Nicholas Meader

Bio: Nicholas Meader is an academic researcher from University of York. The author has contributed to research in topics: Psychological intervention & Depression (differential diagnoses). The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 61 publications receiving 4375 citations. Previous affiliations of Nicholas Meader include Royal College of Psychiatrists & University of Hong Kong.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies

Abstract: Summary Background Substantial uncertainty exists about prevalence of mood disorders in patients with cancer, including those in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We aimed to quantitatively summarise the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustments disorders in these settings. Methods We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for studies that examined well-defined depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in adults with cancer in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We restricted studies to those using psychiatric interviews. Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a proportion meta-analysis was done. Findings We identified 24 studies with 4007 individuals across seven countries in palliative-care settings. Meta-analytical pooled prevalence of depression defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria was 16·5% (95% CI 13·1–20·3), 14·3% (11·1–17·9) for DSM-defined major depression, and 9·6% (3·6–18·1) for DSM-defined minor depression. Prevalence of adjustment disorder alone was 15·4% (10·1–21·6) and of anxiety disorders 9·8% (6·8–13·2). Prevalence of all types of depression combined was of 24·6% (17·5–32·4), depression or adjustment disorder 24·7% (20·8–28·8), and all types of mood disorder 29·0% (10·1–52·9). We identified 70 studies with 10 071 individuals across 14 countries in oncological and haematological settings. Prevalence of depression by DSM or ICD criteria was 16·3% (13·4–19·5); for DSM-defined major depression it was 14·9% (12·2–17·7) and for DSM-defined minor depression 19·2% (9·1–31·9). Prevalence of adjustment disorder was 19·4% (14·5–24·8), anxiety 10·3% (5·1–17·0), and dysthymia 2·7% (1·7–4·0). Combination diagnoses were common; all types of depression occurred in 20·7% (12·9–29·8) of patients, depression or adjustment disorder in 31·6% (25·0–38·7), and any mood disorder in 38·2% (28·4–48·6). There were few consistent correlates of depression: there was no effect of age, sex, or clinical setting and inadequate data to examine cancer type and illness duration. Interpretation Interview-defined depression and anxiety is less common in patients with cancer than previously thought, although some combination of mood disorders occurs in 30–40% of patients in hospital settings without a significant difference between palliative-care and non-palliative-care settings. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mood complications, not just depression. Funding None.

Predicting suicide following self-harm: systematic review of risk factors and risk scales.

Abstract: Background People with a history of self-harm are at a far greater risk of suicide than the general population. However, the relationship between self-harm and suicide is complex. Aims To undertake the first systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of risk factors and risk assessment scales to predict suicide following self-harm. Method We conducted a search for prospective cohort studies of populations who had self-harmed. For the review of risk scales we also included studies examining the risk of suicide in people under specialist mental healthcare, in order to broaden the scope of the review and increase the number of studies considered. Differences in predictive accuracy between populations were examined where applicable. Results Twelve studies on risk factors and 7 studies on risk scales were included. Four risk factors emerged from the meta-analysis, with robust effect sizes that showed little change when adjusted for important potential confounders. These included: previous episodes of self-harm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.68, 95% CI 1.38–2.05, K = 4), suicidal intent (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.91–3.81, K = 3), physical health problems (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.16–3.43, K = 3) and male gender (HR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.70–2.46, K = 5). The included studies evaluated only three risk scales (Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) and Scale for Suicide Ideation). Where meta-analyses were possible (BHS, SIS), the analysis was based on sparse data and a high heterogeneity was observed. The positive predictive values ranged from 1.3 to 16.7%. Conclusions The four risk factors that emerged, although of interest, are unlikely to be of much practical use because they are comparatively common in clinical populations. No scales have sufficient evidence to support their use. The use of these scales, or an over-reliance on the identification of risk factors in clinical practice, may provide false reassurance and is, therefore, potentially dangerous. Comprehensive psychosocial assessments of the risks and needs that are specific to the individual should be central to the management of people who have self-harmed.

A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation

Abstract: The grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. GRADE provides a transparent approach to reaching judgements about the quality of evidence on the effects of a health care intervention, but is complex and therefore challenging to apply in a consistent manner. We developed a checklist to guide the researcher to extract the data required to make a GRADE assessment. We applied the checklist to 29 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of health care interventions. Two reviewers used the checklist for each paper and used these data to rate the quality of evidence for a particular outcome. For most (70%) checklist items, there was good agreement between reviewers. The main problems were for items relating to indirectness where considerable judgement is required. There was consistent agreement between reviewers on most items in the checklist. The use of this checklist may be an aid to improving the consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments, particularly for inexperienced users or in rapid reviews without the resources to conduct assessments by two researchers independently.

