Clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in routine care: A propensity score based comparison between randomized controlled trials and clinical practice

Background: The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders has been demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigated whether for CBT similar effects can be expected under routine care conditions when the patients are comparable to those examined in RCTs. Method: N=574 CBT patients from an outpatient clinic were stepwise matched to the patients undergoing CBT in the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP). First, the exclusion criteria of the RCT were applied to the naturalistic sample of the outpatient clinic. Second, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the remaining naturalistic sample on the basis of baseline covariate distributions. Matched samples were then compared regarding treatment effects using effect sizes, average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and recovery rates. Results: CBT in the adjusted naturalistic subsample was as effective as in the RCT. However, treatments lasted significantly longer under routine care conditions. Limitations: The samples included only a limited amount of common predictor variables and stemmed from different countries. There might be additional covariates, which could potentially further improve the matching between the samples. Conclusions: CBT for depression in clinical practice might be equally effective as manual-based treatments in RCTs when they are applied to comparable patients. The fact that similar effects under routine conditions were reached with more sessions, however, points to the potential to optimize treatments in clinical practice with respect to their efficiency.

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials

A system for screening of nutritional risk is described. It is based on the concept that nutritional support is indicated in patients who are severely ill with increased nutritional requirements, or who are severely undernourished, or who have certain degrees of severity of disease in combination with certain degrees of undernutrition. Degrees of severity of disease and undernutrition were defined as absent, mild, moderate or severe from data sets in a selected number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and converted to a numeric score. After completion, the screening system was validated against all published RCTs known to us of nutritional support vs spontaneous intake to investigate whether the screening system could distinguish between trials with a positive outcome and trials with no effect on outcome.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Future trials of endovascular mechanical recanalisation therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients: a position paper endorsed by ESMINT and ESNR : Part I: Current situation and major research questions

A new era of stroke treatment may have begun with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) by fully deployed closed-cell self-expanding stents (stent-triever). Multiple case series and the first randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have now been published. More studies are under way involving large numbers of patients, which in turn has resulted in less strict "pragmatic" study protocols. Problems with current trials include a lack of standardisation in the conduct of the recanalisation procedure, the definition of primary endpoints such as the grade of arterial recanalisation and tissue reperfusion, and the post-surgical care provided. In Part 1 of this two part series, we outline the current situation and the major research questions.

Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study)

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. Methods/Design Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs. We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. Discussion Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of supported employment

Although numerous randomised controlled trials indicated the superiority of supported employment (SE), we still have too little evidence that SE is more effective than traditional vocational rehabilitation programmes (TVR) in Western European countries with highly developed social security and welfare systems, sophisticated rehabilitation programmes and high thresholds to the open labour market. The aim of this study is to prove the efficacy of SE in Switzerland.

Integrated care in patients with schizophrenia: results of trials published between 2011 and 2013 focusing on effectiveness and efficiency

Purpose of review: Overview on integrated care trials focusing on effectiveness and efficiency published from 2011 to 2013. Recent findings: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 non-RCT studies were published from 2011 to 2013. Studies differed in several methodological aspects such as study population, psychotherapeutic approaches used, outcome parameters, follow-up times, fidelities, and implementation of the integrated care model and the nation-specific healthcare context with different control conditions. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Most studies demonstrated relevant improvements regarding symptoms (P = 0.001) and functioning (P = 0.01), quality of life (P = 0.01), adherence (P <0.05) and patient's satisfaction (P = 0.01), and reduction of caregiver's stress (P < 0.05). Mean total costs were favoring or at least equalizing costs but with positive effects found on subjective health favoring integrated care models. Summary: There is an increasing interest in the effectiveness and efficiency of integrated care models in patients with mental disorders, specifically in those with severe and persistent mental illness. To increase generalizability, future trials should exactly describe rationales and content of integrated care model and control conditions.

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer. METHODS: Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.

Comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine schedules: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine trials

BACKGROUND The optimal schedule and the need for a booster dose are unclear for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines. We systematically reviewed relative effects of Hib vaccine schedules. METHODS We searched 21 databases to May 2010 or June 2012 and selected randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared different Hib schedules (3 primary doses with no booster dose [3p+0], 3p+1 and 2p+1) or different intervals in primary schedules and between primary and booster schedules. Outcomes were clinical efficacy, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological response. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty trials from 15 countries were included; 16 used vaccines conjugated to tetanus toxoid (polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid). No trials assessed clinical or carriage outcomes. Twenty trials examined immunological outcomes and found few relevant differences. Comparing polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid 3p+0 with 2p+0, there was no difference in seropositivity at the 1.0 μg/mL threshold by 6 months after the last primary dose (combined risk difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.06). Only small differences were seen between schedules starting at different ages, with different intervals between primary doses, or with different intervals between primary and booster doses. Individuals receiving a booster were more likely to be seropositive than those at the same age who did not. CONCLUSIONS There is no clear evidence from trials that any 2p+1, 3p+0 or 3p+1 schedule of Hib conjugate vaccine is likely to provide better protection against Hib disease than other schedules. Until more data become available, scheduling is likely to be determined by epidemiological and programmatic considerations in individual settings.

Actigraphic monitoring of physical activity in clinical trials in schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is still associated with poor outcome, which is mainly related to negative symptoms, reduced physical activity and low quality of life. Physical activity can be objectively measured without distress using wrist actigraphy. The activity levels during the wake periods of the day have been informative on psychopathology and antipsychotic medication. Several studies demonstrated prominent negative symptoms to be associated with reduced activity levels with strongest correlations in chronic patients. Particularly, the avolition score is correlated with reduced activity levels. Moreover, activity levels differ between DSM-IV schizophrenia spectrum disorders and subtypes as well as between patients treated with olanzapine or risperidone. The longitudinal course of activity levels during an psychotic episode demonstrates considerable variance between subjects. During a psychotic episode patients with low activity levels at baseline experience an amelioration of negative symptoms. In contrast, patients with high activity levels at baseline have stable low negative syndrome scores. Between psychotic episodes less variance is observed. Actigraphy is easily applied in schizophrenia and allows collecting large amounts of crosssectional or longitudinal data. With larger numbers of subjects in controlled trials, continuous recording of activity would foster the detection of different outcome trajectories, which may prove as useful groups to target interventions. In clinical trials, activity monitoring may supplement and validate measures of the negative syndrome and its avolition factor or serve as an outcome marker for physical activity, which is important for metabolic issues and quality of life.

Adjudication-related processes are underreported and lack standardization in clinical trials of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Although the use of an adjudication committee (AC) for outcomes is recommended in randomized controlled trials, there are limited data on the process of adjudication. We therefore aimed to assess whether the reporting of the adjudication process in venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials meets existing quality standards and which characteristics of trials influence the use of an AC. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003, to June 1, 2012, for randomized controlled trials on VTE. We abstracted information about characteristics and quality of trials and reporting of adjudication processes. We used stepwise backward logistic regression model to identify trial characteristics independently associated with the use of an AC. RESULTS We included 161 trials. Of these, 68.9% (111 of 161) reported the use of an AC. Overall, 99.1% (110 of 111) of trials with an AC used independent or blinded ACs, 14.4% (16 of 111) reported how the adjudication decision was reached within the AC, and 4.5% (5 of 111) reported on whether the reliability of adjudication was assessed. In multivariate analyses, multicenter trials [odds ratio (OR), 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7, 27.8], use of a data safety-monitoring board (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 11.6), and VTE as the primary outcome (OR, 5.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 19.4) were associated with the use of an AC. Trials without random allocation concealment (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.8) and open-label trials (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0) were less likely to report an AC. CONCLUSION Recommended processes of adjudication are underreported and lack standardization in VTE-related clinical trials. The use of an AC varies substantially by trial characteristics.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.