Search

Background Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms. Methods We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting. Results The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review. Conclusions Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients’ reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients’ and investigators’ perspectives. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42018108393

Background The results of studies on observational associations may vary depending on the study design and analysis choices as well as due to measurement error. It is important to understand the relative contribution of different factors towards generating variable results, including low sample sizes, researchers’ flexibility in model choices, and measurement error in variables of interest and adjustment variables. Methods We define sampling, model and measurement uncertainty, and extend the concept of vibration of effects in order to study these three types of uncertainty in a common framework. In a practical application, we examine these types of uncertainty in a Cox model using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. In addition, we analyse the behaviour of sampling, model and measurement uncertainty for varying sample sizes in a simulation study. Results All types of uncertainty are associated with a potentially large variability in effect estimates. Measurement error in the variable of interest attenuates the true effect in most cases, but can occasionally lead to overestimation. When we consider measurement error in both the variable of interest and adjustment variables, the vibration of effects are even less predictable as both systematic under- and over-estimation of the true effect can be observed. The results on simulated data show that measurement and model vibration remain non-negligible even for large sample sizes. Conclusion Sampling, model and measurement uncertainty can have important consequences for the stability of observational associations. We recommend systematically studying and reporting these types of uncertainty, and comparing them in a common framework.

Objectives Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.

With the establishment of large biobanks, discovery of single nucleotide variants (SNVs, also known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNVs)) associated with various phenotypes has accelerated. An open question is whether genome-wide significant SNVs identified in earlier genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are replicated in later GWAS conducted in biobanks. To address this, we examined a publicly available GWAS database and identified two, independent GWAS on the same phenotype (an earlier, “discovery” GWAS and a later, “replication” GWAS done in the UK biobank). The analysis evaluated 136,318,924 SNVs (of which 6289 reached P P value, we built and validated a model that predicted SNV replication with area under the Receiver Operator Curve = 0.90. While non-replication may reflect lack of power rather than genuine false-positives, these results provide insights about which discovered associations are likely to be replicated across subsequent GWAS.

BackgroundThe Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) has adopted a policy encouraging data-sharing since 2007.ObjectiveTo explore the impact of the AIM data-sharing policy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of output from data-sharing (i.e. publications re-using the data).DesignRetrospective study.SettingAIM.ParticipantsRCTs published in the AIM between 2007 and 2017 were retrieved on PubMed. Publications where the data had been re-used were identified on Web of Science. Searches were performed by two independent reviewers.InterventionsIntention to share data (or not) expressed in a data-sharing statement.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was any published re-use of the data (i.e. re-analysis, secondary analysis, or meta-analysis of individual participant data [MIPD]), where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the RCT. Components of the primary outcome and analyses without any author restriction were secondary outcomes. Analyses used Cox (primary analysis) models adjusting for RCT characteristics.Results185 RCTs were identified. 106 (57%) mentioned willingness to share data and 79 (43%) did not. 208 secondary analyses, 67 MIPD and no re-analyses were identified. No significant association was found between intent to share and re-use where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the primary RCT (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.04 [0.47-2.30]). Secondary outcomes also showed no association between intent to share and re-use.LimitationsPossibility of residual confounding and limited power.ConclusionOver ten years, RCTs published in AIM expressing an intention to share data were not associated with more extensive re-use of the data.Registrationhttps://osf.io/8pj5e/Funding SourceGrants from the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale, Région Bretagne, and French National Research Agency.

