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

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.

The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.

/pdf/consort-2010-statement-updated-guidelines-for-reporting-4ae3ljk2ki.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.c869.full.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.

/pdf/consort-2010-statement-updated-guidelines-for-reporting-1np1a0n4dn.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of intention to treat analysis as reported in randomised controlled trials in four large medical journals. Design: Survey of all reports of randomised controlled trials published in 1997 in the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA , and New England Journal of Medicine . Main outcome measures: Methods of dealing with deviations from random allocation and missing data. Results: 119 (48%) of the reports mentioned intention to treat analysis. Of these, 12 excluded any patients who did not start the allocated intervention and three did not analyse all randomised subjects as allocated. Five reports explicitly stated that there were no deviations from random allocation. The remaining 99 reports seemed to analyse according to random allocation, but only 34 of these explicitly stated this. 89 (75%) trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable. The methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to a biased treatment effect. 29 (24%) trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome, the methodsof handling the missing responses were similar in this subset. Conclusions: The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. Authors should explicitly describe the handling of deviations from randomised allocation and missing responses and discuss the potential effect of any missing response. Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention to treat analyses. Key messages Intention to treat gives a pragmatic estimate of the benefit of a change in treatment policy rather than of potential benefit in patients who receive treatment exactly as planned Full application of intention to treat is possible only when complete outcome data are available for all randomised subjects About half of all published reports of randomised controlled trials stated that intention to treat was used, but handling of deviations from randomised allocation varied widely Many trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable, and methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to bias Intention to treat analyses are often inadequately described and inadequately applied

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/319/7211/670.full.pdf

What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials

Study Design: A prospective survey of patients seeking primary care for low back pain. Clinical and psychosocial data, available at presentation, were explored for predictors of outcome at 1 year. Objectives: To determine the relative value of clinical and psychosocial variables for early identification of patients with a poor prognosis. Summary of Background Data: Current treatment strategies for low back pain have failed to stem the rising levels of disability. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important determinants of response to therapy in chronic patients, but the contribution from similar data in acute or subchronic patients has not been comprehensively investigated. Methods: Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain, presenting to primary care, underwent a structured clinical interview and completed a battery of psychosocial instruments. Follow-up was done by mail at 1 year; outcome was measured using a back pain disability questionnaire. Predictive relationships were sought between the data at presentation and disability at follow-up. Results: Most patients showed improved disability and pain scores, although more than half had persisting symptoms. Eighteen percent showed significant psychological distress at presentation. Multiple regression analysis showed the level of persisting disability to depend principally on measures in the psychosocial domain; for acute cases outcome is also dependent on the absence or presence of a previous history of low back trouble. Discriminant models successfully allocated typically 76% of cases to recovered/not-recovered groups, largely on the basis of psychosocial factors evident at presentation. Conclusions: Early identification of psychosocial problems is important in understanding, and hopefully preventing, the progression to chronicity in low back trouble.

Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble.

The integration of physical and psychological assessment is frequently problematic. Psychological tests are often cumbersome and difficult to interpret. There would appear to be a need for a simple assessment method that would identify distress and help alert the clinician to the need for a more comprehensive assessment. The Distress and Risk Assessment Method is derived from a simple set of scales validated for use with patients with low-back pain. It offers a simple classification of patients into those showing no psychological distress, those at risk of developing major psychological overlay, and those clearly distressed. Four patient types can be identified on the basis of scores on two short questionnaires. The construction of the Distress and Risk Assessment Method is described and validity data (both clinical and psychological) are presented. The use of the Distress and Risk Assessment Method in the prediction of outcome of treatment is presented, and the paper concludes with general guidelines for its use.

The Distress and Risk Assessment Method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome.

The presence of an ulcer beneath callus on the diabetic foot has been a well-documented and common clinical finding. We have conducted a prospective study to examine whether callus can be used to predict plantar intrinsic neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer formation. Sixty-three diabetic patients (43 male, 25 Type 1), median age 62 years (IQ range 52, 67), median diabetes duration 17 years (IQ range 8,25) participated in the study. All had neuropathy and peak plantar foot pressures (measured using a dynamic optical pedobarograph) > or = 10 kg cm-2. Calluses and previous ulcers were documented and classified. All ulcers occurring prior to and during the study were recorded, re-examination was 15.4 (range 10-22) months from baseline. Seven ulcers (6 patients) occurred during the study. Pressures were higher in the ulcer than non-ulcer sub-group (p = 0.04) with a relative risk of developing an ulcer of 4.7 for an area of elevated plantar pressure. This compares with a relative risk of 11.0 for an ulcer developing under an area of callus, and a relative risk of 56.8 for an ulcer developing on a site of previous ulceration. This study confirms that a history of previous ulceration is the highest risk factor for ulceration and demonstrates, for the first time, that the presence of plantar callus is highly predictive of subsequent ulceration. Careful history taking and examination of the foot to detect the presence of callus require no special training or equipment and callus should be recognized as a 'high risk' factor for foot ulceration.

The association between callus formation, high pressures and neuropathy in diabetic foot ulceration

Objectives The P2X 7 purinergic receptor antagonist AZD9056 was evaluated in a phase IIa study and subsequently in a phase IIb study to assess the effects of orally administered AZD9056 on the signs/symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria (ACR20) as the primary outcome. Methods Both studies were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in patients with RA receiving methotrexate or sulphasalazine. Phase IIa was an ascending-dose trial in two cohorts (n=75) using AZD9056 administered daily over 4 weeks. Phase IIb included an open-label etanercept treatment group. Patients were randomised to receive treatment for 6 months with 50, 100, 200 or 400 mg AZD9056 (oral, once a day) or matching placebo (oral, once a day), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg once a week). Results In phase IIa, 65% of AZD9056 recipients at 400 mg/day responded at the ACR20 level compared with 27% of placebo-treated patients. A significant reduction in swollen and tender joint count was observed in the actively treated group compared with placebo, whereas no effect on acute-phase response was observed. Of 385 randomised patients in the phase IIb study, 383 received treatment. AZD9056 (all doses) had no clinically or statistically significant effect on RA relative to placebo as measured by the proportion of patients meeting the ACR20 criteria at 6 months and further supported by secondary end points. In both studies AZD9056 was well tolerated up to 400 mg/day. Conclusions AZD9056 does not have significant efficacy in the treatment of RA, and the P2X 7 receptor does not appear to be a therapeutically useful target in RA. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00520572.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/71/10/1630.full.pdf

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the P2X7 purinergic receptor antagonist AZD9056 on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with active disease despite treatment with methotrexate or sulphasalazine

Sally Hollis

Papers

What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials

Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble.

The Distress and Risk Assessment Method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome.

The association between callus formation, high pressures and neuropathy in diabetic foot ulceration

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the P2X7 purinergic receptor antagonist AZD9056 on the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with active disease despite treatment with methotrexate or sulphasalazine