[Effectiveness of Integrated Psychological Therapy for schizophrenia patients : A meta-analysis including 28 independent studies.]

Over the past 24 years, research groups in eight different countries have conducted 28 independent evaluation studies on Integrated Psychological Therapy (IPT) including 1,329 schizophrenia patients. The present study examines the effectiveness of IPT under different treatment conditions by means of a meta-analytic review. The most salient results indicate favourable mean effect sizes for IPT in comparison to control groups (placebo-attention conditions, standard care). Moreover, the superiority of IPT continues to increase during an average catamnestic phase of 8.1 months. The method obtains similarly favourable effects in different functional areas (neurocognition, social behaviour, psychopathology) and different assessment formats (expert ratings, self-reports, psychological tests). The comparison of different settings of IPT and control groups shows the superiority of IPT in any given therapy or site condition. The analysis of subsamples of inpatients, outpatients, and patients in varying rehabilitation phases reveals similarly favourable effects. Comparing only high-quality studies yields comparable results. In summary, the present meta-analysis corroborates evidence that IPT is an 'empirically validated treatment' according to American Psychiatric Association guidelines.

Placebo-controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine and conventional medicine - comparative study

BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is increasingly used in the West, but the evidence on its effectiveness is a matter of debate. We compared the characteristics, study quality and results of clinical trials of CHM and conventional medicine. METHODS: Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine. Eleven bibliographic databases and searches by hand of 48 Chinese-language journals. Conventional medicine trials matched for condition and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Trials described as double-blind, with adequate generation of allocation sequence and adequate concealment of allocation, were assumed to be of high quality. Data were analysed using funnel plots and multivariable meta-regression models. RESULTS: 136 CHM trials (119 published in Chinese, 17 published in English) and 136 matched conventional medicine trials (125 published in English) were analysed. The quality of Chinese-language CHM trials tended to be lower than that of English-language CHM trials and conventional medicine trials. Three (2%) CHM trials and 10 (7%) conventional medicine trials were of high quality. In all groups, smaller trials showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger trials. CHM trials published in Chinese showed considerably larger effects than CHM trials published in English (adjusted ratio of ORs 0.29, 95% confidence intervals 0.17-0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Biases are present both in placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine, but may be most pronounced in CHM trials published in Chinese-language journals. Only few CHM trials of adequate methodology exist and the effectiveness of CHM therefore remains poorly documented.

Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of grey literature (i.e. literature that has not been formally published) in systematic reviews may help to overcome some of the problems of publication bias, which can arise due to the selective availability of data. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically research studies, which have investigated the impact of grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 20 May 2005), the Science Citation Index (June 2005) and contacted researchers who may have carried out relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: A study was considered eligible for this review if it compared the effect of the inclusion and exclusion of grey literature on the results of a cohort of meta-analyses of randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from each report independently by two reviewers. The main outcome measure was an estimate of the impact of trials from the grey literature on the pooled effect estimates of the meta-analyses. Information was also collected on the area of health care, the number of meta-analyses, the number of trials, the number of trial participants, the year of publication of the trials, the language and country of publication of the trials, the number and type of grey and published literature, and methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All five studies showed that published trials showed an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This difference was statistically significant in one of the five studies. Data could be combined for three of the five studies. This showed that, on average, published trials showed a 9% greater treatment effect than grey trials (ratio of odds ratios for grey versus published trials 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16). Overall there were more published trials included in the meta-analyses than grey trials (median 224 (IQR 108-365) versus 45(IQR 40-102)). Published trials had more participants on average. The most common types of grey literature were abstracts (55%) and unpublished data (30%). There is limited evidence to show whether grey trials are of poorer methodological quality than published trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that published trials tend to be larger and show an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This has important implications for reviewers who need to ensure they identify grey trials, in order to minimise the risk of introducing bias into their review.

