Search

Objectives: Symptoms of insomnia are highly prevalent in the elderly. A significant number of pharmacological and non‐pharmacological interventions exist, but, up‐to‐date, their comparative efficacy and safety has not been sufficiently assessed. Methods: We integrated the randomized evidence from every available treatment for insomnia in the elderly (>65 years) by performing a network meta‐analysis. Several electronic databases were searched up to May 25, 2019. The two primary outcomes were total sleep time and sleep quality. Data for other 6 efficacy and 8 safety outcomes were also analyzed. Results: Fifty‐three RCTs with 6832 participants (75 years old on average) were included, 43 of which examined the efficacy of one or more drugs. Ten RCTs examined the efficacy of non‐pharmacological interventions and were evaluated only with pairwise meta‐analyses because they were disconnected from the network. The overall confidence in the evidence was very low primarily due to the small amount of data per comparison and their sparse connectedness. Several benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and z‐drugs performed better in both primary outcomes, but few comparisons had data from more than one trial. The limited evidence on non‐pharmacological interventions suggested that acupressure, auricular acupuncture, mindfulness‐based stress reduction program, and tart cherry juice were better than their control interventions. Regarding safety, no clear differences were detected among interventions due to large uncertainty. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists on which intervention is more efficacious for elderly patients with insomnia. More RCTs, with longer duration, making more direct interventions among active treatments and presenting more outcomes are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In fixed‐dose antidepressant trials, the lower range of the licensed dose achieves the optimal balance between efficacy and tolerability. Whether flexible upward titration while side‐effects permit provides additional benefits is unknown. Methods: We did a systematic review of placebo‐controlled randomized trials that examined selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), venlafaxine or mirtazapine in the acute treatment of major depression. Our primary outcome was response, defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity. Secondary outcomes included drop‐outs due to adverse effects and drop‐outs for any reason. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses to calculate the ratios of odds ratios (RORs) between trials comparing the flexible dose titrating above the minimum licensed dose against placebo and those comparing the fixed minimum licensed dose against placebo. Results: We included 123 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (29 420 participants). There was no evidence supporting efficacy of the flexible dosing over the fixed low dose of SSRIs (ROR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.25), venlafaxine (1.24, 0.96 to 1.60) or mirtazapine (0.77, 0.33 to 1.78). No important differences were noted for tolerability or for any subgroup analyses except the superior efficacy of venlafaxine flexible dosing between 75 and 150 mg over the fixed 75 mg (1.30, 1.02 to 1.65). Conclusion: There was no evidence to support added value in terms of efficacy, tolerability or acceptability of flexibly titrating up the dosage over the minimum licensed dose of SSRIs or mirtazapine. For venlafaxine, increased efficacy can be expected by flexibly titrating up to 150 mg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Many randomised trials have compared different systemic treatment regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. While survival advances have apparently been achieved, the magnitude of these incremental benefits across diverse regimens is less clear. The aim of our study was to estimate the magnitude of survival and disease progression benefits with the use of different regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomised trials comparing systemic treatment regimens in advanced colorectal cancer. Treatment was categorised by use of or no use of fluorouracil-based regimens, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, and cetuximab. We used multiple-treatment meta-analysis methodology to combine information from direct comparisons (ie, treatments compared within a randomised trial) and indirect comparisons (ie, treatments compared between trials by combining results on how effective they are against a common comparator treatment) of different chemotherapy regimens. The primary endpoint was death and the secondary endpoint was disease progression. Monte Carlo simulations were used to establish which regimen offered the most benefit for these endpoints. We did analyses of all trials and analysed separately trials that studied first-line treatments and non-first-line treatments. FINDINGS: 242 trials published in 1967-2007 (N=56 677 patients) involved 137 different chemotherapy regimens. 