Importance The Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-administered instrument used for detecting depression and assessing severity of depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) consists of the first 2 items of the PHQ-9 (which assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia) and can be used as a first step to identify patients for evaluation with the full PHQ-9. Objective To estimate PHQ-2 accuracy alone and combined with the PHQ-9 for detecting major depression. Data sources MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-May 2018). Study selection Eligible data sets compared PHQ-2 scores with major depression diagnoses from a validated diagnostic interview. Data extraction and synthesis Individual participant data were synthesized with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 alone among studies using semistructured, fully structured, or Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnostic interviews separately and in combination with the PHQ-9 vs the PHQ-9 alone for studies that used semistructured interviews. The PHQ-2 score ranges from 0 to 6, and the PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27. Results Individual participant data were obtained from 100 of 136 eligible studies (44 318 participants; 4572 with major depression [10%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [17] years; 59% female). Among studies that used semistructured interviews, PHQ-2 sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for cutoff scores of 2 or greater and 0.72 (0.67-0.77) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) for cutoff scores of 3 or greater. Sensitivity was significantly greater for semistructured vs fully structured interviews. Specificity was not significantly different across the types of interviews. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (0.86-0.89) for semistructured interviews, 0.82 (0.81-0.84) for fully structured interviews, and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) for the MINI. There were no significant subgroup differences. For semistructured interviews, sensitivity for PHQ-2 scores of 2 or greater followed by PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater (0.82 [0.76-0.86]) was not significantly different than PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater alone (0.86 [0.80-0.90]); specificity for the combination was significantly but minimally higher (0.87 [0.84-0.89] vs 0.85 [0.82-0.87]). The area under the curve was 0.90 (0.89-0.91). The combination was estimated to reduce the number of participants needing to complete the full PHQ-9 by 57% (56%-58%). Conclusions and relevance In an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that compared PHQ scores with major depression diagnoses, the combination of PHQ-2 (with cutoff ≥2) followed by PHQ-9 (with cutoff ≥10) had similar sensitivity but higher specificity compared with PHQ-9 cutoff scores of 10 or greater alone. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and research value of this combined approach to screening.

Until we have a meaningful alternative, lockdown is the only thing we can do to prevent further catastrophic spread of the virus, says Edward R Melnick. But John PA Ioannidis argues that any benefits of lockdown depend on its effectiveness and the covid-19 burden—and that the harms are multifarious

BackgroundIt has been proposed that the threshold of statistical significance should shift from P-value MethodsWe included Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2014 that had at least one meta-analysis with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessment and at least one primary outcome having favourable results for efficacy at P-value ResultsOf 608 screened SRs with GRADE assessment, 113 SRs were eligible, including 143 comparisons of which 128 comparisons had first-listed primary outcomes with UpToDate coverage. Altogether, 60% (58/97) of interventions with P-values ConclusionsFew interventions are recommended without their evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials reaching P-value

Objectives: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores >= 10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Study Design and Setting: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. Results: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 >= 10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 >= 14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 >= 14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). Conclusion: PHQ-9 >= 10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

This is a protocol for a co‐registered Cochrane and Campbell Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: To identify, describe and assess methods for: when to replicate a systematic review; how to replicate a systematic review.

BackgroundThe benefits from responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. Recently, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. We set out to evaluate the implementation of the policy in three leading medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)).MethodsA MEDLINE/PubMed search of clinical trials published in the three journals between July 1, 2018 and April 4, 2020 identified 487 eligible trials (JAMA n = 112, Lancet n = 147, NEJM n = 228). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently. Captured outcomes were declared data availability, data type, access, conditions and reasons for data (un)availability, and funding sources.Findings334 (68.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 64.1%–72.5%) articles declared data sharing, with non-industry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (88.9%, 95% CI, 80.0%–97.8) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61.3%, 95% CI, 54.3%–68.3). However, only two IPD datasets were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (42.8%, 143/334), repository (26.6%, 89/334), and company (23.4%, 78/334). Among the 89 articles declaring to store IPD in repositories, only 17 articles (19.1%) deposited data, mostly due to embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% (158/334) of data-sharing articles, and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified.InterpretationMost trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to dataset location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements. All data, code, and materials used in this analysis are available on OSF at https://osf.io/s5vbg/.

ObjectivesThe objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms. We also aim to provide a searchable database to enable relevant stakeholders to compare between platforms.Study Design and SettingPreprint platforms that were launched up to 25th June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot-tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform’s webpage(s). Data collected were in relation to scope and ownership; content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options, and external discoverability; screening, moderation, and permanence of content; usage metrics and metadata. Where possible, all online data were verified by the platform owner or representative by correspondence.ResultsA total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, six (14%) were provided by F1000 Research Ltd (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. The three most common screening checks related to the scope of the article, plagiarism and legal/ethical/societal issues and compliance. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read-access, and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service. Forty-one (93%) platforms currently have usage metrics, with the most common metric being the number of downloads presented on the abstract page.ConclusionA large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility. However, the process by which content is screened before online posting and withdrawn or removed after posting varies between platforms, which may be associated with platform operation, ownership, governance and financing.What is already known on this topicIn concurrence with an increase in the number of preprint servers and platforms supporting biomedical and medical sciences research since 2013, there has been substantial growth in the number of preprints posted in this research area.The significant benefits of accelerated dissemination of research that preprints offer has attracted the support of many major funders.The raised profile of preprints has led to their wider acceptance in institutional and individual level assessment.What this study addsThis is the first full examination of the characteristics and policies of 44 preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope. We use a robust methodological approach to extract relevant information from web-based material with input from preprint platform owners.Despite concerns regarding the permanence and quality of preprints, most preprint platforms have long-term preservation strategies and many have screening checks (for example, a basic check for the relevance of content) in place. For some platforms, these checks are performed by researchers with content expertise.We provide a searchable database as a valuable resource for researchers, funders and policymakers in the biomedical and medical science field to determine which preprint platforms are relevant to their research scope and which have the functionality and policies that they value most.

BackgroundAddressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County.MethodsOn April 3-4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a sample of individuals living within the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We estimate weights to adjust our sample to match the zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity distribution within the county. We report both the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We also adjust for test performance characteristics by combining data from 16 independent samples obtained from manufacturer’s data, regulatory submissions, and independent evaluations: 13 samples for specificity (3,324 specimens) and 3 samples for sensitivity (157 specimens).ResultsThe raw prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in our sample was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.1-2.0%). Test performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test performance characteristics was 1.2% (95CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics of Santa Clara County, the prevalence was 2.8% (95CI 1.3-4.7%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 54,000 (95CI 25,000 to 91,000 using weighted prevalence; 23,000 with 95CI 14,000-35,000 using unweighted prevalence) people were infected in Santa Clara County by early April, many more than the approximately 1,000 confirmed cases at the time of the survey.ConclusionsThe estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. More studies are needed to improve precision of prevalence estimates. Locally-derived population prevalence estimates should be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

Objective To provide estimates of the relative rate of COVID-19 death in people, Highlights • People

BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). METHODS: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification. RESULTS: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument. INTERPRETATION: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others.

This meta-analysis of 123 publications addresses relationships between health care provider burnout and quality of patient care.

Background Among different investigators studying the same exposures and outcomes, there may be a lack of consensus about potential confounders that should be considered as matching, adjustment, or stratification variables in observational studies. Concerns have been raised that confounding factors may affect the results obtained for the alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship, as well as their consistency and reproducibility across different studies. Therefore, we assessed how confounders are defined, operationalized, and discussed across individual studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on ischemic heart disease risk. Methods For observational studies included in a recent alcohol-ischemic heart disease meta-analysis, we identified all variables adjusted, matched, or stratified for in the largest reported multivariate model (i.e. potential confounders). We recorded how the variables were measured and grouped them into higher-level confounder domains. Abstracts and Discussion sections were then assessed to determine whether authors considered confounding when interpreting their study findings. Results 85 of 87 (97.7%) studies reported multivariate analyses for an alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship. The most common higher-level confounder domains included were smoking (79, 92.9%), age (74, 87.1%), and BMI, height, and/or weight (57, 67.1%). However, no two models adjusted, matched, or stratified for the same higher-level confounder domains. Most (74/87, 85.1%) articles mentioned or alluded to “confounding” in their Abstract or Discussion sections, but only one stated that their main findings were likely to be affected by residual confounding. There were five (5/87, 5.7%) authors that explicitly asked for caution when interpreting results. Conclusion There is large variation in the confounders considered across observational studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on ischemic heart disease risk and almost all studies spuriously ignore or eventually dismiss confounding in their conclusions. Given that study results and interpretations may be affected by the mix of potential confounders included within multivariate models, efforts are necessary to standardize approaches for selecting and accounting for confounders in observational studies.

Objective To systematically examine the design, reporting standards, risk of bias, and claims of studies comparing the performance of diagnostic deep learning algorithms for medical imaging with that of expert clinicians. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization trial registry from 2010 to June 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trial registrations and non-randomised studies comparing the performance of a deep learning algorithm in medical imaging with a contemporary group of one or more expert clinicians. Medical imaging has seen a growing interest in deep learning research. The main distinguishing feature of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in deep learning is that when CNNs are fed with raw data, they develop their own representations needed for pattern recognition. The algorithm learns for itself the features of an image that are important for classification rather than being told by humans which features to use. The selected studies aimed to use medical imaging for predicting absolute risk of existing disease or classification into diagnostic groups (eg, disease or non-disease). For example, raw chest radiographs tagged with a label such as pneumothorax or no pneumothorax and the CNN learning which pixel patterns suggest pneumothorax. Review methods Adherence to reporting standards was assessed by using CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for randomised studies and TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) for non-randomised studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised studies and PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) for non-randomised studies. Results Only 10 records were found for deep learning randomised clinical trials, two of which have been published (with low risk of bias, except for lack of blinding, and high adherence to reporting standards) and eight are ongoing. Of 81 non-randomised clinical trials identified, only nine were prospective and just six were tested in a real world clinical setting. The median number of experts in the comparator group was only four (interquartile range 2-9). Full access to all datasets and code was severely limited (unavailable in 95% and 93% of studies, respectively). The overall risk of bias was high in 58 of 81 studies and adherence to reporting standards was suboptimal ( Conclusions Few prospective deep learning studies and randomised trials exist in medical imaging. Most non-randomised trials are not prospective, are at high risk of bias, and deviate from existing reporting standards. Data and code availability are lacking in most studies, and human comparator groups are often small. Future studies should diminish risk of bias, enhance real world clinical relevance, improve reporting and transparency, and appropriately temper conclusions. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42019123605.

