Systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-3j53e5oe33.pdf

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-48ibbzju0k.pdf

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary?

The objective of this study was to review the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in neuropathic pain. In a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, the main outcomes were global judgements, pain relief or fall in pain intensity which approximated to more than 50% pain relief, and information about minor and major adverse effects. Dichotomous data for effectiveness and adverse effects were analysed using odds ratio and number needed-to-treat (NNT) methods. Twenty-one placebo-controlled treatments in 17 randomised controlled trials were included, involving 10 antidepressants. In six of 13 diabetic neuropathy studies the odds ratios showed significant benefit compared with placebo. The combined odds ratio was 3.6 (95% CI 2.5-5.2), with a NNT for benefit of 3 (2.4-4). In two of three postherpetic neuralgia studies the odds ratios showed significant benefit, and the combined odds ratio was 6.8 (3.5-14.3), with a NNT of 2.3 (1.7-3.3). In two atypical facial pain studies the combined odds ratio for benefit was 4.1 (2.3-7.5), with a NNT of 2.8 (2-4.7). Only one of three central pain studies had analysable dichotomous data. The NNT point estimate was 1.7. Comparisons of tricyclic antidepressants did not show any significant difference between them; they were significantly more effective than benzodiazepines in the three comparisons available. Paroxetine and mianserin were less effective than imipramine. For 11 of the 21 placebo-controlled treatments there was dichotomous information on minor adverse effects; combining across pain syndromes the NNT for minor (noted in published report) adverse effects was 3.7 (2.9-5.2). Information on major (drug-related study withdrawal) adverse effects was available from 19 reports; combining across pain syndromes the NNT for major adverse effects was 22 (13.5-58). Antidepressants are effective in relieving neuropathic pain. Compared with placebo, of 100 patients with neuropathic pain who are given antidepressants, 30 will obtain more than 50% pain relief, 30 will have minor adverse reactions and four will have to stop treatment because of major adverse effects. With very similar results for anticonvulsants it is still unclear which drug class should be first choice. Treatment would be improved if we could harness the dramatic improvement seen on placebo in some of the trials.

A systematic review of antidepressants in neuropathic pain

Objective: To determine effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs in management of pain. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of anticonvulsants for acute, chronic, or cancer pain identified by using Medline, by hand searching, by searching reference lists, and by contacting investigators. Subjects: Between 1966 and February 1994, 37 reports were found; 20 reports, of four anticonvulsants, were eligible. Main outcome measures: Numbers needed to treat were calculated for effectiveness, adverse effects, and drug related withdrawal from study. Results: The only placebo controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. For treating trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine had a combined number needed to treat of 2.6 for effectiveness, 3.4 for adverse effects, and 24 for severe effects (withdrawal from study). For treating diabetic neuropathy, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 2.5 for effectiveness, 3.1 for adverse effects, and 20 for severe effects. For migraine prophylaxis, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 1.6 for effectiveness, 2.4 for adverse effects, and 39 for severe effects. Phenytoin had no effect on the irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine had little effect on pain after stroke. Clonazepam was effective in one study for temporomandibular joint dysfunction. No study compared one anticonvulsant with another. Conclusions: Anticonvulsants were effective for trigeminal neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy and for migraine prophylaxis. Minor adverse effects occurred as often as benefit.

Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review.

Objective: To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000. Studies: 30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours. Results: Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: “high” 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11. Conclusions: In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use. What is already known on this topic Requests have been made for legalisation of cannabis (marijuana) for medical use Long term smoking of cannabis can have physical and neuropsychiatric adverse effects Cannabis may be useful in the control of chemotherapy related sickness What this study adds Oral nabilone and dronabinol and intramuscular levonantradol are superior to conventional antiemetics (such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide) in chemotherapy Side effects are common with cannabinoids, and although some may be potentially beneficial (euphoria, “high,” sedation), others are harmful (dysphoria, depression, hallucinations) Many patients have a strong preference for cannabinoids

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/323/7303/16.full.pdf

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review.

Objective: To establish whether cannabis is an effective and safe treatment option in the management of pain. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: Electronic databases Medline, Embase, Oxford Pain Database, and Cochrane Library; references from identified papers; hand searches. Study selection: Trials of cannabis given by any route of administration (experimental intervention) with any analgesic or placebo (control intervention) in patients with acute, chronic non-malignant, or cancer pain. Outcomes examined were pain intensity scores, pain relief scores, and adverse effects. Validity of trials was assessed independently with the Oxford score. Data extraction: Independent data extraction; discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data synthesis: 20 randomised controlled trials were identified, 11 of which were excluded. Of the 9 included trials (222 patients), 5 trials related to cancer pain, 2 to chronic non-malignant pain, and 2 to acute postoperative pain. No randomised controlled trials evaluated cannabis; all tested active substances were cannabinoids. Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 5-20 mg, an oral synthetic nitrogen analogue of THC 1 mg, and intramuscular levonantradol 1.5-3 mg were about as effective as codeine 50-120 mg, and oral benzopyranoperidine 2-4 mg was less effective than codeine 60-120 mg and no better than placebo. Adverse effects, most often psychotropic, were common. Conclusion: Cannabinoids are no more effective than codeine in controlling pain and have depressant effects on the central nervous system that limit their use. Their widespread introduction into clinical practice for pain management is therefore undesirable. In acute postoperative pain they should not be used. Before cannabinoids can be considered for treating spasticity and neuropathic pain, further valid randomised controlled studies are needed. What is already known on this topic Three quarters of British doctors surveyed in 1994 wanted cannabis available on prescription Humans have cannabinoid receptors in the central and peripheral nervous system In animal testing cannabinoids are analgesic and reduce signs of neuropathic pain Some evidence exists that cannabinoids may be analgesic in humans What this study adds No studies have been conducted on smoked cannabis Cannabinoids give about the same level of pain relief as codeine in acute postoperative pain They depress the central nervous system

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/323/7303/13.full.pdf

Dawn Carroll

Papers

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary?

A systematic review of antidepressants in neuropathic pain

Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review.

Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review.

Are cannabinoids an effective and safe treatment option in the management of pain? A qualitative systematic review