37 of these trials were eligible for the multiple-treatment meta-analysis, according to our categorisation, including 47 comparisons of data on death (N=13 875 patients) and 48 comparisons of data on disease progression (N=15 158 patients). Compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin alone, the risk of death was most decreased with the addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% credibility intervals (CrI) 0.44-0.84) and considerable benefits were also noted with addition of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (HR 0.72 [95% CrI 0.54-0.97]); oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (HR 0.72 [0.57-0.90]); bevacizumab alone (HR 0.78 [0.60-1.03]); and oxaliplatin alone (HR 0.87 [0.78-0.98]). The disease progression benefits were even more prominent for the addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (HR 0.41 [0.28-0.60]); irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (0.53 [0.38-0.73]); oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (0.46 [0.34-0.61]); bevacizumab alone (0.56 [0.41-0.76]); oxaliplatin alone (0.64 [0.56-0.73]); irinotecan plus cetuximab (HR 0.62 [0.42-0.92]); and irinotecan alone (HR 0.73 [0.65-0.82]). Findings were similar for first-line and non-first-line treatment analyses although data were sparse for non-first-line treatment analyses. Compared with a patient with an anticipated 1-year survival who is treated with fluorouracil and leucovorin, the absolute survival benefit is estimated at 8 months' prolongation with addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab, 4.7 months' prolongation with addition of oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin, and 1-1.8 months' prolongation with addition of irinotecan alone or oxaliplatin alone. INTERPRETATION: Distinct incremental benefits are noted for diverse chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, with more prominent effects on disease progression than on death. More data are needed at least for the newest drugs to estimate more accurately the magnitude of the benefit derived from their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bladder cancer is an increasingly important international public health problem, with over 330,000 new cases being diagnosed each year worldwide. In a systematic review and evidence synthesis, the authors investigated the joint effects of the N-acetyltransferase genes NAT1 and NAT2 and cigarette smoking on bladder carcinogenesis. Studies were identified through an exhaustive search of multiple electronic databases and reference lists and through direct contact with study authors and experts. Random-effects meta-analysis was used within a Bayesian framework to investigate individual effects of NAT1 and NAT2 acetylation status on bladder cancer risk, while a novel approach was used to investigate joint effects of these two genes with cigarette smoking. An increased risk of bladder cancer was found in NAT2 slow acetylators (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% credible interval (CI): 1.26, 1.68) but not in NAT1 fast acetylators (odds ratio = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.22). The joint effects in the highest risk category (NAT2 slow acetylator, NAT1 fast acetylator, and current or ever cigarette smoking) as compared with the reference category (NAT2 fast acetylator, NAT1 slow acetylator, and never smoking) were associated with an odds ratio of 2.73 (95% CI: 1.70, 4.31). The importance of considering joint effects between genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of common complex diseases is underlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants for the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) but data on their efficacy are controversial. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of SSRIs in the treatment of depression in PD. Results Ten studies were included. In the comparison between SSRIs and Placebo (n = 6 studies), the combined risk ratio (random effects) was 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.77 - 1.55, p = 0.67). In the comparison between SSRIs and Tricyclic Antidepressants (TCAs) (n = 3 studies) the combined risk ratio was 0.75 (0.39 - 1.42, p = 0.37). An acceptability analysis showed that SSRIs were generally well tolerated. Conclusions These results suggest that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no differences in efficacy between SSRIs and placebo in the treatment of depression in PD. Due to the limited number of studies and the small sample sizes a type II error (false negative) cannot be excluded. The comparison between SSRIs and TCAs is based on only three studies and further trials with more pragmatic design are needed.

Abstract Background To estimate a threshold limit value for a compound known to have harmful health effects, an 'elbow' threshold model is usually applied. We are interested on non-parametric flexible alternatives. Methods We describe how a step function model fitted by isotonic regression can be used to estimate threshold limit values. This method returns a set of candidate locations, and we discuss two algorithms to select the threshold among them: the reduced isotonic regression and an algorithm considering the closed family of hypotheses. We assess the performance of these two alternative approaches under different scenarios in a simulation study. We illustrate the framework by analysing the data from a study conducted by the German Research Foundation aiming to set a threshold limit value in the exposure to total dust at workplace, as a causal agent for developing chronic bronchitis. Results In the paper we demonstrate the use and the properties of the proposed methodology along with the results from an application. The method appears to detect the threshold with satisfactory success. However, its performance can be compromised by the low power to reject the constant risk assumption when the true dose-response relationship is weak. Conclusion The estimation of thresholds based on isotonic framework is conceptually simple and sufficiently powerful. Given that in threshold value estimation context there is not a gold standard method, the proposed model provides a useful non-parametric alternative to the standard approaches and can corroborate or challenge their findings.