A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Studies of diagnostic accuracy require more sophisticated methods for their meta-analysis than studies of therapeutic interventions. A number of different, and apparently divergent, methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies have been proposed, including two alternative approaches that are statistically rigorous and allow for between-study variability: the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) model (Rutter and Gatsonis, 2001) and bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (van Houwelingen and others, 1993), (van Houwelingen and others, 2002), (Reitsma and others, 2005). We show that these two models are very closely related, and define the circumstances in which they are identical. We discuss the different forms of summary model output suggested by the two approaches, including summary ROC curves, summary points, confidence regions, and prediction regions.

Meta-analysis: chondroitin for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses described moderate to large benefits of chondroitin in patients with osteoarthritis. However, recent large-scale trials did not find evidence of an effect. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of chondroitin on pain in patients with osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 2006), CINAHL (1970 to 2006), and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors. The last update of searches was performed on 30 November 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials that compared chondroitin with placebo or with no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. There were no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from the differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled SD. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 trials (3846 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, which revealed a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 92%). Small trials, trials with unclear concealment of allocation, and trials that were not analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle showed larger effects in favor of chondroitin than did the remaining trials. When the authors restricted the analysis to the 3 trials with large sample sizes and an intention-to-treat analysis, 40% of patients were included. This resulted in an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.07; I2 = 0%) and corresponded to a difference of 0.6 mm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. A meta-analysis of 12 trials showed a pooled relative risk of 0.99 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31) for any adverse event. LIMITATIONS: For 9 trials, the authors had to use approximations to calculate effect sizes. Trial quality was generally low, heterogeneity among the trials made initial interpretation of results difficult, and exploring sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses may be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged.

Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies

BACKGROUND: Excess bodyweight, expressed as increased body-mass index (BMI), is associated with the risk of some common adult cancers. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the strength of associations between BMI and different sites of cancer and to investigate differences in these associations between sex and ethnic groups. METHODS: We did electronic searches on Medline and Embase (1966 to November 2007), and searched reports to identify prospective studies of incident cases of 20 cancer types. We did random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions of study-specific incremental estimates to determine the risk of cancer associated with a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI. FINDINGS: We analysed 221 datasets (141 articles), including 282,137 incident cases. In men, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was strongly associated with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (RR 1.52, p<0.0001) and with thyroid (1.33, p=0.02), colon (1.24, p<0.0001), and renal (1.24, p <0.0001) cancers. In women, we recorded strong associations between a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI and endometrial (1.59, p<0.0001), gallbladder (1.59, p=0.04), oesophageal adenocarcinoma (1.51, p<0.0001), and renal (1.34, p<0.0001) cancers. We noted weaker positive associations (RR <1.20) between increased BMI and rectal cancer and malignant melanoma in men; postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid, and colon cancers in women; and leukaemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in both sexes. Associations were stronger in men than in women for colon (p<0.0001) cancer. Associations were generally similar in studies from North America, Europe and Australia, and the Asia-Pacific region, but we recorded stronger associations in Asia-Pacific populations between increased BMI and premenopausal (p=0.009) and postmenopausal (p=0.06) breast cancers. INTERPRETATION: Increased BMI is associated with increased risk of common and less common malignancies. For some cancer types, associations differ between sexes and populations of different ethnic origins. These epidemiological observations should inform the exploration of biological mechanisms that link obesity with cancer.

Risk of adverse effects of intensified treatment in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