A systematic review on the clustering and co-occurrence of multiple risk behaviours

Abstract: Risk behaviours, such as smoking and physical inactivity account for up to two-thirds of all cardiovascular deaths, and are associated with substantial increased mortality in many conditions including cancer and diabetes. As risk behaviours are thought to co-occur in individuals we conducted a systematic review of studies addressing clustering or co-occurrence of risk behaviours and their predictors. As the main aim of the review was to inform public health policy in England we limited inclusion to studies conducted in the UK. Key databases were searched from 1990 to 2016. We included UK based cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that investigated risk behaviours such as smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet. High heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Thirty-seven studies were included in the review (32 cross-sectional and five longitudinal). Most studies investigated unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, alcohol misuse, and smoking. In general adult populations, there was relatively strong evidence of clustering between alcohol misuse and smoking; and unhealthy diet and smoking. For young adults, there was evidence of clustering between sexual risk behaviour and smoking, sexual risk behaviour and illicit drug use, and sexual risk behaviour and alcohol misuse. The strongest associations with co-occurrence and clustering of multiple risk behaviours were occupation (up to 4-fold increased odds in lower SES groups) and education (up to 5-fold increased odds in those with no qualifications). Among general adult populations, alcohol misuse and smoking was the most commonly identified risk behaviour cluster. Among young adults, there was consistent evidence of clustering found between sexual risk behaviour and substance misuse. Socio-economic status was the strongest predictor of engaging in multiple risk behaviours. This suggests the potential for interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours either sequentially or concurrently particularly where there is evidence of clustering. In addition, there is potential for intervening at the social or environmental level due to the strong association with socio-economic status.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Abstract: Background and Purpose—The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audienc...

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Abstract: Background and Purpose- The purpose of these guidelines is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive set of recommendations in a single document for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. The intended audiences are prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators. These guidelines supersede the 2013 Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines and are an update of the 2018 AIS Guidelines. Methods- Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statements Oversight Committee, representing various areas of medical expertise. Members were not allowed to participate in discussions or to vote on topics relevant to their relations with industry. An update of the 2013 AIS Guidelines was originally published in January 2018. This guideline was approved by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. In April 2018, a revision to these guidelines, deleting some recommendations, was published online by the AHA. The writing group was asked review the original document and revise if appropriate. In June 2018, the writing group submitted a document with minor changes and with inclusion of important newly published randomized controlled trials with >100 participants and clinical outcomes at least 90 days after AIS. The document was sent to 14 peer reviewers. The writing group evaluated the peer reviewers' comments and revised when appropriate. The current final document was approved by all members of the writing group except when relationships with industry precluded members from voting and by the governing bodies of the AHA. These guidelines use the American College of Cardiology/AHA 2015 Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence and the new AHA guidelines format. Results- These guidelines detail prehospital care, urgent and emergency evaluation and treatment with intravenous and intra-arterial therapies, and in-hospital management, including secondary prevention measures that are appropriately instituted within the first 2 weeks. The guidelines support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care in both the prehospital and hospital settings. Conclusions- These guidelines provide general recommendations based on the currently available evidence to guide clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. In many instances, however, only limited data exist demonstrating the urgent need for continued research on treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012

Abstract: Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies

Abstract: Summary Background Substantial uncertainty exists about prevalence of mood disorders in patients with cancer, including those in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We aimed to quantitatively summarise the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustments disorders in these settings. Methods We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for studies that examined well-defined depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in adults with cancer in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We restricted studies to those using psychiatric interviews. Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a proportion meta-analysis was done. Findings We identified 24 studies with 4007 individuals across seven countries in palliative-care settings. Meta-analytical pooled prevalence of depression defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria was 16·5% (95% CI 13·1–20·3), 14·3% (11·1–17·9) for DSM-defined major depression, and 9·6% (3·6–18·1) for DSM-defined minor depression. Prevalence of adjustment disorder alone was 15·4% (10·1–21·6) and of anxiety disorders 9·8% (6·8–13·2). Prevalence of all types of depression combined was of 24·6% (17·5–32·4), depression or adjustment disorder 24·7% (20·8–28·8), and all types of mood disorder 29·0% (10·1–52·9). We identified 70 studies with 10 071 individuals across 14 countries in oncological and haematological settings. Prevalence of depression by DSM or ICD criteria was 16·3% (13·4–19·5); for DSM-defined major depression it was 14·9% (12·2–17·7) and for DSM-defined minor depression 19·2% (9·1–31·9). Prevalence of adjustment disorder was 19·4% (14·5–24·8), anxiety 10·3% (5·1–17·0), and dysthymia 2·7% (1·7–4·0). Combination diagnoses were common; all types of depression occurred in 20·7% (12·9–29·8) of patients, depression or adjustment disorder in 31·6% (25·0–38·7), and any mood disorder in 38·2% (28·4–48·6). There were few consistent correlates of depression: there was no effect of age, sex, or clinical setting and inadequate data to examine cancer type and illness duration. Interpretation Interview-defined depression and anxiety is less common in patients with cancer than previously thought, although some combination of mood disorders occurs in 30–40% of patients in hospital settings without a significant difference between palliative-care and non-palliative-care settings. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mood complications, not just depression. Funding None.