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 **;**:**-**.

Moving beyond transition outcomes: meta-analysis of remission rates in individuals at high clinical risk for psychosis

Recent evidence suggests that transition risks from initial clinical high risk (CHR) status to psychosis are decreasing. The role played by remission in this context is mostly unknown. The present study addresses this issue by means of a meta-analysis including eight relevant studies published up to January 2012 that reported remission rates from an initial CHR status. The primary effect size measure was the longitudinal proportion of remissions compared to non-remission in subjects with a baseline CHR state. Random effect models were employed to address the high heterogeneity across studies included. To assess the robustness of the results, we performed sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing each study and rerunning the analysis. Of 773 subjects who met initial CHR criteria, 73% did not convert to psychosis along a 2-year follow. Of these, about 46% fully remitted from the baseline attenuated psychotic symptoms, as evaluated on the psychometric measures usually employed by prodromal services. The corresponding clinical remission was estimated as high as 35% of the baseline CHR sample. The CHR state is associated with a significant proportion of remitting subjects that can be accounted by the effective treatments received, a lead time bias, a dilution effect, a comorbid effect of other psychiatric diagnoses.

Is paromomycin an effective and safe treatment against cutaneous leishmaniasis? A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54-0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56-1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.

Effects of exercise on anxiety and depression disorders: Review of meta-analyses and neurobiological mechanisms

Anxiety and depression are the most frequently diagnosed psychological diseases showing a high co-morbidity. They have a severe impact on the lives of the persons concerned. Many meta-analytical studies suggested a positive anxiolytic and depression reducing effect of exercise programs. The aim of the present article is to synthesize metaanalyses on the effects of exercise on anxiety and depression and to describe average effect sizes. For this purpose 37 meta-analyses were included reporting 50 effect sizes for anxiety scores of 42,264 participants and depression scores of 48,207 persons. The average documented anxiolytic effect of exercise in these reviews was small, 0.34. In contrast, the effect of exercise on depression was significantly higher and at a moderate level, 0.56. Data of randomized controlled trials suggest higher sizes for the effect of exercise on anxiety and depression leading to increases up to moderate and large effects, respectively. Additionally, exercise seems to be more beneficial for patients compared to participants within a nonclinical, normal range of psychological disease. Especially for the effect of exercise on anxiety, more high quality meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are needed. Finally, possible neurobiological explanations are suggested for the positive effect of exercise on psychological disorders like anxiety and depression.