Objective The development of machine learning (ML) algorithms to address a variety of issues faced in clinical practice has increased rapidly. However, questions have arisen regarding biases in their development that can affect their applicability in specific populations. We sought to evaluate whether studies developing ML models from electronic health record (EHR) data report sufficient demographic data on the study populations to demonstrate representativeness and reproducibility. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed for articles applying ML models to improve clinical decision-making using EHR data. We limited our search to papers published between 2015 and 2019. Results Across the 164 studies reviewed, demographic variables were inconsistently reported and/or included as model inputs. Race/ethnicity was not reported in 64%; gender and age were not reported in 24% and 21% of studies, respectively. Socioeconomic status of the population was not reported in 92% of studies. Studies that mentioned these variables often did not report if they were included as model inputs. Few models (12%) were validated using external populations. Few studies (17%) open-sourced their code. Populations in the ML studies include higher proportions of White and Black yet fewer Hispanic subjects compared to the general US population. Discussion The demographic characteristics of study populations are poorly reported in the ML literature based on EHR data. Demographic representativeness in training data and model transparency is necessary to ensure that ML models are deployed in an equitable and reproducible manner. Wider adoption of reporting guidelines is warranted to improve representativeness and reproducibility.

Background Many technology companies, including Airbnb, Amazon, Booking.com, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Lyft, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Uber, and Yahoo!/Oath, run online randomized controlled experiments at scale, namely hundreds of concurrent controlled experiments on millions of users each, commonly referred to as A/B tests. Originally derived from the same statistical roots, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medicine are now criticized for being expensive and difficult, while in technology, the marginal cost of such experiments is approaching zero and the value for data-driven decision-making is broadly recognized. Methods and results This is an overview of key scaling lessons learned in the technology field. They include (1) a focus on metrics, an overall evaluation criterion and thousands of metrics for insights and debugging, automatically computed for every experiment; (2) quick release cycles with automated ramp-up and shut-down that afford agile and safe experimentation, leading to consistent incremental progress over time; and (3) a culture of ‘test everything’ because most ideas fail and tiny changes sometimes show surprising outcomes worth millions of dollars annually. Technological advances, online interactions, and the availability of large-scale data allowed technology companies to take the science of RCTs and use them as online randomized controlled experiments at large scale with hundreds of such concurrent experiments running on any given day on a wide range of software products, be they web sites, mobile applications, or desktop applications. Rather than hindering innovation, these experiments enabled accelerated innovation with clear improvements to key metrics, including user experience and revenue. As healthcare increases interactions with patients utilizing these modern channels of web sites and digital health applications, many of the lessons apply. The most innovative technological field has recognized that systematic series of randomized trials with numerous failures of the most promising ideas leads to sustainable improvement. Conclusion While there are many differences between technology and medicine, it is worth considering whether and how similar designs can be applied via simple RCTs that focus on healthcare decision-making or service delivery. Changes – small and large – should undergo continuous and repeated evaluations in randomized trials and learning from their results will enable accelerated healthcare improvements.

Objective Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Methods Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. Results There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Conclusion Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.

This is a protocol for the project entitled "FDA and EMA clinical research guidelines: Assessment of trial design recommendations for pivotal psychiatric drug trials".

