Psychological therapies for chronic pelvic pain:systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP), a common cause of disability in women, is a condition best viewed in the biopsychosocial framework. Psychological interventions are frequently considered alongside medical and surgical treatments. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for the treatment of CPP. Electronic literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and DARE databases from database inception to April 2010. Reference lists of selected articles were searched for further articles. The studies selected were randomized controlled trials of psychological therapies in patients with CPP compared with no treatment, standard gynecological treatment or another form of psychological therapy. Two reviewers independently selected articles without language restrictions and extracted data covering study characteristics, study quality and results. Reduction in pain, measured using visual analog scales or other measurements, was the main outcome measure. Of the 107 citations identified, four studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Compared with no psychological intervention, therapy produced a standardized mean pain score of -3.27 [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.52 to -2.02] and 1.11 (95% CI -0.05 to 2.27) at 3 months and -3.95 (95% CI -5.35 to -2.55) and 0.54 (95% CI -0.78 to 1.86) at 6 months and greater, based on a visual analog scale score of 0-10. The current evidence does not allow us to conclude whether psychological interventions have an effect on self-reported pain scores in women with CPP.

Pronounced reduction of postprandial glucagon by lixisenatide:a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists improve islet function and delay gastric emptying in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of the once-daily prandial GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), glucagon and insulin levels. Methods: Six randomized, placebo-controlled studies of lixisenatide 20μg once daily were included in this analysis: lixisenatide as monotherapy (GetGoal-Mono), as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs; GetGoal-M, GetGoal-S) or in combination with basal insulin (GetGoal-L, GetGoal-Duo-1 and GetGoal-L-Asia). Change in 2-h PPG and glucose excursion were evaluated across six studies. Change in 2-h glucagon and postprandial insulin were evaluated across two studies. A meta-analysis was performed on least square (LS) mean estimates obtained from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)-based linear regression. Results: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG from baseline (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.9mmol/l, p<0.001) and glucose excursion (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.5mmol/l, p<0.001). As measured in two studies, lixisenatide also reduced postprandial glucagon (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -19.0ng/l, p<0.001) and insulin (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -64.8 pmol/l, p<0.001). There was a stronger correlation between 2-h postprandial glucagon and 2-h PPG with lixisenatide than with placebo. Conclusions: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG and glucose excursion together with a marked reduction in postprandial glucagon and insulin; thus, lixisenatide appears to have biological effects on blood glucose that are independent of increased insulin secretion. These effects may be, in part, attributed to reduced glucagon secretion. © 2014 John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Systematic review investigating the reporting of comorbidities and medication in randomized controlled trials of people with dementia

Objectives: dementia is a debilitating condition characterised by global loss of cognitive and intellectual functioning, which reduces social and occupational performance. This population frequently presents with medical co-morbidities such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The CONSORT statement outlines recommended guidance on reporting of participant characteristics in clinical trials. It is, however, unclear how much these are adhered to in trials assessing people with dementia. This paper assesses the reporting of medical co-morbidities and prescribed medications for people with dementia within randomised controlled trial (RCT) reports. Design: a systematic review of the published literature from the databases AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry from 1 January 1997 to 9 January 2014 was undertaken in order to identify RCTs detailing baseline medical co-morbidities and prescribed medications . Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) RCT appraisal tool, and descriptive statistical analyses were calculated to determine point prevalence. Results: nine trials, including 1474 people with dementia, were identified presenting medical co-morbidity data. These indicated neurological disorders ( prevalence 91%), vascular disorders (prevalence 91%), cardiac disorders ( prevalence 74%) and ischaemic cerebrovascular disease ( prevalence 53%) were most frequently seen. Conclusions: published RCTs poorly report medical co-morbidities and medications for people with dementia. Future trials should include the report of these items to allow interpretation of whether the results are generalisable to frailer older populations.

Creative credits:a randomized controlled industrial policy experiment

This report examines the results of a pilot study, which used a method of evaluation called randomised control trials (RCTs) to see if a popular business support scheme called Creative Credits worked effectively. The pilot study, which began in Manchester in 2009, was structured so that vouchers, or 'Creative Credits', would be randomly allocated to small and medium-sized businesses applying to invest in creative projects such as developing websites, video production and creative marketing campaigns, to see if they had a real effect on innovation. The research found that the firms who were awarded Creative Credits enjoyed a short-term boost in their innovation and sales growth in the six months following completion of their creative projects. However, the positive effects were not sustained, and after 12 months there was no longer a statistically significant difference between the groups that received the credits and those that didn’t. The report argues that these results would have remained hidden using the normal evaluation methods used by government, and calls for RCTs to be used more widely when evaluating policies to support business growth.