Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression. METHODS AND FINDINGS We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = -0.62 to d = -0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = -0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = -0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Combining follow-up and change data is valid in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether it is valid to combine follow-up and change data when conducting meta-analyses of continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee/hip, which assessed patient-reported pain. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) based on follow-up and change data, and pooled within-trial differences in SMDs. We also derived pooled SMDs indicating the largest treatment effect within a trial (optimistic selection of SMDs) and derived pooled SMDs from the estimate indicating the smallest treatment effect within a trial (pessimistic selection of SMDs). RESULTS A total of 21 meta-analyses with 189 trials with 292 randomized comparisons in 41,256 patients were included. On average, SMDs were 0.04 standard deviation units more beneficial when follow-up values were used (difference in SMDs: -0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.13, 0.06; P=0.44). In 13 meta-analyses (62%), there was a relevant difference in clinical and/or significance level between optimistic and pessimistic pooled SMDs. CONCLUSION On average, there is no relevant difference between follow-up and change data SMDs, and combining these estimates in meta-analysis is generally valid. Decision on which type of data to use when both follow-up and change data are available should be prespecified in the meta-analysis protocol.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Specific and Nonspecific Psychological Interventions for PTSD Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis With Problem Complexity as a Moderator

CONTEXT The necessity of specific intervention components for the successful treatment of patients with posttraumatic stress disorder is the subject of controversy. OBJECTIVE To investigate the complexity of clinical problems as a moderator of relative effects between specific and nonspecific psychological interventions. METHODS We included 18 randomized controlled trials, directly comparing specific and nonspecific psychological interventions. We conducted moderator analyses, including the complexity of clinical problems as predictor. RESULTS Our results have confirmed the moderate superiority of specific over nonspecific psychological interventions; however, the superiority was small in studies with complex clinical problems and large in studies with noncomplex clinical problems. CONCLUSIONS For patients with complex clinical problems, our results suggest that particular nonspecific psychological interventions may be offered as an alternative to specific psychological interventions. In contrast, for patients with noncomplex clinical problems, specific psychological interventions are the best treatment option.

Homicide-suicides compared to homicides and suicides: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Homicide-suicides, the murder of one or several individuals followed by the suicide of the perpetrator, are rare but have devastating effects on families and communities. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing perpetrators of homicide-suicides with perpetrators of simple homicides and suicides and examined the proportion of firearm use and its correlation with firearm availability. We searched Medline and Embase from inception to July 2012 and identified 27 eligible studies. Perpetrators of homicide-suicides were older and more likely to be male and married to or separated from their victims than perpetrator of simple homicides or suicides. Influence of alcohol and a history of domestic violence or unemployment were less prevalent in homicide-suicides than in homicides. The proportion of firearm use in homicide-suicides varied across countries and was highest in the USA, Switzerland and South Africa, followed by Australia, Canada, The Netherlands and England and Wales, with a strong correlation between the use of firearms and the level of civilian gun ownership in the country. Our results indicate that homicide-suicides represent a distinct entity, with characteristics distinguishing them both from homicides and suicides.

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Reporting and publication bias is a well-known problem in meta-analysis and healthcare research. In 2002 we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on overall survival in cancer patients, which suggested some evidence for improved survival in patients receiving ESAs compared with controls. However, a meta-analysis of individual patient data conducted several years later showed the opposite of our first meta-analysis, that is, evidence for increased on-study mortality and reduced overall survival in cancer patients receiving ESAs. We aimed to determine whether the results of our first meta-analysis could have been affected by publication and reporting biases and, if so, whether timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data could have prevented this. We conducted a hypothetical meta-analysis for overall survival including all studies and study data that could have been available in 2002, at the time when we conducted our first meta-analysis. Compared with our original meta-analysis, which suggested an overall survival benefit for cancer patients receiving ESAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67‒0.99], our hypothetical meta-analysis based on the results of all studies conducted at the time of the first analysis did not show evidence for a beneficial effect of ESAs on overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83‒1.12). Thus we have to conclude that our first meta-analysis showed misleading overall survival benefits due to publication and reporting biases, which could have been prevented by timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. Unrestricted access to clinical study protocols including amendments, clinical study reports and individual patient data is needed to ensure timely detection of both beneficial and harmful effects of healthcare interventions.

Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Low self-esteem and depression are strongly related, but there is not yet consistent evidence on the nature of the relation. Whereas the vulnerability model states that low self-esteem contributes to depression, the scar model states that depression erodes self-esteem. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the models are specific for depression or whether they are also valid for anxiety. We evaluated the vulnerability and scar models of low self-esteem and depression, and low self-esteem and anxiety, by meta-analyzing the available longitudinal data (covering 77 studies on depression and 18 studies on anxiety). The mean age of the samples ranged from childhood to old age. In the analyses, we used a random-effects model and examined prospective effects between the variables, controlling for prior levels of the predicted variables. For depression, the findings supported the vulnerability model: The effect of self-esteem on depression (β = -.16) was significantly stronger than the effect of depression on self-esteem (β = -.08). In contrast, the effects between low self-esteem and anxiety were relatively balanced: Self-esteem predicted anxiety with β = -.10, and anxiety predicted self-esteem with β = -.08. Moderator analyses were conducted for the effect of low self-esteem on depression; these suggested that the effect is not significantly influenced by gender, age, measures of self-esteem and depression, or time lag between assessments. If future research supports the hypothesized causality of the vulnerability effect of low self-esteem on depression, interventions aimed at increasing self-esteem might be useful in reducing the risk of depression.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections after removal of urinary catheter: meta-analysis

Abstract Objective To determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis at the time of removal of a urinary catheter reduces the risk of subsequent symptomatic urinary tract infection. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published before November 2012 identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; conference abstracts for 2006-12 were also reviewed. Inclusion criteria Studies were included if they examined antibiotic prophylaxis administered to prevent symptomatic urinary tract infection after removal of a short term (≤14 days) urinary catheter. Results Seven controlled studies had symptomatic urinary tract infection after catheter removal as an endpoint; six were randomized controlled trials (five published; one in abstract form) and one was a non-randomized controlled intervention study. Five of these seven studies were in surgical patients. Studies were heterogeneous in the type and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the period of observation. Overall, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with benefit to the patient, with an absolute reduction in risk of urinary tract infection of 5.8% between intervention and control groups. The risk ratio was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.72). The number needed to treat to prevent one urinary tract infection was 17 (12 to 30). Conclusions Patients admitted to hospital who undergo short term urinary catheterization might benefit from antimicrobial prophylaxis when the catheter is removed as they experience fewer subsequent urinary tract infections. Potential disadvantages of more widespread antimicrobial prophylaxis (side effects and cost of antibiotics, development of antimicrobial resistance) might be mitigated by the identification of which patients are most likely to benefit from this approach.

Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND Empirical research has illustrated an association between study size and relative treatment effects, but conclusions have been inconsistent about the association of study size with the risk of bias items. Small studies give generally imprecisely estimated treatment effects, and study variance can serve as a surrogate for study size. METHODS We conducted a network meta-epidemiological study analyzing 32 networks including 613 randomized controlled trials, and used Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression models to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics and study variance on the results of network meta-analysis. We examined changes in relative effects and between-studies variation in network meta-regression models as a function of the variance of the observed effect size and indicators for the adequacy of each risk of bias item. Adjustment was performed both within and across networks, allowing for between-networks variability. RESULTS Imprecise studies with large variances tended to exaggerate the effects of the active or new intervention in the majority of networks, with a ratio of odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.09,3.32). Inappropriate or unclear conduct of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, as well as lack of blinding of patients and outcome assessors, did not materially impact on the summary results. Imprecise studies also appeared to be more prone to inadequate conduct. CONCLUSIONS Compared to more precise studies, studies with large variance may give substantially different answers that alter the results of network meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes.

Combination of Psychological Intervention and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitors for Erectile Dysfunction: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an increasing health problem that demands effective treatment. There is evidence that phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) and psychological intervention (PI) are effective treatment options; however, little is known about their comparative efficacy and the efficacy of combined treatments. AIM The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of PI, PDE5-Is, and their combination in the treatment of ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was ED symptoms, and secondary outcome was sexual satisfaction of the patient. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in order to identify relevant articles published between 1998 and 2012. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled trials comparing PI with PDE5-I treatment or one of them against a combination of both. RESULTS Eight studies with a total number of 562 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the included studies are inconclusive, though they show a trend towards a larger effect of combined treatment compared with PI or PDE5-I treatment alone. The meta-analysis found that, overall, combined treatment was more efficacious for ED symptoms than PDE5-I treatment or PI alone. Combined treatment was more efficacious than PDE5-I use alone on sexual satisfaction. No differences were found between PDE5-Is and PI as stand-alone treatments. None of the moderators (treatment duration, methodological quality, or researcher allegiance) altered the effects. CONCLUSIONS The combination of PI and PDE5-Is is a promising strategy for a favorable outcome in ED and can be considered as a first-choice option for ED patients. Stronger RCTs are required to confirm this initial finding. Schmidt HM, Munder T, Gerger H, Frühauf S, and Barth J. Combination of psychological intervention and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction: A narrative review and meta-analysis. J Sex Med **;**:**-**.