Objective Machine learning (ML) diagnostic tools have significant potential to improve health care. However, methodological pitfalls may affect diagnostic test accuracy studies used to appraise such tools. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and reporting of design characteristics within the literature. Further, we sought to empirically assess whether design features may be associated with different estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods We systematically retrieved 2 × 2 tables (n = 281) describing the performance of ML diagnostic tools, derived from 114 publications in 38 meta-analyses, from PubMed. Data extracted included test performance, sample sizes, and design features. A mixed-effects metaregression was run to quantify the association between design features and diagnostic accuracy. Results Participant ethnicity and blinding in test interpretation was unreported in 90% and 60% of studies, respectively. Reporting was occasionally lacking for rudimentary characteristics such as study design (28% unreported). Internal validation without appropriate safeguards was used in 44% of studies. Several design features were associated with larger estimates of accuracy, including having unreported (relative diagnostic odds ratio [RDOR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.1) or case-control study designs (RDOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.97-1.66), and recruiting participants for the index test (RDOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.59). Discussion Significant underreporting of experimental details was present. Study design features may affect estimates of diagnostic performance in the ML diagnostic test accuracy literature. Conclusions The present study identifies pitfalls that threaten the validity, generalizability, and clinical value of ML diagnostic tools and provides recommendations for improvement.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect across levels of a covariate, as measured on a selected scale, against a clinical outcome. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HTE is typically examined through a subgroup analysis that contrasts effects in groups of patients defined "1 variable at a time" (for example, male vs. female or old vs. young). The authors of this statement present guidance on an alternative approach to HTE analysis, "predictive HTE analysis." The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously. The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed using a multidisciplinary technical expert panel, targeted literature reviews, simulations to characterize potential problems with predictive approaches, and a deliberative process engaging the expert panel. The authors distinguish 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches: a "risk-modeling" approach, wherein a multivariable model predicts the risk for an outcome and is applied to disaggregate patients within RCTs to define risk-based variation in benefit, and an "effect-modeling" approach, wherein a model is developed on RCT data by incorporating a term for treatment assignment and interactions between treatment and baseline covariates. Both approaches can be used to predict differential absolute treatment effects, the most relevant scale for clinical decision making. The authors developed 4 sets of guidance: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically important HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. The PATH Statement, together with its explanation and elaboration document, may guide future analyses and reporting of RCTs.

The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed to promote the conduct of, and provide guidance for, predictive analyses of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) in clinical trials. The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously, to support more personalized clinical decision making than can be made based only on an overall average treatment effect. We distinguished two categories of predictive HTE approaches (a “risk modeling” and an “effect modeling” approach) and developed four sets of guidance statements: 1) criteria to determine when risk modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically meaningful HTE; 2) methodological aspects of risk modeling methods; 3) considerations for translation to clinical practice; and 4) considerations and caveats in the use of effect modeling approaches. We also discuss limitations of these methods and enumerate research priorities for advancing methods designed to generate more personalized evidence. This explanation and elaboration document describes the intent and rationale of each recommendation; and discusses related analytic considerations, caveats, and reservations.

Contains fulltext : 214941.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) We present a consensus-based checklist to improve and document the transparency of research reports in social and behavioural research. An accompanying online application allows users to complete the form and generate a report that they can submit with their manuscript or post to a public repository. 3 p.

BackgroundItem 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.MethodsWe conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.Results16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).ConclusionsPHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.

Background Preliminary evaluations of behavioral interventions, referred to as pilot studies, predate the conduct of many large-scale efficacy/effectiveness trial. The ability of a pilot study to inform an efficacy/effectiveness trial relies on careful considerations in the design, delivery, and interpretation of the pilot results to avoid exaggerated early discoveries that may lead to subsequent failed efficacy/effectiveness trials. “Risk of generalizability biases (RGB)” in pilot studies may reduce the probability of replicating results in a larger efficacy/effectiveness trial. We aimed to generate an operational list of potential RGBs and to evaluate their impact in pairs of published pilot studies and larger, more well-powered trial on the topic of childhood obesity. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published pilot studies that had a published larger-scale trial of the same or similar intervention. Searches were updated and completed through December 31st, 2018. Eligible studies were behavioral interventions involving youth (≤18 yrs) on a topic related to childhood obesity (e.g., prevention/treatment, weight reduction, physical activity, diet, sleep, screen time/sedentary behavior). Extracted information included study characteristics and all outcomes. A list of 9 RGBs were defined and coded: intervention intensity bias, implementation support bias, delivery agent bias, target audience bias, duration bias, setting bias, measurement bias, directional conclusion bias, and outcome bias. Three reviewers independently coded for the presence of RGBs. Multi-level random effects meta-analyses were performed to investigate the association of the biases to study outcomes. Results A total of 39 pilot and larger trial pairs were identified. The frequency of the biases varied: delivery agent bias (19/39 pairs), duration bias (15/39), implementation support bias (13/39), outcome bias (6/39), measurement bias (4/39), directional conclusion bias (3/39), target audience bias (3/39), intervention intensity bias (1/39), and setting bias (0/39). In meta-analyses, delivery agent, implementation support, duration, and measurement bias were associated with an attenuation of the effect size of − 0.325 (95CI − 0.556 to − 0.094), − 0.346 (− 0.640 to − 0.052), − 0.342 (− 0.498 to − 0.187), and − 0.360 (− 0.631 to − 0.089), respectively. Conclusions Pre-emptive avoidance of RGBs during the initial testing of an intervention may diminish the voltage drop between pilot and larger efficacy/effectiveness trials and enhance the odds of successful translation.