Importance: Cognitive deficits are a substantial part of the symptoms of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) and contribute heavily to the burden of disease. Antipsychotic drugs are not cognitive enhancers, but due to their different receptor-binding profiles, they could differ in their effects on cognition. No previous network meta-analysis compared antipsychotics to placebo, which is important to determine whether use of these drugs is associated with cognitive performance in SSDs at all., Objective: To determine the association of treatment with various antipsychotics and cognition in patients with SSDs., Data Sources: Cochrane Schizophrenia Trials Register through June 25, 2023., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials examining the effects on cognition of antipsychotic drugs or placebo in participants with SSD., Data Extraction and Synthesis: A systematic review and random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Network Meta-analysis reporting guideline., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in overall cognition score calculated for each study. Secondary outcomes included cognitive domains, quality of life, and functioning., Results: This study included 68 studies involving 9525 participants (mean [SD] age, 35.1 [8.9] years; 5878 male [70%] and 2890 [30%] female; some studies did not provide this information). There were few clear differences between antipsychotics, but first-generation dopamine antagonists haloperidol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.04; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.33) and fluphenazine (SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.69) as well as clozapine (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.48) ranked low. No individual antipsychotic was associated with a clearly better outcome than placebo, but antipsychotics as a group were, with small effect sizes (mean SMDs: adrenergic/low dopamine, 0.21; serotonergic/dopaminergic, 0.26; muscarinic, 0.28; dopaminergic, 0.40)., Conclusion and Relevance: Although data are relatively sparse, those reviewed in this study suggest that first-generation dopamine antagonists and clozapine should be avoided when cognitive deficits are a concern. Antipsychotics are not procognitive drugs. The overall small superior outcomes compared to placebo may be explained by less disordered thought patterns associated with fewer positive symptoms rather than cognitive deficits in the proper sense. The findings also suggest that harmonizing measurement of cognitive function in randomized clinical trials would be beneficial.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 5% of children globally, with symptoms often persisting into adulthood. While pharmacological interventions are commonly employed for management, understanding the optimal dosing for efficacy and tolerability remains crucial. This study aims to conduct a dose-response network meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments across different doses, aiming to inform clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes., Methods: This updated systematic review will include randomized controlled trials evaluating ADHD medication efficacy in children, adolescents, and adults. An updated search from a 2018 NMA will be conducted across multiple electronic databases with no language restrictions, using specific eligibility criteria focused on randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome will assess the severity of ADHD core symptoms, while secondary outcomes will consider treatment tolerability. A dose-response Bayesian hierarchical model will be used to estimate dose-response curves for each medication, identifying optimal dosing strategies., Discussion: With this dose-response network meta-analysis, we aim to better understand the dose-response relationship of pharmacological treatment in ADHD, which could help clinician to the identification of optimal doses., Systematic Review Registration: OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MY4A ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews (SRs) of intervention studies. SRs of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of SRs of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting, and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting., Study Design and Setting: We did a metaresearch study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify SRs of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics., Results: We included 1172 SRs of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for SRs without meta-analysis was 17.5 of a maximum of 23, and for SRs with meta-analysis, 22 of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section, was suboptimal. SRs that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009., Conclusion: Reporting of SRs of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of SRs of prevalence studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Treating the early phase of schizophrenia is crucial for preventing further episodes and improving quality of life, functioning, and social inclusion. Pharmacotherapies are first-line treatments, but have limitations. There is consensus on the need for non-pharmacological interventions for individuals in the early phase of schizophrenia. Several psychological interventions have shown promising effects; however, their comparative effectiveness remains largely unknown. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis will be performed. We aim to develop a hierarchy of existing psychological treatments concerning their efficacy and tolerability, which will inform treatment guidelines., Protocol: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating psychological interventions for first-episode psychosis, first-episode schizophrenia, or early phase schizophrenia will be included. The primary outcome will be overall schizophrenia symptoms (measured up to 6 and 12 months, and at the longest follow-up) and relapse as a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes are premature discontinuation; change in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia; response; quality of life; overall functioning; satisfaction with care; adherence; adverse events; and mortality. The study selection and data extraction are performed by two independent reviewers. We will assess the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 and evaluate the confidence in the results using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore heterogeneity and assess the robustness of our findings., Discussion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare multiple existing psychological interventions, establishing which are best for symptom reduction, relapse prevention, and other important outcomes in early phase schizophrenia. Our results may provide practical guidance concerning the most effective psychological intervention to reduce symptom severity and the societal burden associated with the disorder., Competing Interests: Competing interests: In the last three years SL has received honoraria for advising/consulting and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Ekademia, GedeonRichter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Mitsubishi, Neurotorium, Otsuka, NovoNordisk, Recordati, Rovi, Teva; JP from uniQure. