[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.

Ozone and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Time-Series Studies and Comparison to a Multi-City Study (The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study)

While many time-series studies of ozone and daily mortality identified positive associations,others yielded null or inconclusive results. We performed a meta-analysis of 144 effect estimates from 39 time-series studies, and estimated pooled effects by lags, age groups,cause-specific mortality, and concentration metrics. We compared results to estimates from the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS), a time-series study of 95 large U.S. cities from 1987 to 2000. Both meta-analysis and NMMAPS results provided strong evidence of a short-term association between ozone and mortality, with larger effects for cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, the elderly, and current day ozone exposure as compared to other single day lags. In both analyses, results were not sensitive to adjustment for particulate matter and model specifications. In the meta-analysis we found that a 10 ppb increase in daily ozone is associated with a 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.53, 1.12%) increase in total mortality, whereas the corresponding NMMAPS estimate is 0.25%(0.12, 0.39%). Meta-analysis results were consistently larger than those from NMMAPS,indicating publication bias. Additional publication bias is evident regarding the choice of lags in time-series studies, and the larger heterogeneity in posterior city-specific estimates in the meta-analysis, as compared with NMAMPS.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis and Crohn's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review assesses the evidence for an association between Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) and Crohn's disease. We analysed 28 case-control studies comparing MAP in patients with Crohn's disease with individuals free of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or patients with ulcerative colitis. Compared with individuals free of IBD, the pooled odds ratio (OR) from studies using PCR in tissue samples was 7.01 (95% CI 3.95-12.4) and was 1.72 (1.02-2.90) in studies using ELISA in serum. ORs were similar for comparisons with ulcerative colitis patients (PCR, 4.13 [1.57-10.9]; ELISA, 1.88 [1.26-2.81]). The association of MAP with Crohn's disease seems to be specific, but its role in the aetiology of Crohn's disease remains to be defined.

Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodology of meta-analyses published in leading general and specialist medical journals over a 10-year period. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Volumes 1993-2002 of four general medicine journals and four specialist journals were searched by hand for meta-analyses including at least five controlled trials. Characteristics were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 272 meta-analyses, which included a median of 11 trials (range 5-195), were assessed. Most (81%) were published in general medicine journals. The median (range) number of databases searched increased from 1 (1-9) in 1993/1994 to 3.5 (1-21) in 2001/2002, P<0.0001. The proportion of meta-analyses including searches by hand (10% in 1993/1994, 25% in 2001/2002, P=0.005), searches of the grey literature (29%, 51%, P=0.010 by chi-square test), and of trial registers (10%, 32%, P=0.025) also increased. Assessments of the quality of trials also became more common (45%, 70%, P=0.008), including whether allocation of patients to treatment groups had been concealed (24%, 60%, P=0.001). The methodological and reporting quality was consistently higher in general medicine compared to specialist journals. CONCLUSION: Many meta-analyses published in leading journals have important methodological limitations. The situation has improved in recent years but considerable room for further improvements remains.

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.

Hylan versus hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intraarticular high-molecular hylan with standard preparations of hyaluronic acids in osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing hylan with a hyaluronic acid in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Trials were identified by systematic searches of Central, Medline, EMBase, Cinahl, the Food and Drug Administration, and Science Citation Index supplemented by hand searches of conference proceedings and reference lists (last update November 2006). Literature screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen trials with a pooled total of 2,085 patients contributed to the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size was -0.27 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.55, 0.01), favoring hylan, but between-trial heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 88%). Trials with blinded patients, adequate concealment of allocation, and an intent-to-treat analysis had pooled effect sizes near null. The meta-analyses on safety revealed an increased risk associated with hylan for any local adverse events (relative risk [RR] 1.91; 95% CI 1.04, 3.49; I(2) = 28%) and for flares (RR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18, 3.53; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Given the likely lack of a superior effectiveness of hylan over hyaluronic acids and the increased risk of local adverse events associated with hylan, we discourage the use of intraarticular hylan in patients with knee osteoarthritis in clinical research or practice.

A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to make a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of 2 drug-eluting stents (DES)--sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)--in patients with coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: It is not known whether there are differences in late outcomes between the 2 most commonly used DES: SES and PES. METHODS: Sixteen randomized trials of SES versus PES with a total number of 8,695 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A full set of individual outcome data from 5,562 patients was also available. Mean follow-up period ranged from 9 to 37 months. The primary efficacy end point was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety end point was stent thrombosis. Secondary end points were death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Compared with PES, SES significantly reduced the risk of reintervention (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.87, p < 0.001) and stent thrombosis (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94, p = 0.02) without significantly impacting on the risk of death (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13, p = 0.43) or MI (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.03, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents are superior to PES in terms of a significant reduction of the risk of reintervention and stent thrombosis. The risk of death was not significantly different between the 2 DES, but there was a trend toward a higher risk of MI with PES, especially after the first year from the procedure.

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.

Immunogenicity and safety of aerosolized measles vaccine: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aerosols are the most promising non-injectable method of measles vaccination studied so far and their efficacy is thought to be comparable to injected vaccine. We conducted a systematic review up to May 2006 to examine the immunogenicity and safety of aerosolized measles vaccine (Edmonston-Zagreb or Schwarz strains) 1 month or more after vaccination. Where possible we estimated pooled serological response rates and odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals, CI) comparing aerosolized and subcutaneous vaccines in children in three age groups and adults. We included seven randomized trials, four non-randomized trials and six uncontrolled studies providing serological outcome data on 2887 individuals. In children below 10 months, the studies were heterogeneous. In four comparative studies, seroconversion rates were lower with aerosolized than with subcutaneous vaccine and in two of these the difference was unlikely to be due to chance. In children 10-36 months, the pooled seroconversion rate with aerosolized vaccine was 93.5% (89.4-97.7%) and 97.1% (92.4-100%) with subcutaneous vaccine (odds ratio 0.27, 0.04-1.62). In 5-15-year olds the studies were heterogeneous. In all comparative studies aerosolized vaccine was more immunogenic than subcutaneous. Reported side effects were mild. Aerosolized measles vaccine appears to be equally or more immunogenic than subcutaneous vaccine in children aged 10 months and older. Large randomized trials are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of aerosolized measles vaccine as primary and booster doses.