Search

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that alterations in inflammatory biomarkers are important in depression. However, previous meta-analyses disagree on these associations, and errors in data extraction may account for these discrepancies. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 14 January 2020. Meta-analyses of observational studies examining the association between depression and levels of tumor necrosis factor- α (TNF- α), interleukin 1- β (IL-1 β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were eligible. Errors were classified as follows: incorrect sample sizes, incorrectly used standard deviation, incorrect participant inclusion, calculation error, or analysis with insufficient data. We determined their impact on the results after correction thereof. Results: Errors were noted in 14 of the 15 meta-analyses included. Across 521 primary studies, 118 (22.6%) showed the following errors: incorrect sample sizes (20 studies, 16.9%), incorrect use of standard deviation (35 studies, 29.7%), incorrect participant inclusion (7 studies, 5.9%), calculation errors (33 studies, 28.0%), and analysis with insufficient data (23 studies, 19.5%). After correcting these errors, 11 (29.7%) out of 37 pooled effect sizes changed by a magnitude of more than 0.1, ranging from 0.11 to 1.15. The updated meta-analyses showed that elevated levels of TNF- α , IL-6, CRP, but not IL-1 β , are associated with depression. Conclusions: These findings show that data extraction errors in meta-analyses can impact findings. Efforts to reduce such errors are important in studies of the association between depression and peripheral inflammatory biomarkers, for which high heterogeneity and conflicting results have been continuously reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are frequently diagnosed with co‐occurring medical conditions including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To investigate the association, we conducted a systematic review registered in PROSPERO (ID:CRD42021236263) with a random‐effects meta‐analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo (last search on January 25, 2021), and manually searched relevant publications. We included observational studies measuring the association between ASD and IBD. The primary outcome was the association (odds ratio, OR) between ASD and later development of IBD. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by quality, confounding adjustment, and study design. We performed meta‐regression analyses and assessed heterogeneity, publication bias, and quality of studies with the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Overall, we included six studies consisting of eight datasets, including over 11 million participants. We found that ASD was significantly associated with subsequent incident IBD (any IBD, OR = 1.66, 95% confidence interval[CI] = 1.25–2.21, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.91, 95%CI = 1.41–2.6, p < 0.001; Crohn's disease, OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.15–1.88, p = 0.002). ASD and IBD were also associated regardless of temporal sequence of diagnosis (any IBD, OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.28–1.93, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.7, 95%CI = 1.36–2.12, p < 0.001; Crohn's disease, OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.12–1.69, p = 0.003). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Meta‐regression did not identify any significant moderators. Publication bias was not detected. Quality was high in four datasets and medium in four. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need to screen for IBD in individuals with ASD, and future research should identify who, among those with ASD, has the highest risk of IBD, and elucidate the shared biological mechanisms between ASD and IBD. Lay Summary: This systematic review and meta‐analysis of eight observational datasets found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are more likely to develop any inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn's disease. Our findings highlight the need to screen for inflammatory bowel disease in patients with ASD and elucidate the shared biological mechanisms between the two disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The putative risk/protective factors for several personality disorders remain unclear. The vast majority of published studies has assessed personality characteristics/traits rather than disorders. Thus, the current umbrella review of meta-analyses (MAs) aims to systematically assess risk or protective factors associated with personality disorders. We searched PubMed–MEDLINE/PsycInfo databases, up to August 31, 2020. Quality of MAs was assessed with AMSTAR-2, while the credibility of evidence for each association was assessed through standard quantitative criteria. Out of 571 initial references, five meta-analyses met inclusion criteria, encompassing 56 associations of 26 potential environmental factors for antisocial, dependent, borderline personality disorder, with a median of five studies per association, and median 214 cases per association. Overall, 35 (62.5%) of the associations were nominally significant. Six associations met class II (i.e., highly suggestive) evidence for borderline personality disorder, with large effect sizes involving childhood emotional abuse (OR = 28.15, 95% CI 14.76–53.68), childhood emotional neglect (OR = 22.86, 95% CI 11.55–45.22), childhood any adversities (OR = 14.32, 95% CI 10.80–18.98), childhood physical abuse (OR = 9.30, 95% CI 6.57–13.17), childhood sexual abuse (OR = 7.95, 95% CI 6.21–10.17), and childhood physical neglect (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 3.21–10.21), plus 16 further associations supported by class IV evidence. No risk factor for antisocial or dependent personality disorder was supported by class I, II, and III, but six and seven met class IV evidence, respectively. Quality of included meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two, critically low in three. The large effect sizes found for a broad range of childhood adversities suggest that prevention of personality disorders should target childhood-related risk factors. However, larger cohort studies assessing multidimensional risk factors are needed in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This is the first umbrella review measuring risk factors for cannabinoids, cocaine, opioid related disorders • OSmoking had highly suggestive evidence for nonmedical use of prescription opioid medicines (OR = 3.07, 95 %CI:2.27–4.14). • CConvincing evidence emerged in sensitivity analyses on antisocial behavior/cannabis use disoder (OR 3.34, 95%CI 2.53–4.41). • Most of the associations had weak evidence. • Additional research efforts are urgently needed given the poor and low quality available evidence. Several meta-analyses of observational studies have addressed the association between risk and protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders, but results are conflicting. No umbrella review has ever graded the credibility of this evidence (not significant/weak/suggestive/highly suggestive/convincing). We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo, last search September 21, 2020. We assessed the quality of meta-analyses with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Out of 3,072 initial references, five were included, providing 19 associations between 12 putative risk/protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders (cases: 4539; N = 1,118,872,721). While 84 % of the associations were statistically significant, none was convincing. One risk factor (smoking) had highly suggestive evidence for association with nonmedical use of prescription opioid medicines (OR = 3.07, 95 %CI:2.27 to 4.14). Convincing evidence emerged in sensitivity analyses on antisocial behavior and cannabis use disoder (OR 3.34, 95 %CI 2.53–4.41). Remaining associations had weak evidence. The quality of meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two (40 %), low in one (20 %), and critically low in two (40 %). Future research is needed to better profile risk/protective factors for cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders disorders informing preventive approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This is the first umbrella review grading risk factors for disorders with onset during childhood/adolescence. • No risk factor is supported by convincing evidence nor by highly suggestive evidence. • Exposure to antipsychotics/lithium during pregnancy as risk factor for neuromotor deficits is supported by suggestive evidence, but confounding by indication is present. • No protective factor has been identified. The patho-etiology of mental disorders with onset in childhood or adolescence remains largely unknown. We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses (MAs) on environmental factors associated with mental disorders with onset in childhood/adolescence. We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE/EMBASE/PsycInfo databases, last search April 29th, 2020. Quality of MAs was measured with AMSTAR-2. Out of 6851 initial references, ten articles met inclusion criteria, providing 23 associations between 12 potential environmental factors and nine disorders (cases: 8884; N = 3,660,670). While almost half of the associations were nominally significant, none of them met criteria from either convincing or highly suggestive evidence. A single association was supported by suggestive evidence (maternal exposure to lithium or antipsychotics with neuromotor deficits), but it was affected by confounding by indication. Ten more associations had weak evidence, and 12 associations were not statistically significant. Quality of meta-analyses was rated as high in two, moderate in one, low in four, critically low in two, and not pertinent in one (individual participant data). Methodologically-sound research is needed in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. Methods: We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. Discussion: While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer risk has been associated with certain gene variations in microRNA (miRNA), but conflicting evidence warrants re‐assessing of significant results in meta‐analyses. We summarized published meta‐analyses that assess the associations between miRNA polymorphism and cancers to show the validity of the findings. Method: We searched PubMed and investigated the results of meta‐analyses published through November 2018. We re‐assessed the results based on false‐positive report probability (FPRP) to test the noteworthiness of the associations. Results: Sixty‐eight miRNA polymorphisms in 45 meta‐analyses associated with cancer were included. Four (7.4%) and sixteen (25.0%) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were noteworthy (FPRP < 0.2) at a prior probability of 0.001 for interesting candidate genes and a statistical power to detect an odds ratio (OR) of 1.1 and 1.5, respectively. The four miRNA SNPs noteworthy at an OR of 1.1 were as follows: miR‐146a/rs2910164 Cvs.G; miR‐27a/rs895819 Cvs.T; miR‐423/rs6505162 Cvs.A; and miR‐605/rs2043556 Cvs.T. The 16 SNPs noteworthy at an OR of 1.5 include the four genotype comparisons at an OR of 1.1, and the additional 12 genotype comparisons were as follows: miR‐196a2/rs11614913 Tvs.C; miR‐27a/rs895819 GGvs.AA + AG; miR‐196a2/rs11614913 C vs.T; miR‐146a/rs2910164 Gvs.C; miR‐196a2/rs11614913 Tvs.C; miR‐146a/rs2910164 Cvs.G; miR‐499/rs3746444 homozygous model; miR‐146a/rs2910164 CCvs.GG + GC; miR‐499/rs3746444 TCvs.TT; miR‐499/rs3746444 GAvs.AA; miR‐146a/rs2910164 CCvs.GG; and miR‐499/rs3746444 Gvs.A. No association was noteworthy at a prior probability of 0.000001. Conclusion: Out of 68 published associations of miRNA polymorphisms with cancer, sixteen have shown noteworthiness in our re‐assessing meta‐analysis. Our findings summarize the results of meta‐analyses on the association of cancer with SNPs and underline the importance of interpreting results with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified.Objective: To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes.Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019.Evidence Review: Only meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant.Results: Forty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P ≤ .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication.Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hospital staff is at high risk of developing mental health issues during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the literature lacks an overall and inclusive picture of mental health problems with comprehensive analysis among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. To ascertain the prevalence of anxiety, depression and other mental health outcomes as reported in original articles among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. A PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE 2000 compliant umbrella review of published meta-analyses of observational studies evaluating the prevalence of mental health problems in hospital staff during the pandemic. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from December 1st, 2019, until August 13th 2021. The random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and the I2 index was employed to assess between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias using Egger test and LFK index was examined. Data was analyzed using STATA 17.0 software. AMSTAR-2 was applied for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while we used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. Forty-four meta-analyses from 1298 individual studies were included in the final analysis, encompassing the prevalence of 16 mental health symptoms. One-third of hospital workers reported anxiety (Prevalence: 29.9%, 95% CI:27.1% to 32.7%) and depression (Prevalence: 28.4%, 95% CI:25.5% to 31.3%) symptomatology, while about 40% (95% CI: 36.9% to 42.0%) suffered from sleeping disorders. Fear-related symptoms, reduced well-being, poor quality of life, and acute stress symptoms had the highest prevalence among hospital staff. However, the quality of evidence in these areas varied from low to very low. Nurses suffered more often from sleep problems and symptoms of anxiety and depression than doctors, whereas doctors reported a higher prevalence of acute stress and post-traumatic disorders. The burden of anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders was higher among female employees than their male counterparts. Remarkably, acute stress and insomnia affected more than half of first-line medical staff. The prevalence of mental health problems among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic is generally high, with anxiety, depression and insomnia symptoms representing the most robust evidence based on a large dataset of prevalence meta-analyses. However, there is no strong confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. Not registered. The COVID-19 pandemic is having a major impact on the mental health of hospital staff. The need for support must be different for nurses and doctors @eldi12345. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Experimenter's allegiance (EA) refers to a personal confidence of the superiority of a specific psychotherapy treatment. This factor has been linked with larger treatment effects in favor of the preferred treatment. However, various studies have displayed contradictory results between EA and the pattern of treatment effects. Aims: Using a systematic approach followed by meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the impact of an allegiance effect on the results of psychotherapeutic studies. Method: We considered the meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different types of psychotherapies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible articles included meta-analyses of RCTs with at least one study showing evidence of EA (i.e., allegiant study). Effect sizes in allegiant RCTs were compared with non-allegiant using random and fixed models and a summary relative odds ratio (ROR) were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified with the I2 metric. Results: A total of 30 meta-analyses including 240 RCTs were analyzed. The summary ROR was 1.31 [(95 % confidence interval (CI: 1.03-1.66) P = 0.30, I2 = 53 %] indicating larger effects when allegiance exists. The impact of allegiance did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) when we compared psychiatric versus medical outcomes. Allegiance effect was significant for all forms of psychotherapy except for cognitive behavioral therapy. Moreover, the impact of allegiance was significant only when the treatment integrity of delivered psychotherapy was not assessed. Allegiance effect was even stronger where the experimenter was also both the developer of the preferred treatment and supervised or trained the therapists. No significant differences were found between allegiant