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. MH is a part-time employee of Get.On Institut für Gesundheitstrainings GmbH/HelloBetter., (Copyright: © 2024 Feber L et al.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion., Setting: England., Population: Women treated for CIN., Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England., Main Outcome Measures: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted., Results: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold., Conclusions: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence., (© 2024 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Although aggregate data (AD) from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are used in the majority of network meta-analyses (NMAs), other study designs (e.g., cohort studies and other non-randomised studies, NRS) can be informative about relative treatment effects. The individual participant data (IPD) of the study, when available, are preferred to AD for adjusting for important participant characteristics and to better handle heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network., Results: We developed the R package crossnma to perform cross-format (IPD and AD) and cross-design (RCT and NRS) NMA and network meta-regression (NMR). The models are implemented as Bayesian three-level hierarchical models using Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) software within the R environment. The R package crossnma includes functions to automatically create the JAGS model, reformat the data (based on user input), assess convergence and summarize the results. We demonstrate the workflow within crossnma by using a network of six trials comparing four treatments., Conclusions: The R package crossnma enables the user to perform NMA and NMR with different data types in a Bayesian framework and facilitates the inclusion of all types of evidence recognising differences in risk of bias., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision., Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach., Discussion: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023402365., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Network meta-analysis has been used to answer a range of clinical questions about the preferred intervention for a given condition. Although the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological agents depend on the dose administered, network meta-analysis applications typically ignore the role that drugs dosage plays in the results. This leads to more heterogeneity in the network. In this paper, we present a suite of network meta-analysis models that incorporate the dose-effect relationship using restricted cubic splines. We extend existing models into a dose-effect network meta-regression to account for study-level covariates and for groups of agents in a class-effect dose-effect network meta-analysis model. We apply our models to a network of aggregate data about the efficacy of 21 antidepressants and placebo for depression. We find that all antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo after a certain dose. Also, we identify the dose level at which each antidepressant's effect exceeds that of placebo and estimate the dose beyond which the effect of antidepressants no longer increases. When covariates were introduced to the model, we find that studies with small sample size tend to exaggerate antidepressants efficacy for several of the drugs. Our dose-effect network meta-analysis model with restricted cubic splines provides a flexible approach to modelling the dose-effect relationship in multiple interventions. Decision-makers can use our model to inform treatment choice., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Some patients benefit from a treatment while others may do so less or do not benefit at all. We have previously developed a two-stage network meta-regression prediction model that synthesized randomized trials and evaluates how treatment effects vary across patient characteristics. In this article, we extended this model to combine different sources of types in different formats: aggregate data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) from randomized and non-randomized evidence. In the first stage, a prognostic model is developed to predict the baseline risk of the outcome using a large cohort study. In the second stage, we recalibrated this prognostic model to improve our predictions for patients enrolled in randomized trials. In the third stage, we used the baseline risk as effect modifier in a network meta-regression model combining AD, IPD randomized clinical trial to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects. We illustrated the approach in the re-analysis of a network of studies comparing three drugs for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Several patient characteristics influence the baseline risk of relapse, which in turn modifies the effect of the drugs. The proposed model makes personalized predictions for health outcomes under several treatment options and encompasses all relevant randomized and non-randomized evidence., (© 2024 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, there are multiple available techniques and a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS techniques as an add-on to antipsychotics for treatment-resistant schizophrenia., Methods: We will include single- and double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) comparing any NIBS technique with each other or with a control intervention as an add-on to antipsychotics in adult patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. We will exclude studies focusing on predominant negative symptoms, maintenance treatment, and single sessions. The primary outcome will be a change in overall symptoms, and secondary outcomes will be a change in symptom domains, cognitive performance, quality of life, functioning, response, dropouts, and side effects. We will search for eligible studies in