Background: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. Objective: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. Methods: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. Results: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22–0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06–0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82–0.92) and 0.86 (0.82–0.88). Conclusions: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.

Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, consideration of only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects, and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures. Nevertheless, epidemic forecasting is unlikely to be abandoned. Some (but not all) of these problems can be fixed. Careful modeling of predictive distributions rather than focusing on point estimates, considering multiple dimensions of impact, and continuously reappraising models based on their validated performance may help. If extreme values are considered, extremes should be considered for the consequences of multiple dimensions of impact so as to continuously calibrate predictive insights and decision-making. When major decisions (e.g. draconian lockdowns) are based on forecasts, the harms (in terms of health, economy, and society at large) and the asymmetry of risks need to be approached in a holistic fashion, considering the totality of the evidence.

Objectives The objective of the study was to determine the change in quality of evidence in updates of Cochrane reviews that were initially published between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to document evidence quality. Study Design and Setting We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on March 20, 2020 to identify which of the reviews from the initial (2013/14) sample had been updated. Using the same methods to determine the quality of evidence in the previous analysis, we assessed the quality of evidence for the first-listed primary outcomes in the updated reviews. Results Of the 608 reviews in the original sample, 154 had been updated with and 151 contained available data for both original and updated systematic reviews (24.8%). The updated reviews included: 15 (9.9%) with high-quality evidence, 56 (37.1%) with moderate-quality evidence, 47 (31.1%) with low-quality evidence, and 33 (21.9%) with very low-quality evidence. No change in the GRADE quality of evidence was found for most (103, 68.2%) of the updated reviews. The quality of evidence rating was downgraded in 28 reviews (58.3%) and upgraded in 20 (41.7%), although only six reviews were promoted to high quality. Conclusion Updated systematic reviews continued to suggest that only a minority of outcomes for health care interventions are supported by high-quality evidence. The quality of the evidence did not consistently improve or worsen in updated reviews.

International audience

Aims:\ud \ud This study aimed to use an umbrella review methodology to capture the range of outcomes that were associated with low‐dose aspirin and to systematically assess the credibility of this evidence.\ud \ud Methods:\ud \ud Aspirin is associated with several health outcomes, but the overall benefit/risk balance related to aspirin use is unclear. We searched three major databases up to 15 August 2019 for meta‐analyses of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including low‐dose aspirin compared to placebo or other treatments. Based on random‐effects summary effect sizes, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, small‐study effects and excess significance, significant meta‐analyses of observational studies were classified from convincing (class I) to weak (class IV). For meta‐analyses of RCTs, outcomes with random effects P ‐value < .005 and a moderate/high GRADE assessment, were classified as strong evidence. From 6802 hits, 67 meta‐analyses (156 outcomes) were eligible.\ud \ud Results:\ud \ud Observational data showed highly suggestive evidence for aspirin use and increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.97–2.64). In RCTs of low‐dose aspirin, we observed strong evidence for lower risk of CVD in people without CVD (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79–0.87) and in general population (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79–0.89), higher risk of major gastrointestinal (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.26–1.72) and intracranial bleeding (RR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.18–1.53), and of major bleedings in people without CVD (RR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.26–2.08).\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud \ud Compared to other active medications, low‐dose aspirin had strong evidence for lower risk of bleeding, but also lower comparative efficacy. Low‐dose aspirin significantly lowers CVD risk and increases risk of bleeding. Evidence for multiple other health outcomes is limited.