and non-allegiant studies in terms of overall quality of studies. Conclusions: Experimenter's allegiance influences the effect sizes of psychotherapy RCTs and can be considered non-financial conflict of interest introducing a form of optimism bias, especially since blinding is problematic in this kind of research. A clear reporting of EA in every single study should be given an opportunity to investigators of minimizing its overestimation effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to verify noteworthy findings between genetic risk factors and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by employing the false positive report probability (FPRP) and the Bayesian false-discovery probability (BFDP). PubMed and the Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) catalog were searched from inception to 1 August, 2019. We included meta-analyses on genetic factors of ASD of any study design. Overall, twenty-seven meta-analyses articles from literature searches, and four manually added articles from the GWAS catalog were re-analyzed. This showed that five of 31 comparisons for meta-analyses of observational studies, 40 out of 203 comparisons for the GWAS meta-analyses, and 18 out of 20 comparisons for the GWAS catalog, respectively, had noteworthy estimations under both Bayesian approaches. In this study, we found noteworthy genetic comparisons highly related to an increased risk of ASD. Multiple genetic comparisons were shown to be associated with ASD risk; however, genuine associations should be carefully verified and understood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631–2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221–0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670–5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capillary leak syndrome (CLS) is a rare disease with profound vascular leakage, which can be associated with a high mortality. There have been several reports on CLS as an adverse effect of anti-cancer agents and therapy, but the incidence of CLS according to the kinds of anti-cancer drugs has not been systemically evaluated. Thus, the aim of our study was to comprehensively meta-analyze the incidence of CLS by different types of cancer treatment or after bone marrow transplantation (BMT). We searched the literatures (inception to July 2018) and among 4612 articles, 62 clinical trials (studies) were eligible. We extracted the number of patients with CLS, total cancer patients, name of therapeutic agent and dose, and type of cancer. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the summary effects with 95% confidence interval and between-study heterogeneity. The reported incidence of CLS was categorized by causative drugs and BMT. The largest number of studies reported on CLS incidence during interleukin-2 (IL-2) treatment (n = 18), which yielded a pooled incidence of 34.7% by overall estimation and 43.9% by meta-analysis. The second largest number of studies reported on anti-cluster of differentiation (anti-CD) agents (n = 13) (incidence of 33.9% by overall estimation and 35.6% by meta-analysis) or undergoing BMT (n = 7 (21.1% by overall estimation and 21.7% by meta-analysis). Also, anti-cancer agents, including IL-2 + imatinib mesylate (three studies) and anti-CD22 monoclinal antibodies (mAb) (four studies), showed a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of CLS. Our study is the first to provide an informative overview on the incidence rate of reported CLS patients as an adverse event of anti-cancer treatment. This meta-analysis can lead to a better understanding of CLS and assist physicians in identifying the presence of CLS early in the disease course to improve the outcome and optimize management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) versus any control group, and moderators, in people with ICD/DSM-defined schizophrenia, comparing countries and continents. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were suicide-, /natural-cause- and other-cause-related mortality. We included 135 studies from Europe (n = 70), North-America (n = 29), Asia (n = 33), Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1). In incident plus prevalent schizophrenia, differences across continents emerged for all-cause mortality (highest in Africa, RR=5.98, 95 %C.I.=4.09–8.74, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=2.14, 95 %C.I.=1.92–2.38, k = 16), suicide (highest in Oceania, RR=13.5, 95 %C.I.=10.08–18.07, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=4.4, 95 %C.I.=4.07–4.76, k = 6), but not for natural-cause mortality. Europe had the largest association between antipsychotics and lower all-cause mortality/suicide (Asia had the smallest or no significant association, respectively), without differences for natural-cause mortality. Higher country socio-demographic index significantly moderated larger suicide-related and smaller natural-cause-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia, with reversed associations in prevalent schizophrenia. Antipsychotics had a larger/smaller protective association in incident/prevalent schizophrenia regarding all-cause mortality, and smaller protective association for suicide-related mortality in prevalent schizophrenia. Additional regional differences emerged in incident schizophrenia, across countries, and secondary outcomes. Significant regional differences emerged for all-cause, cause-specific and suicide-related mortality. Natural-cause death was homogeneously increased globally. Moderators differed across countries. Global initiatives are needed to improve physical health in people with schizophrenia, local studies to identify actionable moderators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We