previous reviews, multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registries from inception onwards. At least two independent reviewers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We will measure the treatment differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We will conduct pairwise and network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework using a random-effects model, except for rare event outcomes where we will use a fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method. We will investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. Reporting bias will be assessed with funnel plots and the Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) tool. The certainty in the evidence will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) approach., Discussion: Our network meta-analysis would provide an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence from all available RCTs on the comparative efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This information could guide evidence-based clinical practice and improve the outcomes of patients., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42023410645., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends., Methods: We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems., Results: We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low., Conclusions: We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC has received research, educational and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck and Angelini Pharma. VP received consulting fees from Google Modern Health. CK is a cofounder of Wida, a digital mental health platform. TAF reports personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi, SONY and UpToDate, and a grant from DT Axis and Shionogi, outside the submitted work; In addition, TAF has a patent 7448125, and a pending patent 2022-082495, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. SL received consulting fees from Alkermes, Angelini, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Neurotorium, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Roche, ROVI, TEVA and honoraria for lectures and presentations from Angelini, Apsen, Eisai, Ekademia, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck, Mitshubishi, Recordati, ROVI, Sanofi Aventis. SNV receives royalties from UpToDate Inc for authorship of materials on depression and pregnancy. From The MHCOVID Crowd Investigators: EO has received consulting fees Angelini Pharma. AS received 30 days of complimentary access from Elsevier to Science Direct, Scopus, Reaxys and Geofacets after reviewing a manuscript for CHEST., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression., (© 2024 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism shows promise for treating psychosis, prompting us to synthesise data from human and non-human studies., Methods: We co-produced a living systematic review of controlled studies examining TAAR1 agonists in individuals (with or without psychosis/schizophrenia) and relevant animal models. Two independent reviewers identified studies in multiple electronic databases (until 17.11.2023), extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were standardised mean differences (SMD) for overall symptoms in human studies and hyperlocomotion in animal models. We also examined adverse events and neurotransmitter signalling. We synthesised data with random-effects meta-analyses., Results: Nine randomised trials provided data for two TAAR1 agonists (ulotaront and ralmitaront), and 15 animal studies for 10 TAAR1 agonists. Ulotaront and ralmitaront demonstrated few differences compared to placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (N=4 studies, n=1291 participants; SMD=0.15, 95%CI: -0.05, 0.34), and ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (N=1, n=156, SMD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.86, -0.20). Large placebo response was observed in ulotaront phase-III trials. Limited evidence suggested a relatively benign side-effect profile for TAAR1 agonists, although nausea and sedation were common after a single dose of ulotaront. In animal studies, TAAR1 agonists improved hyperlocomotion compared to control (N=13 studies, k=41 experiments, SMD=1.01, 95%CI: 0.74, 1.27), but seemed less efficacious compared to dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists (N=4, k=7, SMD=-0.62, 95%CI: -1.32, 0.08). Limited human and animal data indicated that TAAR1 agonists may regulate presynaptic dopaminergic signalling., Conclusions: TAAR1 agonists may be less efficacious than dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists already licensed for schizophrenia. The results are preliminary due to the limited number of drugs examined, lack of longer-term data, publication bias, and assay sensitivity concerns in trials associated with large placebo response. Considering their unique mechanism of action, relatively benign side-effect profile and ongoing drug development, further research is warranted., Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Andrea Cipriani received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma. Toshi A. Furukawa reports personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi, and SONY, and a grant from Shionogi outside the submitted work; in addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Oliver D. Howes has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organised by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Elysium, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Karuna, Lundbeck, Merck, Neurocrine, Ontrack/ Pangea, Otsuka, Sunovion, Recordati, Roche, Rovi and Viatris/ Mylan. He was previously a part-time employee of Lundbeck A/v. Dr Howes has a patent for the use of dopaminergic imaging. In the last three years Stefan Leucht has received honoraria for advising/consulting and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Ekademia, GedeonRichter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Mitsubishi, Otsuka, NovoNordisk, Recordati, Rovi, Teva. Robert A. McCutcheon has received speaker/consultancy fees from Karuna, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Otsuka, and is a director of a company that hosts psychotropic prescribing decision tools. Carmen Moreno received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. Nobuyuki Nomura has received speaker fees from Eisai, Meiji Seika Pharma, Otsuka, and Sumitomo Pharma; and manuscript fees from Sumitomo Pharma. Edoardo G. Ostinelli has received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. No other competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Siafis S et al.)

