How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

Inkonsistenz und psychische Gesundheit: eine Metaanalyse

Consistency within the psychological processes is accepted as a precondition for efficient functioning and good health. Inconsistency in contrast impairs meeting the requirements of environment and therefore impairs the satisfaction of human needs. It is also seen as a stressor and having the potential to increase the vulnerability for mental disorders (Grawe, 1998, 2004). Incongruence is a form of Inconsistency, describing the divergency between the perception of reality and the goals of a person. Discordance as a second form of Inconsistency is the amount of conflict between goals, wishes and motives. According to the Consistency Theory of Grawe, these two forms of Inconsistency together with avoidance goals and satisfaction of human needs play an important role at the emergence and the maintenance of mental disorders, as well as for the wellbeing of humans. This study includes a short overview of the conceptions of Inconsistency in the psychological literature and a metaanalysis about the interrelations between forms of Inconsistency and characteristics of health and disease. The results support mostly the assumptions of Consistency Theory. Almost all forms of Inconsistency are associated with characteristics of subjective wellbeing, health and disease. One has to take into consideration, that most of the results come from correlational studies with only one measuring time. It is therefore not possible to distinguish between cause and effect.

Efficacy of New Generation Antidepressants: Differences Seem Illusory

Background: Recently, Cipriani and colleagues examined the relative efficacy of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression using network meta-analytic methods. They found that some of these medications outperformed others in patient response to treatment. However, several methodological criticisms have been raised about network meta-analysis and Cipriani’s analysis in particular which creates the concern that the stated superiority of some antidepressants relative to others may be unwarranted. Materials and Methods: A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted which involved replicating Cipriani’s network metaanalysis under the null hypothesis (i.e., no true differences between antidepressants). The following simulation strategy was implemented: (1) 1000 simulations were generated under the null hypothesis (i.e., under the assumption that there were no differences among the 12 antidepressants), (2) each of the 1000 simulations were network meta-analyzed, and (3) the total number of false positive results from the network meta-analyses were calculated. Findings: Greater than 7 times out of 10, the network meta-analysis resulted in one or more comparisons that indicated the superiority of at least one antidepressant when no such true differences among them existed. Interpretation: Based on our simulation study, the results indicated that under identical conditions to those of the 117 RCTs with 236 treatment arms contained in Cipriani et al.’s meta-analysis, one or more false claims about the relative efficacy of antidepressants will be made over 70% of the time. As others have shown as well, there is little evidence in these trials that any antidepressant is more effective than another. The tendency of network meta-analyses to generate false positive results should be considered when conducting multiple comparison analyses.

Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective.

OBJECTIVE Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. METHODS Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials. RESULTS After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0. CONCLUSION We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).