Author(s): Aczel, Balazs; Szaszi, Barnabas; Sarafoglou, Alexandra; Kekecs, Zoltan; Kucharský, Simon; Benjamin, Daniel; Chambers, Christopher D; Fisher, Agneta; Gelman, Andrew; Gernsbacher, Morton A; Ioannidis, John P; Johnson, Eric; Jonas, Kai; Kousta, Stavroula; Lilienfeld, Scott O; Lindsay, D Stephen; Morey, Candice C; Munafo, Marcus; Newell, Benjamin R; Pashler, Harold; Shanks, David R; Simons, Daniel J; Wicherts, Jelte M; Albarracin, Dolores; Anderson, Nicole D; Antonakis, John; Arkes, Hal R; Back, Mitja D; Banks, George C; Beevers, Christopher; Bennett, Andrew A; Bleidorn, Wiebke; Boyer, Ty W; Cacciari, Cristina; Carter, Alice S; Cesario, Joseph; Clifton, Charles; Conroy, Ronan M; Cortese, Mike; Cosci, Fiammetta; Cowan, Nelson; Crawford, Jarret; Crone, Eveline A; Curtin, John; Engle, Randall; Farrell, Simon; Fearon, Pasco; Fichman, Mark; Frankenhuis, Willem; Freund, Alexandra M; Gaskell, M Gareth; Giner-Sorolla, Roger; Green, Don P; Greene, Robert L; Harlow, Lisa L; de la Guardia, Fernando Hoces; Isaacowitz, Derek; Kolodner, Janet; Lieberman, Debra; Logan, Gordon D; Mendes, Wendy B; Moersdorf, Lea; Nyhan, Brendan; Pollack, Jeffrey; Sullivan, Christopher; Vazire, Simine; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan | Abstract: An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Forecasting models have been influential in shaping decision-making in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is concern that their predictions may have been misleading. Here, we dissect the predictions made by four models for the daily COVID-19 death counts between March 25 and June 5 in New York state, as well as the predictions of ICU bed utilisation made by the influential IHME model. We evaluated the accuracy of the point estimates and the accuracy of the uncertainty estimates of the model predictions. First, we compared the “ground truth” data sources on daily deaths against which these models were trained. Three different data sources were used by these models, and these had substantial differences in recorded daily death counts. Two additional data sources that we examined also provided different death counts per day. For accuracy of prediction, all models fared very poorly. Only 10.2% of the predictions fell within 10% of their training ground truth, irrespective of distance into the future. For accurate assessment of uncertainty, only one model matched relatively well the nominal 95% coverage, but that model did not start predictions until April 16, thus had no impact on early, major decisions. For ICU bed utilisation, the IHME model was highly inaccurate; the point estimates only started to match ground truth after the pandemic wave had started to wane. We conclude that trustworthy models require trustworthy input data to be trained upon. Moreover, models need to be subjected to prespecified real time performance tests, before their results are provided to policy makers and public health officials.

Background: One of the claimed main advantages of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it allows assessment of subgroup effects based on individual-level participant characteristics, and eventually stratified medicine. In this study, we evaluated the conduct and results of subgroup analyses in IPDMA. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 December 2014. We included papers if they described an IPDMA based on randomized clinical trials that investigated a therapeutic intervention on human subjects and in which the meta-analysis was preceded by a systematic literature search. We extracted data items related to subgroup analysis and subgroup differences (subgroup-treatment interaction p

The clinical translation of promising products, technologies and interventions from the disciplines of nanomedicine and cell therapy has been slow and inefficient. In part, translation has been hampered by suboptimal research practices that propagate biases and hinder reproducibility. These include the publication of small and underpowered preclinical studies, suboptimal study design (in particular, biased allocation of experimental groups, experimenter bias and lack of necessary controls), the use of uncharacterized or poorly characterized materials, poor understanding of the relevant biology and mechanisms, poor use of statistics, large between-model heterogeneity, absence of replication, lack of interdisciplinarity, poor scientific training in study design and methods, a culture that does not incentivize transparency and sharing, poor or selective reporting, misaligned incentives and rewards, high costs of materials and protocols, and complexity of the developed products, technologies and interventions. In this Perspective, we discuss special manifestations of these problems in nanomedicine and in cell therapy, and describe mitigating strategies. Progress on reducing bias and enhancing reproducibility early on ought to enhance the translational potential of biomedical findings and technologies.

Registered reports present a substantial departure from traditional publishing models with the goal of enhancing the transparency and credibility of the scientific literature. We map the evolving universe of registered reports to assess their growth, implementation and shortcomings at journals across scientific disciplines.