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: AC is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research Professorship (grant RP-2017-08-ST2-006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration, by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (grant NIHR203316), and by the Wellcome Trust. AC has also received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma. AC is the Chief Investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health. GS reports research grants paid to her institution by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European Commission, and the Wellcome Trust. AA declares no competing interests.

Background: Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants., Objective: Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment., Methods: The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617)., Findings: Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10-30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10-35%) for the full sample., Conclusions: Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits., Implications: While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TAF reports personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi, SONY and UpToDate, and a grant from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; In addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. ACh has received research, educational and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck and Angelini Pharma. He is the CI/PI of two trials about seltorexant in depression, sponsored by Janssen. In the last 3 years SL has received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Mitsubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA. All the other authors declared no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The relative treatment effects estimated from network meta-analysis can be employed to rank treatments from the most preferable to the least preferable option. These treatment hierarchies are typically based on ranking metrics calculated from a single outcome. Some approaches have been proposed in the literature to account for multiple outcomes and individual preferences, such as the coverage area inside a spie chart, that, however, does not account for a trade-off between efficacy and safety outcomes. We present the net-benefit standardised area within a spie chart, [Formula: see text] to explore the changes in treatment performance with different trade-offs between benefits and harms, according to a particular set of preferences., Methods: We combine the standardised areas within spie charts for efficacy and safety/acceptability outcomes with a value λ specifying the trade-off between benefits and harms. We derive absolute probabilities and convert outcomes on a scale between 0 and 1 for inclusion in the spie chart., Results: We illustrate how the treatments in three published network meta-analyses perform as the trade-off λ varies. The decrease of the [Formula: see text] quantity appears more pronounced for some drugs, e.g. haloperidol. Changes in treatment performance seem more frequent when SUCRA is employed as outcome measures in the spie charts., Conclusions: [Formula: see text] should not be interpreted as a ranking metric but it is a simple approach that could help identify which treatment is preferable when multiple outcomes are of interest and trading-off between benefits and harms is important., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Monitoring of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention is important for guiding national sexual health programmes for both the general population and key populations. The objectives of this study were to examine trends and patterns of condom use at last intercourse and lifetime HIV testing in 2007, 2012 and 2017 in Switzerland, and to explore factors associated with these behaviours in men and women with opposite-sex partners and with same sex partners., Methods: We analysed data from the 2007, 2012 and 2017 Swiss Health Survey. For each time point, outcome and population group, we conducted a descriptive analysis of weighted data and conducted multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and compared outcomes between the timepoints., Results: In total, 46,320 people were interviewed: 21,847 men and 23,141 women, who reported having sex only with partners of the opposite sex, 633 men who reported sex with a male partner and 699 women who reported sex with a female partner. Among the three surveys the prevalence of condom did not change but varied from 22 to 26% of men and 15 to 21% in women with only opposite-sex partners (aOR men, 0.93, 95% CI 0.82, 1.06; women 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). In men with any same sex partner the prevalence of condom use was 40% in 2007, 33% in 2012 and 54% in 2017 (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 0.97, 3.34). In multivariable analysis, the factor most strongly associated with condom use was sex with an occasional partner at last intercourse. HIV testing ever increased across all three survey years in people with opposite sex partners: 2017 vs. 2007, aOR men with only opposite-sex partners 1.64 (95% CI 1.49, 1.82), women with only opposite-sex partners 1.67 (1.51, 1.85), men with any same sex partner 0.98 (0.49, 1.96), women with any same sex partner 1.31 (0.74, 2.30)., Conclusions: Monitoring of condom use, and HIV testing should continue and contribute to the development of the national sexual health programme. Stronger promotion of condoms for people with opposite-sex partners might be needed, since overall condom use at last intercourse has not changed since 2007., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Network meta-analysis compares multiple interventions and estimates the relative treatment effects between all interventions, combining both direct and indirect evidence. Recently, a framework was developed to assess the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) which is part of the more comprehensive framework to evaluate the Confidence In the evidence for Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). To produce an overall risk of bias judgement for each network estimate, ROB-MEN: performs an assessment of the bias due to missing evidence in each possible pairwise comparison; combines the assessment with the contribution from the direct pairwise comparisons; considers the potential for small-study effects. To facilitate and