While the benefits of intensified insulin treatment in insulin-dependent (Type 1) diabetes mellitus (IDDM) are well recognized, the risks have not been comprehensively characterized. We examined the risk of severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis, and death in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The MEDLINE database, reference lists, and specialist journals were searched electronically or by hand to identify relevant studies with at least 6 months of follow-up and the monitoring of glycaemia by glycosylated haemoglobin measurements. Logistic regression was used for calculation of combined odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The influence of covariates was examined by including covariate-by-treatment interaction terms. Methodological study quality was assessed and sensitivity analyses were performed. Fourteen trials were identified. These contributed 16 comparisons with 1028 patients allocated to intensified and 1039 allocated to conventional treatment. A total of 846 patients suffered at least one episode of severe hypoglycaemia, 175 patients experienced ketoacidosis and 26 patients died. The combined odds ratio (95% CI) for hypoglycaemia was 2.99 (2.45-3.64), for ketoacidosis 1.74 (1.27-2.38) and for death from all causes 1.40 (0.65-3.01). The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was determined by the degree of normalization of glycaemia achieved (p=0.005 for interaction term), with the results from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) in line with the other trials. Ketoacidosis risk depended on the type of intensified treatment used. Odds ratios (95% CI) were 7.20 (2.95-17.58) for exclusive use of pumps, 1.13 (0.15-8.35) for multiple daily injections and 1.28 (0.90-1.83) for trials offering a choice between the two (p = 0.004 for interaction). Mortality was significantly (p = 0.007) increased for causes potentially associated with acute complications (7 vs 0 deaths, 5 deaths attributed to ketoacidosis, and 2 sudden deaths), and non-significantly (p = 0.16) decreased for macrovascular causes (3 vs 8 deaths). We conclude that there is a substantial risk of severe adverse effects associated with intensified insulin treatment. Mortality from acute metabolic causes is increased; however, this is largely counterbalanced by a reduction in cardiovascular mortality. The excess of severe hypoglycemia in the DCCT is not exceptional. Multiple daily injection schemes may be safer than treatment with insulin pumps.

Adjunctive corticosteroids for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to review the effects of adjunctive corticosteroids on overall mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in HIV-infected patients with Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP) and substantial hypoxemia (arterial oxygen partial pressure <70 mmHg or alveolar-arterial gradient >35 mmHg on room air). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature for randomised trials published up to December 2004. Selected trials compared adjunctive corticosteroids with placebo or usual care in HIV-infected patients with PCP and reported mortality data. Two teams of reviewers independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from each primary study. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk ratios for overall mortality for adjunctive corticosteroids were 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.79) at 1 month and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49-0.93) at 3-4 months of follow-up. Numbers needed to treat, to prevent 1 death, are 9 patients in a setting without highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) available and 22 patients with HAART available. Only the 3 largest trials provided data on the need for mechanical ventilation with a risk ratio of 0.37 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70) in favour of adjunctive corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: The number and size of trials investigating adjunctive corticosteroids for HIV-infected patients with PCP is small, but our results suggest a beneficial effect for patients with substantial hypoxemia.

[Do breast-fed children have a lower risk for later obesity? Discussion of a meta-analysis]

The relationship between breast-feeding and childhood obesity is of great interest. Since 2000, several studies have been published with conflicting data regarding the potential protective effect of breast-feeding on childhood obesity. Meta-analyses suggested a small but significant protective effect of breast-feeding, but a recent study was not able to show such an effect. This paper summarises one of these meta-analyses and discusses the strengths and limitations of the meta-analysis approach.

Effect of therapeutic exercise for hip osteoarthritis pain: results of a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for lower extremity osteoarthritis (OA) and exercise have been primarily based on knee studies. To provide more targeted recommendations for the hip, we gathered evidence for the efficacy of exercise for hip OA from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A bibliographic search identified trials that were randomized, controlled, completed by >or=60% of subjects, and involved an exercise group (strengthening and/or aerobic) versus a non exercise control group for pain relief in hip OA. Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction and contacted the authors when necessary. Effect sizes (ES) of treatment versus control and the I(2) statistic to assess heterogeneity across trials were calculated. Trial data were combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria (1,234 subjects), 7 of which combined hip and knee OA; therefore, we contacted the authors who provided the data on hip OA patients. In comparing exercise treatment versus control, we found a beneficial effect of exercise with an ES of -0.38 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.68, -0.08; P = 0.01), but with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 75%) among trials. Heterogeneity was caused by 1 trial consisting of an exercise intervention that was not administered in person. Removing this study left 8 trials (n = 493) with similar exercise strategy (specialized hands-on exercise training, all of which included at least some element of muscle strengthening), and demonstrated exercise benefit with an ES of -0.46 (95% CI -0.64, -0.28; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic exercise, especially with an element of strengthening, is an efficacious treatment for hip OA.

Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations

Meta-analysis, the statistical combination of results from several studies to produce a single estimate of a treatment effect or size of an association, continues to attract controversy. We illustrate and discuss the promises and limitations of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of clinical trials can prevent delays in the introduction of effective treatments or lead to the timely identification of adverse effects. However, meta-analyses are liable to numerous biases, both at the level of the individual study and the selection of studies for inclusion in meta-analysis. The biases and confounding factors that threaten the validity of individual studies will also affect meta-analyses of observational studies. We argue that meta-analyses should only be performed within the framework of systematic reviews that have been prepared using methods that minimize bias and address the combinability of studies.

Multidimensional preventive home visit programs for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Multidimensional preventive home visit programs aim at maintaining health and autonomy of older adults and preventing disability and subsequent nursing home admission, but results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been inconsistent. Our objective was to systematically review RCTs examining the effect of home visit programs on mortality, nursing home admissions, and functional status decline. METHODS: Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL database, and references. Studies were reviewed to identify RCTs that compared outcome data of older participants in preventive home visit programs with control group outcome data. Publications reporting 21 trials were included. Data on study population, intervention characteristics, outcomes, and trial quality were double-extracted. We conducted random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Pooled effects estimates revealed statistically nonsignificant favorable, and heterogeneous effects on mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.05), functional status decline (OR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.77-1.03), and nursing home admission (OR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.68-1.10). A beneficial effect on mortality was seen in younger study populations (OR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.94) but not in older populations (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.90-1.43). Functional decline was reduced in programs including a clinical examination in the initial assessment (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.48-0.87) but not in other trials (OR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.88-1.14). There was no single factor explaining the heterogenous effects of trials on nursing home admissions. CONCLUSION: Multidimensional preventive home visits have the potential to reduce disability burden among older adults when based on multidimensional assessment with clinical examination. Effects on nursing home admissions are heterogeneous and likely depend on multiple factors including population factors, program characteristics, and health care setting.

An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis of studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests currently uses a variety of methods. Statistically rigorous hierarchical models require expertise and sophisticated software. We assessed whether any of the simpler methods can in practice give adequately accurate and reliable results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed six methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy: four simple commonly used methods (simple pooling, separate random-effects meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity, separate meta-analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the Littenberg-Moses summary receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve) and two more statistically rigorous approaches using hierarchical models (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and hierarchical summary ROC curve analysis). We applied the methods to data from a sample of eight systematic reviews chosen to illustrate a variety of patterns of results. RESULTS: In each meta-analysis, there was substantial heterogeneity between the results of different studies. Simple pooling of results gave misleading summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in some meta-analyses, and the Littenberg-Moses method produced summary ROC curves that diverged from those produced by more rigorous methods in some situations. CONCLUSION: The closely related hierarchical summary ROC curve or bivariate models should be used as the standard method for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic studies in obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive medicine

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice a diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical history, physical examination and additional diagnostic tests. At present, studies on diagnostic research often report the accuracy of tests without taking into account the information already known from history and examination. Due to this lack of information, together with variations in design and quality of studies, conventional meta-analyses based on these studies will not show the accuracy of the tests in real practice. By using individual patient data (IPD) to perform meta-analyses, the accuracy of tests can be assessed in relation to other patient characteristics and allows the development or evaluation of diagnostic algorithms for individual patients. In this study we will examine these potential benefits in four clinical diagnostic problems in the field of gynaecology, obstetrics and reproductive medicine. METHODS/DESIGN: Based on earlier systematic reviews for each of the four clinical problems, studies are considered for inclusion. The first authors of the included studies will be invited to participate and share their original data. After assessment of validity and completeness the acquired datasets are merged. Based on these data, a series of analyses will be performed, including a systematic comparison of the results of the IPD meta-analysis with those of a conventional meta-analysis, development of multivariable models for clinical history alone and for the combination of history, physical examination and relevant diagnostic tests and development of clinical prediction rules for the individual patients. These will be made accessible for clinicians. DISCUSSION: The use of IPD meta-analysis will allow evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests in relation to other relevant information. Ultimately, this could increase the efficiency of the diagnostic work-up, e.g. by reducing the need for invasive tests and/or improving the accuracy of the diagnostic workup. This study will assess whether these benefits of IPD meta-analysis over conventional meta-analysis can be exploited and will provide a framework for future IPD meta-analyses in diagnostic and prognostic research.