The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n160.full.pdf

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

GMK is supported by a Clinical Lecturer Starter Grant from the Academy of Medical Sciences, UK (grant no. 80354) and a Gosling Fellowship from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK (2015). GMK also received funding support from the Wellcome Trust 094790/Z/10/Z). PBJ acknowledges grant sup port from the Wellcome Trust (095844/Z/11/Z & 088869/Z/09/Z) and NIHR (RP-PG-0606-1335, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and CLAHRC East of England). RD has received grants from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health (grants R01 NS073939; R01 NS074999).

/pdf/antidepressant-activity-of-anti-cytokine-treatment-a-1smkfao3ej.pdf

Antidepressant activity of anti-cytokine treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of chronic inflammatory conditions

We aimed to establish the treatment effect of physical activity for depression in young people through meta-analysis. Four databases were searched to September 2016 for randomised controlled trials of physical activity interventions for adolescents and young adults, 12-25 years, experiencing a diagnosis or threshold symptoms of depression. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) between physical activity and control conditions. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression investigated potential treatment effect modifiers. Acceptability was estimated using dropout. Trials were assessed against risk of bias domains and overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Seventeen trials were eligible and 16 provided data from 771 participants showing a large effect of physical activity on depression symptoms compared to controls (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI = -1.02 to -0.61, p < 0.05, I2 = 38%). The effect remained robust in trials with clinical samples (k = 5, SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -1.15 to -0.30), and in trials using attention/activity placebo controls (k = 7, SMD = -0.82, 95% CI = -1.05 to -0.59). Dropout was 11% across physical activity arms and equivalent in controls (k = 12, RD = -0.01, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.03, p = 0.70). However, the quality of RCT-level evidence contributing to the primary analysis was downgraded two levels to LOW (trial-level risk of bias, suspected publication bias), suggesting uncertainty in the size of effect and caution in its interpretation. While physical activity appears to be a promising and acceptable intervention for adolescents and young adults experiencing depression, robust clinical effectiveness trials that minimise risk of bias are required to increase confidence in the current finding. The specific intervention characteristics required to improve depression remain unclear, however best candidates given current evidence may include, but are not limited to, supervised, aerobic-based activity of moderate-to-vigorous intensity, engaged in multiple times per week over eight or more weeks. Further research is needed. (Registration: PROSPERO-CRD 42015024388).

Treating depression with physical activity in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). Design Network meta-analysis (NMA). Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL. Eligibility criteria Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP. Results Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA Summary/conclusion There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/54/21/1279.full.pdf

Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis

Objective To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. Design Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. Data sources Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. Main outcome measures Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. Results The search resulted in 13 941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference −0.6, 95% confidence interval −1.19 to −0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (−0.16 mmol/L, −0.26 to −0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (−0.09 kg, −0.13 to −0.05; one, n=17 934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (−0.15, −0.17 to −0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (−0.60 kg, −1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). Conclusions Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. Systematic review registration Prospero CRD42017047668.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/364/bmj.k4718.full.pdf

Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction

Numerous interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP) are available, but its treatment remains unsatisfactory. We systematically summarized evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on interventions for NeuP. Five electronic databases were searched up to March 2015. Study quality was analyzed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The most common interventions in 97 included SRs were pharmacologic (59%) and surgical (15%). The majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality. More than 50% of conclusions from abstracts on efficacy and approximately 80% on safety were inconclusive. Effective interventions were described for painful diabetic neuropathy (pregabalin, gabapentin, certain tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin, pregabalin, certain TCAs, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, opioids, sodium valproate, topical capsaicin, and lidocaine), lumbar radicular pain (epidural corticosteroids, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], and discectomy), cervical radicular pain (rTMS), carpal tunnel syndrome (carpal tunnel release), cubital tunnel syndrome (simple decompression and ulnar nerve transposition), trigeminal neuralgia (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and pimozide for refractory cases, rTMS), HIV-related neuropathy (topical capsaicin), and central NeuP (certain TCAs, pregabalin, cannabinoids, and rTMS). Evidence about interventions for NeuP is frequently inconclusive or completely lacking. New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria.

Interventions for Neuropathic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Survey of Cochrane protocols found methods for data extraction from figures not mentioned or unclear.

Systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of neuropathic pain (NeuP) are increasingly important for decision-making. However, methodological flaws in SRs can reduce the validity of conclusions. Hence, it is important to assess the methodological quality of NeuP SRs critically. Additionally, it remains unclear which assessment tool should be used. We studied the methodological quality of SRs published in the field of NeuP and compared two assessment tools. We systematically searched 5 electronic databases to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions for NeuP available up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) tools. The scores were converted to percentiles and ranked into 4 grades to allow comparison between the two checklists. Gwet’s AC1 coefficient was used for interrater reliability assessment. The 97 included SRs had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5–8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26–35)). The overall agreement score between the 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI 0.39–0.86) for AMSTAR and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53–0.70) for R-AMSTAR. The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). The analysis of individual domains showed the best compliance in a comprehensive literature search (item 3) on both checklists. The results for the domain that was the least compliant differed: conflict of interest (item 11) was the item most poorly reported on AMSTAR vs. publication bias assessment (item 10) on R-AMSTAR. A high positive correlation between the total AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR scores for all SRs, as well as for CSRs and NCSRs, was observed. The methodological quality of analyzed SRs in the field of NeuP was not optimal, and CSRs had a higher quality than NCSRs. Both AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools produced comparable quality ratings. Our results point out to weaknesses in the methodology of existing SRs on interventions for the management NeuP and call for future improvement by better adherence to analyzed quality checklists, either AMSTAR or R-AMSTAR.

/pdf/comparison-of-methodological-quality-rating-of-systematic-2y0hgy4zad.pdf

Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

Objective Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has recently emerged as an attractive target for neuromodulation therapy since primary sensory neurons and their soma in DRGs are important sites for pathophysiologic changes that lead to neuropathic pain. Our aim was to create evidence synthesis about the effects of electrical stimulation of DRG in the context of pain from in vitro and in vivo animal models, analyze methodology and quality of studies in the field. Methods For conducting systematic review we searched three data bases: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation risk of bias tool for animal studies. The study was registered in the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies data base. Results We included six in vitro and eight in vivo animal studies. All included in vitro studies combined neurostimulation with substances or drugs and reported an improvement in pain-related parameters due to neurostimulation. Among in vivo studies, six used pulsed radiofrequency, while two used electrical field stimulation. All in vivo studies reported improvement in pain-related behavior following stimulation. Meta-analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity and missing data. The quality of included studies was suboptimal since all had an unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. Conclusions Limited data from in vitro and in vivo animal studies indicate that electrical stimulation of DRG has a positive therapeutic effect in the context of pain-related outcomes. Further studies with a standardized methodological approach and outcomes will provide useful information about electrical stimulation of DRG in animal models.

Katarina Vucic

Papers

Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction

Interventions for Neuropathic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Survey of Cochrane protocols found methods for data extraction from figures not mentioned or unclear.

Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

Electrical Stimulation of Dorsal Root Ganglion in the Context of Pain: A Systematic Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Animal Model Studies.