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291.We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89–2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16–1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72–0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80–0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01–1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19–1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51–0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43–0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30–2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low.All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants.National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science., 抗うつ剤の効果を網羅的に比較 --効き目と副作用頻度、臨床試験データを統合--. 京都大学プレスリリース. 2018-02-22.

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) remains the major cause of premature death globally despite advances in pharmacological treatment.1 2 The global direct medical costs associated with hypertension treatment are estimated at $370 billion/year worldwide, with the healthcare savings from effective management of this condition projected at about $100 billion/year.3 Unfortunately, relatively little attention is given to non-pharmacological strategies, including structured exercise interventions. A recent network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BJSM4 aimed to compare the effects of exercise interventions and medications on SBP. We highlight the key findings of this network meta-analysis that are particularly relevant for clinical practice and health policy. Sin financiación 13.800 JCR (2020) Q1, 1/88 Sport Sciences 4.329 SJR (2020) Q1, 40/2448 Medicine (miscellaneous) No data IDR 2019 UEM

Purpose To study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable. Methods We systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR

BackgroundDifferent diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15–3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98–10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7–15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56–1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26–0.97).ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate how often the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has authorized drugs based on nonrandomized studies and whether there is an association between treatment effects and EMA preference for further testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Study Design and Setting We reviewed all initial marketing authorizations in the EMA database on human medicines between 1995 and 2015 and included authorizations granted without randomized data. We extracted data on treatment effects and EMA preference for further testing in RCTs. Results Of 723 drugs, 51 were authorized based on nonrandomized data. These 51 drugs were licensed for 71 indications. In the 51 drug-indication pairs with no preference for further RCT testing, effect estimates were large [odds ratio (OR): 12.0 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 8.1–17.9)] compared to effect estimates in the 20 drug-indication pairs for which future RCTs were preferred [OR: 4.3 (95% CI 2.8–6.6)], with a significant difference between effects (P = 0.0005). Conclusion Nonrandomized data were used for 7% of EMA drug approvals. Larger effect sizes were associated with greater likelihood of approval based on nonrandomized data alone. We did not find a clear treatment effect threshold for drug approval without RCT evidence.

OBJECTIVE Better identification of at-risk groups could benefit HIV-1 care programmes. We systematically identified HIV-1 risk factors in two nationally representative cohorts of women in the Demographic and Health Surveys. METHODS We identified and replicated the association of 1415 social, economic, environmental, and behavioral factors with HIV-1 status. We used the 2007 and 2013-2014 surveys conducted among 5715 and 15 433 Zambian women, respectively (688 shared factors). We used false discovery rate criteria to identify factors that are strongly associated with HIV-1 in univariate and multivariate models of the entire population, as well as in subgroups stratified by wealth, residence, age, and past HIV-1 testing. RESULTS In the univariate analysis, we identified 102 and 182 variables that are associated with HIV-1 in the two surveys, respectively (79 factors were associated in both). Factors that were associated with HIV-1 status in full-sample analyses and in subgroups include being formerly married (adjusted OR 2007, 2.8, P

Objectives Off-label drug use is highly prevalent but controversial and often discouraged assuming generally inferior medical effects associated with off-label use. Study Design and Setting We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Health, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2015 for systematic reviews including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing off-label and approved drugs head-to-head in any population and on any medical outcome. We combined the comparative effects in meta-analyses providing summary odds ratios (sOR) for each treatment comparison and outcome, and then calculated an overall summary of the sOR across all comparisons (ssOR). Results We included 25 treatment comparisons with 153 RCTs and 24,592 patients. In six of 25 comparisons (24%), off-label drugs were significantly superior (five of 25) or inferior (one of 25) to approved treatments. There was substantial statistical heterogeneity across comparisons (I2 = 43%). Overall, off-label drugs were more favorable than approved treatments (ssOR 0.72; 95% CI = 0.54–0.95). Analyses of patient-relevant outcomes were similar (statistical significant differences in 24% (six of 25); ssOR 0.74; 95% CI = 0.56–0.98; I2 = 60%). Analyses of primary outcomes of the systematic reviews (n = 22 comparisons) indicated less heterogeneity and no statistically significant difference overall (ssOR 0.85; 95% CI = 0.67–1.06; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Approval status does not reliably indicate which drugs are more favorable in situations with clinical trial evidence comparing off-label with approved use. Drug effectiveness assessments without considering off-label use may provide incomplete information. To ensure that patients receive the best available care, funding, policy, reimbursement, and treatment decisions should be evidence based considering the entire spectrum of available therapeutic choices.