mapped the evidence on the type and strength of associations between a broad range of mental and physical conditions in children and adolescents, by carrying out an umbrella review, i.e., a quantitative synthesis of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We also assessed to which extent the links between mental and physical conditions vary across disorders or, by contrast, are transdiagnostic. Based on a pre-established protocol, we retained 45 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, encompassing around 12.5 million of participants. In analyses limited to the most rigorous estimates, we found evidence for the following associations: ADHD-asthma, ADHD-obesity, and depression-asthma. A transdiagnostic association was confirmed between asthma and anxiety/ASD/depression/bipolar disorder, between obesity and ADHD/ASD/depression, and between dermatitis and ASD/ADHD. We conclude that obesity and allergic conditions are likely to be associated with mental disorders in children and adolescents. Our results can help clinicians explore potential links between mental and physical conditions in children/adolescent and provide a road map for future studies aimed at shading light on the underlying factors. • An umbrella review encompassing over 12 million participants was carried out. • Neurodevelopmental disorders were associated with several physical disorders. • There was also evidence of associations between physical and mood/anxiety disorders. • Obesity and allergic conditions have robust associations with mental disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delirium is a common condition across different settings and populations. The interventions for preventing and managing this condition are still poorly known. The aim of this umbrella review is to synthesize and grade all preventative and therapeutic interventions for delirium. We searched five databases from database inception up to March 15th, 2023 and we included meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to decrease the risk of/the severity of delirium. From 1959 records after deduplication, we included 59 systematic reviews with meta-analyses, providing 110 meta-analytic estimates across populations, interventions, outcomes, settings, and age groups (485 unique RCTs, 172,045 participants). In surgery setting, for preventing delirium, high GRADE evidence supported dexmedetomidine (RR=0.53; 95%CI: 0.46–0.67, k=13, N=3988) and comprehensive geriatric assessment (OR=0.46; 95%CI=0.32–0.67, k=3, N=496) in older adults, dexmedetomidine in adults (RR=0.33, 95%CI=0.24–0.45, k=7, N=1974), A2-adrenergic agonists after induction of anesthesia (OR= 0.28, 95%CI= 0.19–0.40, k=10, N=669) in children. High certainty evidence did not support melatonergic agents in older adults for delirium prevention. Moderate certainty supported the effect of dexmedetomidine in adults and children (k=4), various non-pharmacological interventions in adults and older people (k=4), second-generation antipsychotics in adults and mixed age groups (k=3), EEG-guided anesthesia in adults (k=2), mixed pharmacological interventions (k=1), five other specific pharmacological interventions in children (k=1 each). In conclusion, our work indicates that effective treatments to prevent delirium differ across populations, settings, and age groups. Results inform future guidelines to prevent or treat delirium, accounting for safety and costs of interventions. More research is needed in non-surgical settings. [Display omitted] • The interventions needed for the prevention and treatment of delirium are unclear. • In surgery setting , dexmedetomidine and CGA reached the highest level of evidence. • For other settings, the certainty of evidence was only very low to moderate. • Effective treatments to prevent delirium differ across different factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To grade the evidence about risk factors for eating disorders (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder) with an umbrella review approach. Methods: This was a systematic review of observational studies on risk factors for eating disorders published in PubMed/PsycInfo/Embase until December 11th, 2019. We recalculated random-effect meta-analyses, heterogeneity, small-study effect, excess significance bias and 95% prediction intervals, grading significant evidence (p < 0.05) from convincing to weak according to established criteria. Quality was assessed with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool. Results: Of 2,197 meta-analyses, nine were included, providing evidence on 50 risk factors, 29,272 subjects with eating disorders, and 1,679,385 controls. Although no association was supported by convincing evidence, highly suggestive evidence supported the association between childhood sexual abuse and bulimia nervosa (k= 29, 1,103 cases with eating disorders, 8,496 controls, OR, 2.73, 95% CI 1.96-3.79, p = 2.1 x 10-9, AMSTAR-2 moderate quality) and between appearance-related teasing victimization and any eating disorder (k = 10, 1,341 cases with eating disorders, 3,295 controls, OR 2.91, 95%CI 2.05-4.12, p = 1.8x10-9, AMSTAR-2 moderate quality). Suggestive, weak, or no evidence supported 11, 29, and 8 associations, respectively. Conclusions: The most credible evidence indicates that early traumatic and stressful events are risk factors for eating disorders. Larger collaborative prospective cohort studies are needed to identify risk factors for eating disorders, particularly anorexia nervosa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are scarce and discrepant data about the prevalence and correlates of co-occurring eating disorders (EDs) among people with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD), and vice-versa, compelling a systematic review and meta-analysis on the matter.Methods: MEDLINE/PsycINFO databases were systematically searched for original studies documenting BD⇌ED comorbidity across the lifespan, from inception up until April 20th, 2020. