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

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia has been one of the most enduring ideas in psychiatry. Initially, the emphasis was on a role of hyperdopaminergia in the etiology of schizophrenia (version I), but it was subsequently reconceptualized to specify subcortical hyperdopaminergia with prefrontal hypodopaminergia (version II). However, these hypotheses focused too narrowly on dopamine itself, conflated psychosis and schizophrenia, and predated advances in the genetics, molecular biology, and imaging research in schizophrenia. Since version II, there have been over 6700 articles about dopamine and schizophrenia. We selectively review these data to provide an overview of the 5 critical streams of new evidence: neurochemical imaging studies, genetic evidence, findings on environmental risk factors, research into the extended phenotype, and animal studies. We synthesize this evidence into a new dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia-version III: the final common pathway. This hypothesis seeks to be comprehensive in providing a framework that links risk factors, including pregnancy and obstetric complications, stress and trauma, drug use, and genes, to increased presynaptic striatal dopaminergic function. It explains how a complex array of pathological, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and other findings, such as frontotemporal structural and functional abnormalities and cognitive impairments, may converge neurochemically to cause psychosis through aberrant salience and lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The hypothesis has one major implication for treatment approaches. Current treatments are acting downstream of the critical neurotransmitter abnormality. Future drug development and research into etiopathogenesis should focus on identifying and manipulating the upstream factors that converge on the dopaminergic funnel point.

/pdf/the-dopamine-hypothesis-of-schizophrenia-version-iii-the-3pqlczm8om.pdf

The Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia: Version III—The Final Common Pathway

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of self-management education on GHb in adults with type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods We searched for English language trials in Medline (1980-1999), Cinahl (1982-1999), and the Educational Resources Information Center database (ERIC) (1980-1999), and we manually searched review articles, journals with highest topic relevance, and reference lists of included articles. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that were published in the English language, tested the effect of self-management education on adults with type 2 diabetes, and reported extractable data on the effect of treatment on GHb. A total of 31 studies of 463 initially identified articles met selection criteria. We computed net change in GHb, stratified by follow-up interval, tested for trial heterogeneity, and calculated pooled effects sizes using random effects models. We examined the effect of baseline GHb, follow-up interval, and intervention characteristics on GHb. Results On average, the intervention decreased GHb by 0.76% (95% CI 0.34-1.18) more than the control group at immediate follow-up; by 0.26% (0.21% increase - 0.73% decrease) at 1-3 months of follow-up; and by 0.26% (0.05-0.48) at > or = 4 months of follow-up. GHb decreased more with additional contact time between participant and educator; a decrease of 1% was noted for every additional 23.6 h (13.3-105.4) of contact. Conclusions Self-management education improves GHb levels at immediate follow-up, and increased contact time increases the effect. The benefit declines 1-3 months after the intervention ceases, however, suggesting that learned behaviors change over time. Further research is needed to develop interventions effective in maintaining long-term glycemic control.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/25/7/1159.full.pdf

Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control

https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/foc.9.3.foc311

The Neurocircuitry of Fear, Stress, and Anxiety Disorders

We have previously developed a putative model of generalized anxiety disorder in healthy volunteers using a 20-minute 7.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) inhalation challenge. The aim of this study was to va...

Effects of 7.5% CO2 challenge in generalized anxiety disorder

Using sleep to evaluate comparative serotonergic effects of paroxetine and citalopram

A pilot controlled study of the effects of flumazenil in posttraumatic stress disorder.

The purpose of the present study was to study y-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-A receptor function in alcohol-depen dent subjects during withdrawal, using the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil. In particular, we wanted to examine the hypotheses that an endogenous inverse agonist ligand at the GABA-A benzodiazepine receptor (GBzR) is active during withdrawal (in which case flumazenil should be anxiolytic), or whether chronic alcohol intake results in a shift in sensitivity of the receptor in the inverse agonist direction (in which case flumazenil should be anxiogenic). Results from 15 alcohol-depen dent subjects in a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study showed that flumazenil was neither anxiolytic nor anxiogenic, although withdrawal scores were reduced during the course of the study. The fact that flumazenil was not anxiogenic, as it is in panic disorder, suggests that the GBzR is functioning differently in these two clinically similar conditions.

Flumazenil in alcohol withdrawal: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

The psychometric tools used for the assessment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) either do not conform to the current concept of the condition or have important limitations. We aimed to develop and validate a new questionnaire for the assessment of symptom profile and severity of GAD. An original pool of potential scale items was subjected to a series of studies in non-clinical and clinical populations, in order to determine the final composition of the scale. The psychometric properties of the new scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Inventory (GADI), were evaluated using a factor analytic model suitable for ordinal data and the Graded Response Model. The precision of measurement of the GADI was quantified through the item information functions.A total of 197 outpatients and 522 non-clinical subjects participated in four studies and completed the GADI. The final 18-item scale was derived from an original pool of 30 potential items. The GADI showed good reliability, convergent and divergent validity. The scale comprises three factors, relating to cognitive, somatic and sleep symptoms. It accurately distinguished GAD patients from non-patient controls. The cognitive factor also distinguished GAD from other anxiety disorders and depression. The GADI is a useful tool in the assessment of the breadth of symptoms and the severity of generalized anxiety disorder in clinical settings.

John Potokar

Papers

Effects of 7.5% CO2 challenge in generalized anxiety disorder

Using sleep to evaluate comparative serotonergic effects of paroxetine and citalopram

A pilot controlled study of the effects of flumazenil in posttraumatic stress disorder.

Flumazenil in alcohol withdrawal: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Development and validation of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Inventory (GADI).