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.00-4.62) and HLX (RR 1.33; 95%-CI 0.33-4.50), when compared with medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS The effectiveness of PFO closure depends on the device used. PFO closure with AMP appears superior to medical therapy in preventing strokes in patients with cryptogenic embolism.

Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: a network meta-analysis in practice.

Systematic reviews of well-designed trials constitute a high level of scientific evidence and are important for medical decision making. Meta-analysis facilitates integration of the evidence using a transparent and systematic approach, leading to a broader interpretation of treatment effectiveness and safety than can be attained from individual studies. Traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparing just 2 interventions concurrently and cannot combine evidence concerning multiple treatments. A relatively recent extension of the traditional meta-analytical approach is network meta-analysis, which allows, under certain assumptions, the quantitative synthesis of all evidence under a unified framework and across a network of all eligible trials. Network meta-analysis combines evidence from direct and indirect information via common comparators; interventions can therefore be ranked in terms of the analyzed outcome. In this article, the network meta-analysis approach is introduced in a nontechnical manner using a worked example on the treatment effectiveness of conventional and self-ligating appliances.

Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatment of native coronary artery stenoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank percutaneous treatment strategies for ISR. METHODS We did a network meta-analysis to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 31, 2014, of different PCI strategies for treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The primary outcome was percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014191. FINDINGS We deemed 27 trials eligible, including 5923 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 60 months after the index intervention. Angiographic follow-up was available for 4975 (84%) of 5923 patients 6-12 months after the intervention. PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was the most effective treatment for percent diameter stenosis, with a difference of -9·0% (95% CI -15·8 to -2·2) versus drug-coated balloons (DCB), -9·4% (-17·4 to -1·4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10·2% (-18·4 to -2·0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19·2% (-28·2 to -10·4) versus vascular brachytherapy, -23·4% (-36·2 to -10·8) versus bare metal stents, -24·2% (-32·2 to -16·4) versus balloon angioplasty, and -31·8% (-44·8 to -18·6) versus rotablation. DCB were ranked as the second most effective treatment, but without significant differences from sirolimus-eluting (-0·2% [95% CI -6·2 to 5·6]) or paclitaxel-eluting (-1·2% [-6·4 to 4·2]) stents. INTERPRETATION These findings suggest that two strategies should be considered for treatment of any type of coronary ISR: PCI with everolimus-eluting stents because of the best angiographic and clinical outcomes, and DCB because of its ability to provide favourable results without adding a new stent layer. FUNDING None.

GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Pairwise meta-analysis is an established statistical tool for synthesizing evidence from multiple trials, but it is informative only about the relative efficacy of two specific interventions. The usefulness of pairwise meta-analysis is thus limited in real-life medical practice, where many competing interventions may be available for a certain condition and studies informing some of the pairwise comparisons may be lacking. This commonly encountered scenario has led to the development of network meta-analysis (NMA). In the last decade, several applications, methodological developments, and empirical studies in NMA have been published, and the area is thriving as its relevance to public health is increasingly recognized. This article presents a review of the relevant literature on NMA methodology aiming to pinpoint the developments that have appeared in the field. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Antipsychotics in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published. Objective To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014. Study Selection At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events. Results Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [3.7] years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs. Conclusions and Relevance Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-analysis: a case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review.

BACKGROUND Limitations in the primary studies constitute one important factor to be considered in the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence. However, in the network meta-analysis (NMA), such evaluation poses a special challenge because each network estimate receives different amounts of contributions from various studies via direct as well as indirect routes and because some biases have directions whose repercussion in the network can be complicated. FINDINGS In this report we use the NMA of maintenance pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder (17 interventions, 33 studies) and demonstrate how to quantitatively evaluate the impact of study limitations using netweight, a STATA command for NMA. For each network estimate, the percentage of contributions from direct comparisons at high, moderate or low risk of bias were quantified, respectively. This method has proven flexible enough to accommodate complex biases with direction, such as the one due to the enrichment design seen in some trials of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Using netweight, therefore, we can evaluate in a transparent and quantitative manner how study limitations of individual studies in the NMA impact on the quality of evidence of each network estimate, even when such limitations have clear directions.

Cognitive-Behavioural Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP), a drug, or their combination: differential therapeutics for persistent depressive disorder: a study protocol of an individual participant data network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite important advances in psychological and pharmacological treatments of persistent depressive disorders in the past decades, their responses remain typically slow and poor, and differential responses among different modalities of treatments or their combinations are not well understood. Cognitive-Behavioural Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) is the only psychotherapy that has been specifically designed for chronic depression and has been examined in an increasing number of trials against medications, alone or in combination. When several treatment alternatives are available for a certain condition, network meta-analysis (NMA) provides a powerful tool to examine their relative efficacy by combining all direct and indirect comparisons. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis enables exploration of impacts of individual characteristics that lead to a differentiated approach matching treatments to specific subgroups of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will search for all randomised controlled trials that compared CBASP, pharmacotherapy or their combination, in the treatment of patients with persistent depressive disorder, in Cochrane CENTRAL, PUBMED, SCOPUS and PsycINFO, supplemented by personal contacts. Individual participant data will be sought from the principal investigators of all the identified trials. Our primary outcomes are depression severity as measured on a continuous observer-rated scale for depression, and dropouts for any reason as a proxy measure of overall treatment acceptability. We will conduct a one-step IPD-NMA to compare CBASP, medications and their combinations, and also carry out a meta-regression to identify their prognostic factors and effect moderators. The model will be fitted in OpenBUGS, using vague priors for all location parameters. For the heterogeneity we will use a half-normal prior on the SD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study requires no ethical approval. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The study results will contribute to more finely differentiated therapeutics for patients suffering from this chronically disabling disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42016035886.

Comparative Analysis of Existing Guidelines for Gender-Fair Language within the ITN LCG Network. ITN-LCG, Workpackage B: Report on Milestone 1

Guidelines for a gender-fair use of the languages represented in the ITN LCG network were analyzed comparatively for specific criteria. All institutional or governmental guidelines aim at attenuating male-biased representations that are brought about by certain grammatical structures of the respective language. These guidelines primarily focus on the use of masculine forms as generics because they reduce the visibility of women in language. The comparison shows that guidelines for English, a language without grammatical gender, emphasize neutralization as a means of referring to both sexes. This differs from grammatical gender languages, such as German and Italian, in which feminine-masculine word-pairs are recommended in order to avoid the masculine bias. The guidelines all aim to promote the formulation of comprehensive and readable texts that are free of discrimination.