Search

The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) first released interim guidance in March 2020 to support authors in conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess the adherence and investigate authors' understanding of the RRMG guidance. We identified all documents citing the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance up to February 17, 2022 and performed an exploratory adherence analysis. We interviewed 20 RR authors to assess the recommendations' comprehensibility and reasons for any deviations. Further, we surveyed nine authors of COVID-19-related Cochrane reviews for their reasons for not conducting a RR. We analyzed 128 RRs (111 non-Cochrane, 17 Cochrane) that cited the RRMG guidance. Several recommendations were not followed by a large proportion of RR authors such as stepwise approach to study design inclusion or peer review of search strategies, whereas others were exceeded, for example, dual independent screening of abstracts/full texts. The most reported reasons for deviating from the guidance were time constraints, unclarities in the recommended approach, or inapplicability to the specific RR. Overall, the guidance was viewed as user-friendly; however, without pre-existing knowledge of systematic review (SR) conduct, the application was perceived as difficult. The main reasons for conducting a full SR over a RR were late availability of the guidance, preset mandate to conduct a SR, uncertainty regarding methodological distinctions between SR and RR, and inapplicability to the evidence base. Clarifications are warranted throughout the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance to ensure that users with various experience levels can understand and apply its recommendations accordingly.

Background: Utilisation of crowdsourcing within evidence synthesis has increased over the last decade. Crowdsourcing platform Cochrane Crowd has engaged a global community of 22,000 people from 170 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an opportunity to engage the community and keep up with the exponential output of COVID-19 research. Aims: To test whether a crowd could accurately assess study eligibility for reviews under time constraints. Outcome measures: time taken to complete each task, time to produce required training modules, crowd sensitivity, specificity and crowd consensus. Methods: We created four crowd tasks, corresponding to four Cochrane COVID-19 Rapid Reviews. The search results of each were uploaded and an interactive training module was developed for each task. Contributors who had participated in another COVID-19 task were invited to participate. Each task was live for 48-h. The final inclusion and exclusion decisions made by the core author team were used as the reference standard. Results: Across all four reviews 14,299 records were screened by 101 crowd contributors. The crowd completed each screening task within 48-h for three reviews and in 52 h for one. Sensitivity ranged from 94% to 100%. Four studies, out of a total of 109, were incorrectly rejected by the crowd. However, their absence ultimately would not have altered the conclusions of the reviews. Crowd consensus ranged from 71% to 92% across the four reviews. Conclusion: Crowdsourcing can play a valuable role in study identification and offers willing contributors the opportunity to help identify COVID-19 research for rapid evidence syntheses.

BackgroundSeasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery and form of light vary.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD.Search methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles.Selection criteriaFor efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies.Main resultsWe identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included RCT had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, white light and infrared light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38; 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but the CI was also too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 24 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28; 29 participants, very low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self-rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine.Authors' conclusionsEvidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for people with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

BACKGROUND:Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES:To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS:We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared a SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus placebo or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi2 statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I2 statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots.We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE Working Group. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 3619 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall, moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in people with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 50% and 60%, NNTBs are 5 (95% CI 4 to 7) and 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest, such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, three out of four people will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment, and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer a lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

BackgroundSeasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on psychological therapies as preventive interventions.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of psychological therapies (in comparison with no treatment, other types of psychological therapy, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD.Search methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles.Selection criteriaTo examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared psychological therapy versus no treatment, or any other type of psychological therapy, light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also planned to compare psychological therapy in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus no treatment or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria, independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the certainty of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 articles at full-text review for eligibility. We included one controlled study enrolling 46 participants. We rated this RCT at high risk for performance and detection bias due to a lack of blinding.The included RCT compared preventive use of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with treatment as usual (TAU) in participants with a history of SAD. MBCT was administered in spring in eight weekly individual 45- to 60-minute sessions. In the TAU group participants did not receive any preventive treatment but were invited to start light therapy as first depressive symptoms occurred. Both groups were assessed weekly for occurrence of a new depressive episode measured with the Inventory of Depressive Syptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR, range 0-90) from September 2011 to mid-April 2012. The incidence of a new depressive episode in the upcoming winter was similar in both groups. In the MBCT group 65% of 23 participants developed depression (IDS-SR ≥ 20), compared to 74% of 23 people in the TAU group (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.30; 46 participants; very low quality-evidence).For participants with depressive episodes, severity of depression was comparable between groups. Participants in the MBCT group had a mean score of 26.5 (SD 7.0) on the IDS-SR, and TAU participants a mean score of 25.3 (SD 6.3) (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.84; 32 participants; very low quality-evidence).The overall discontinuation rate was similar too, with 17% discontinuing in the MBCT group and 13% in the TAU group (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.30; 46 participants; very low quality-evidence).Reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence included high risk of bias of the included study and imprecision.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could not find any studies that compared psychological therapy with other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine.Authors' conclusionsThe evidence on psychological therapies to prevent the onset of a new depressive episode in people with a history of SAD is inconclusive. We identified only one study including 46 participants focusing on one type of psychological therapy. Methodological limitations and the small sample size preclude us from drawing a conclusion on benefits and harms of MBCT as a preventive intervention for SAD. Given that there is no comparative evidence for psychological therapy versus other preventive options, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences and other preventive interventions that are supported by evidence.

BackgroundSeasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly starts in autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD depends on latitude and ranges from 1.5% to 9%. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention in people who have a history of SAD. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD.Search methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles.Selection criteriaTo examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we intended also to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant, light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions mentioned above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies independently. We intended to pool data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, but included only one study.Main resultsWe identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review. Only one study, providing data of 225 participants, met our eligibility criteria and compared agomelatine (25 mg/day) with placebo. We rated it as having high risk of attrition bias because nearly half of the participants left the study before completion. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes, because of high risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.The main analysis based on data of 199 participants rendered an indeterminate result with wide confidence intervals (CIs) that may encompass both a relevant reduction as well as a relevant increase of SAD incidence by agomelatine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also the severity of SAD may be similar in both groups at the end of the study with a mean SIGH-SAD (Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders) score of 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 9.4) in the agomelatine group and 10.1 (SD 10.6) in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -1.80, 95% CI -4.58 to 0.98; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events may be similar in both groups. In the agomelatine group, 64 out of 112 participants experienced at least one adverse event, while 61 out of 113 did in the placebo group (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.34; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three out of 112 patients experienced serious adverse events in the agomelatine group, compared to 4 out of 113 in the placebo group (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.30; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence).No data on quality of life or interpersonal functioning were reported. We did not identify any studies on melatonin.Authors' conclusionsGiven the uncertain evidence on agomelatine and the absence of studies on melatonin, no conclusion about efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin for prevention of SAD can currently be drawn. The decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should consider patient preferences and reflect on the evidence base of all available treatment options.