semi-automate this process, ROB-MEN has been implemented in a user-friendly web-application ( https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/rob-men ). Here we provide a tutorial detailing the functionality and use of the application consisting of data upload, analysis configuration, output visualisation, and production of the tool's output tables for recording the risk of bias assessment. We also illustrate an example application using the demo dataset available for download on the application's homepage. The ROB-MEN web-application is open-source and freely available ( https://github.com/esm-ispm-unibe-ch/rob-men )., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Anhedonia is a key symptom of depression, and it has been suggested as a potential target for future individualised treatments. However, much is unknown about how interventions enhancing dopaminergic pathways may affect anhedonia symptoms in the context of depression. Methods: We will perform independent searches in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions in individuals with depression or animal models for depression. The primary outcomes will be overall anhedonia symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using pre-defined tools according to each record's study design. We will develop ontologies to facilitate study identification and data extraction. We will synthesise data from clinical and animal studies separately. If appropriate, we will use random-effects meta-analyses, or synthesis without meta-analyses. We will investigate study characteristics as potential sources of heterogeneity. We will evaluate the confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, we will draw an overall conclusion in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan updates of the review every 6 months, and any future modifications to the protocol will be documented. We will co-produce this review with multiple stakeholders. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023451821., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Edoardo G. Ostinelli received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Carmen Moreno received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. Toshi A Furukawa received personal fees from Boehringer- Ingelheim, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi, and SONY, and a grant from Shionogi outside the submitted work; in addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Andrea Cipriani received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma., (Copyright: © 2023 Ostinelli EG et al.)

Objective: There is no standard tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies. For the purposes of a living systematic review during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a tool to evaluate RoB in studies measuring the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH) and tested inter-rater reliability., Methods: We decided on items and signalling questions to include in RoB-PrevMH through iterative discussions. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users with two sets of prevalence studies. The first set included a random sample of 50 studies from our living systematic review. The second set included 33 studies from a systematic review of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorders, major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We assessed the inter-rater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item., Results: RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signalling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The inter-rater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa scores were 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.63), respectively., Conclusions: RoB-PrevMH is a brief, user-friendly and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for inter-rater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability and applicability should be assessed in future projects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TAF reports personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi and SONY, and a grant from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; In addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. AC has received research, educational and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck and Angelini Pharma. He is the CI/PI of randomised trial about seltorexant in depression, sponsored by Janssen. SL reports personal fees and honoraria from Alkermes, angelini, Lundbeck, Lundbeck Foundation, Otsuka, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon, Medichem, Merck, Mitsubishi, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi-Aventis Recordati, Rovi, Teva., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature., Methods: In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review., Results: We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates., Conclusions: Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis., Methods: Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis., Protocol Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Spyridon Siafis: None Robert McCutcheon: RM received speaker/consultancy fees from Karuna, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka, and is director of a company that hosts psychotropic prescribing decision tools. Virginia Chiocchia: None. Edoardo G. Ostinelli: EGO has received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Simonne Wright: None. Claire Stansfield: None. Damian Omari Juma: None. Ioannis Mantas: None. Oliver D. Howes: ODH is a part-time employee of H. Lundbeck A/S and has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Rand, Recordati, Roche and Viatris/Mylan. Neither Howes or his family have holdings/a financial stake in any pharmaceutical company Grazia Rutigliano: None. Fiona Ramage: None. Francesca Tinsdeall: None. Claire Friedrich: None. Lea Milligan: None. Carmen Moreno: CM received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. Julian H Elliott: None. James Thomas: None. Emily Sena: None. Malcolm R. MacLeod: None. Soraya Seedat: None Georgia Salanti: None. Jennifer Potts: None. Andrea Cipriani: AC received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma. Stefan Leucht: SL has received honoraria as advisor and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Apsen, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Mitshubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, (Copyright: © 2023 Siafis S et al.)