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were conducted, accounting for multiple moderators.Results: Thirty-six studies involved 15,084 primary BD patients. Eleven studies encompassed 15,146 people with primary EDs. Binge eating disorder (BED) occurred in 12.5% (95%C.I.=9.4-16.6%, I2=93.48%) of BDs, while 9.1% (95%C.I.=3.3-22.6%) of BEDs endorsed BD. Bulimia Nervosa (BN) occurred in 7.4% (95%C.I.=6-10%) of people with BD, whereas 6.7% (95%C.I.=12-29.2%) of subjects with BN had a diagnosis of BD. Anorexia Nervosa (AN) occurred in 3.8% (95%C.I.=2-6%) of people with BDs; 2% (95%C.I.=1-2%) of BD patients had a diagnosis of AN. Overall, BD patients with EDs had higher odds of being female vs. non-ED controls. Several moderators yielded statistically significant differences both within- and between different types of BDs and EDs.Limitations: Scant longitudinal studies, especially across different EDs and pediatric samples. High heterogeneity despite subgroup comparisons. Limited discrimination of the quality of the evidence.Conclusions: The rates of BD⇌ED comorbidity vary across different diagnostic groups, more than they do according to the "direction" of BD⇌ED. Further primary studies should focus on the risks, chronology, clinical impact, and management of the onset of intertwined BD⇌ED across different ages, promoting a continuum approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This is the first umbrella review grading credibility from longitudinal studies on risk factors for alcohol/tobacco related disorders. • No risk factors associated with alcohol and tobacco related disorders is supported by convincing nor highly suggestive evidence. • For alcohol related disorders, risk factors supported by most solid evidence are parental alcohol supply, and impulsivity traits in college students. • For tobacco related disorders, risk factors supported by most solid evidence is being affected by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The credibility of evidence of various environmental risk factors for alcohol and tobacco use disorders (AUD/TUD) needs to be graded to identify groups to target with selective prevention. A systematic umbrella review was conducted (PubMed/PsycINFO), grading credibility of meta-analyses of prospective/retrospective observational cohort studies assessing risk/protective factors for AUD/TUD, applying established quantitative criteria. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Quality of eligible meta-analyses was assessed with AMSTAR-2. Out of 8464 unique references, 80 full text articles were scrutinized, and 12 meta-analyses, corresponding to 21 individual estimates of 12 putative risk/protective factors (n = 241,300), were included. In main analyses no association had convincing nor highly suggestive evidence for AUD/TUD. Six associations had suggestive evidence for AUD, two for TUD. Among these, in sensitivity analyses without >1000 cases criterion, convincing evidence emerged for parental alcohol supply, and impulsivity traits in college students for AUD, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for TUD. Other associations were supported by weak evidence/were not nominally significant. Few risk factors identified at-risk groups where selective preventative strategies could be developed to prevent AUD/TUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aripiprazole is approved in different countries as treatment for several mental disorders, but its transdiagnostic potential has not yet been assessed according to established criteria such as the recently proposed TRANSD criteria. The present work aims to test whether aripiprazole monotherapy could be considered a transdiagnostic intervention. An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of aripiprazole monotherapy vs placebo was conducted for any disorder defined according to standard diagnostic criteria. Primary outcomes were levels of psychiatric disease-specific symptoms. TRANSD criteria were applied to assess transdiagnosticity, while the AMSTAR -2 tool was used to assess the quality of eligible meta-analyses. Four pairwise meta-analyses and three network meta-analyses were included, consisting of 25 RCTs of aripiprazole monotherapy vs. placebo (N =5469). Aripiprazole outperformed placebo on primary outcomes in Alzheimer's disease with behavioral disturbance (AD) (neuropsychiatric symptoms SMD 0.20, 95%CI 0.05–0.35, max 15 mg/day), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (severity of symptoms SMD 0.39, 95%CI 0.30–0.48, max 15 mg/day), bipolar I disorder (BD) (severity of manic symptoms SMD 0.30, 95%CI 0.12–0.47, max 30 mg/day), and schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (response rate RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.78–0.92, max 30 mg/day). TRANSD criteria were met (pooled SMD 0.25, 95%CI 0.09–0.41) across these disorders Quality was high in all the included meta-analyses according to AMSTAR-2. According to TRANSD criteria, aripiprazole monotherapy is a (dose-specific) transdiagnostic intervention to treat psychiatric disease-specific symptoms across 5 diagnoses (AD, ASD, BD (mania), schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder), across four DSM-5 diagnostic groups (neurocognitive disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, bipolar and related disorders, schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]