Background: The effect of early as compared with later initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in persons with atrial fibrillation who have had an acute ischemic stroke is unclear., Methods: We performed an investigator-initiated, open-label trial at 103 sites in 15 countries. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to early anticoagulation (within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke) or later anticoagulation (day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke). Assessors were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included the components of the composite primary outcome at 30 and 90 days., Results: Of 2013 participants (37% with minor stroke, 40% with moderate stroke, and 23% with major stroke), 1006 were assigned to early anticoagulation and 1007 to later anticoagulation. A primary-outcome event occurred in 29 participants (2.9%) in the early-treatment group and 41 participants (4.1%) in the later-treatment group (risk difference, -1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.84 to 0.47) by 30 days. Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 14 participants (1.4%) in the early-treatment group and 25 participants (2.5%) in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.07) by 30 days and in 18 participants (1.9%) and 30 participants (3.1%), respectively, by 90 days (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.06). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days., Conclusions: In this trial, the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death at 30 days was estimated to range from 2.8 percentage points lower to 0.5 percentage points higher (based on the 95% confidence interval) with early than with later use of DOACs. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others; ELAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03148457.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Most acute phase antipsychotic drug trials in schizophrenia last only a few weeks, but patients must usually take these drugs much longer. We examined the long-term efficacy of antipsychotic drugs in acutely ill patients using network meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register up to March 6, 2022 for randomized, blinded trials of at least 6-month duration on all second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms of schizophrenia; secondary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation; change in positive, negative and depressive symptoms; quality of life, social functioning, weight gain, antiparkinson medication use, akathisia, serum prolactin level, QTc prolongation, and sedation. Confidence in the results was assessed by the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework. We included 45 studies with 11,238 participants. In terms of overall symptoms, olanzapine was on average more efficacious than ziprasidone (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.49), asenapine (SMD=0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.45), iloperidone (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.49), paliperidone (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44), haloperidol (SMD=0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.39), quetiapine (SMD=0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.38), aripiprazole (SMD=0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.28) and risperidone (SMD=0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.21). The 95% CIs for olanzapine versus aripiprazole and risperidone included the possibility of trivial effects. The differences between olanzapine and lurasidone, amisulpride, perphenazine, clozapine and zotepine were either small or uncertain. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses and in line with other efficacy outcomes and all-cause discontinuation. Concerning weight gain, the impact of olanzapine was higher than all other antipsychotics, with a mean difference ranging from -4.58 kg (95% CI: -5.33 to -3.83) compared to ziprasidone to -2.30 kg (95% CI: -3.35 to -1.25) compared to amisulpride. Our data suggest that olanzapine is more efficacious than a number of other antipsychotic drugs in the longer term, but its efficacy must be weighed against its side effect profile., (© 2023 World Psychiatric Association.)

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma. RM received speaker/consultancy fees from Karuna, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka, and is director of a company that hosts psychotropic prescribing decision tools. TAF reports personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi and SONY, and a grant from Shionogi outside the submitted work; in addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. CM received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. EGO has received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. In the last three years SL has received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Mitshubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)