Search

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo in the primary care setting, and whether there are differences between substance classes regarding efficacy and acceptability. METHODS We conducted literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Cen- tral Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. Randomized trials in depressed adults treated by primary care physicians were included in the review. We performed both conventional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence. Main out- come measures were response and study discontinuation due to adverse effects. RESULTS A total of 66 studies with 15,161 patients met the inclusion criteria. In network meta-analysis, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibi- tor (SNRI; venlafaxine), a low-dose serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI; trazodone) and hypericum extracts were found to be significantly superior to placebo, with estimated odds ratios between 1.69 and 2.03. There were no statistically significant differences between these drug classes. Reversible inhibi - tors of monoaminoxidase A (rMAO-As) and hypericum extracts were associated with significantly fewer dropouts because of adverse effects compared with TCAs, SSRIs, the SNRI, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (NRI), and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant agents (NaSSAs). CONCLUSIONS Compared with other drugs, TCAs and SSRIs have the most solid evidence base for being effective in the primary care setting, but the effect size compared with placebo is relatively small. Further agents (hypericum, rMAO-As, SNRI, NRI, NaSSAs, SARI) showed some positive results, but limitations of the currently available evidence makes a clear recommendation on their place in clinical practice difficult.

Various aspects of statistical heterogeneity have been introduced briefly in previous chapters. We now review and develop these ideas and describe the connection between subgroup analysis and meta-regression.

In many clinical areas, there is no single, widely accepted outcome measure. For example, in rheumatoid arthritis three different outcome measures are in widespread use: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) designed for measuring the severity of inflammatory joint disorders, the Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) to assess the level of disease activity and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria. Similarly, in respiratory disease, we have (among other measures) Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF).

Background Children with congenital heart disease often undergo heart surgery at a young age. They are at risk for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) or death. Milrinone may be used to provide inotropic and vasodilatory support during the immediate postoperative period. Objectives This review examines the effectiveness of prophylactic postoperative use of milrinone to prevent LCOS or death in children having undergone surgery for congenital heart disease. Search methods Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science in February 2014 and conducted a top-up search in September 2014 as well as clinical trial registries and reference lists of published studies. We did not apply any language restrictions. Selection criteria Only randomised controlled trials were selected for analysis. We considered studies with newborn infants, infants, toddlers, and children up to 12 years of age. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data according to a pre-defined protocol. We obtained additional information from all study authors. Main results Three of the five included studies compared milrinone versus levosimendan, one study compared milrinone with placebo, and one compared milrinone verus dobutamine, with 101, 242, and 50 participants, respectively. Three trials were at low risk of bias while two were at higher risk of bias. The number and definitions of outcomes were non-uniform as well. In one study comparing two doses of milrinone and placebo, there was some evidence in an overall comparison of milrinone versus placebo that milrinone lowered risk for LCOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.96; 227 participants). The results from two small studies do not provide enough information to determine whether milrinone increases the risk of LCOS when compared to levosimendan (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.65; 59 participants). Mortality rates in the studies were low, and there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effect of milrinone compared to placebo or levosimendan or dobutamine regarding mortality, the duration of intensive care stay, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, or maximum inotrope score (where available). Numbers of patients requiring mechanical cardiac support were also low and did not allow a comparison between studies, and none of the participants of any study received a heart transplantation up to the end of the respective follow-up period. Time to death within three months was not reported in any of the included studies. A number of adverse events was examined, but differences between the treatment groups could not be proven for hypotension, intraventricular haemorrhage, hypokalaemia, bronchospasm, elevated serum levels of liver enzymes, or a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or reduced left ventricular fraction of shortening < 28%. Our analysis did not prove an increased risk of arrhythmias in patients treated prophylactically with milrinone compared with placebo (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.83 to 15.42; 238 participants), a decreased risk of pleural effusions (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.42; 231 participants), or a difference in risk of thrombocytopenia on milrinone compared with placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.88; 238 participants). Comparisons of milrinone with levosimendan or with dobutamine, respectively, did not clarify the risk of arrhythmia and were not possible for pleural effusions or thrombocytopenia. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of prophylactic milrinone in preventing death or low cardiac output syndrome in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease, compared to placebo. So far, no differences have been shown between milrinone and other inodilators, such as levosimendan or dobutamine, in the immediate postoperative period, in reducing the risk of LCOS or death. The existing data on the prophylactic use of milrinone has to be viewed cautiously due to the small number of small trials and their risk of bias.

Network meta-analysis (also known as multiple treatment comparison or mixed treatment comparison) seeks to combine information from all randomised comparisons among a set of treatments for a given medical condition. It is therefore a key tool for evidence-based medicine [24] and is currently a very active research topic [1, 21, 31, 32].

Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies differs from meta-analysis of intervention studies in a number of respects. In this chapter, we explain the issues raised by meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies and how these may be addressed. Alongside the statistical models, we present the R package mada [5] written for fitting these models and graphing the results.

In this chapter we describe the two main methods of meta-analysis, fixed effect model and random effects model, and how to perform the analysis in R. For both models the inverse variance method is introduced for estimation. The pros and cons of these methods in various contexts have been debated at length in the literature [9, 28, 29, 41], without any conclusive resolution. Here, we briefly describe each model, and how it is estimated in the R package meta [33, 34].

The world is awash with information. For any question, the briefest of internet searches will throw up a range of frequently contradictory answers. This underlies increasing awareness of the value of systematic evidence synthesis—both qualitative and quantitative—by researchers, policy makers and the broader public. It is reflected in the continuing development of the Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org/), an international collaboration devoted to undertaking, publishing and promoting systematic evidence synthesis [2].

We read the recommendations by Kiran and colleagues1 on graphical displays to present meta-analysis results with great interest. Like the authors, we think that graphics play a major role to concisely summarise meta-analysis results and to evaluate heterogeneity between studies and small-study effects. We agree with most recommendations1 and actually a forest plot (see figure 1 and online supplementary files) generated with our R package meta (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/) almost looks like a blueprint of figure 2 in ref 1. However, in …

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. We included randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced hormone-sensitive stages of prostate cancer. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias as well as quality of evidence according to the GRADE working group guidelines. We used Review Manager 5.2 for data synthesis and the fixed-effect model as primary analysis (when heterogeneity was low with I(2) < 50%); we used a random-effects model when confronted with substantial or considerable heterogeneity (when I(2) ≥50%). A total of 11 studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in the present review. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens resulted in lower overall survival times (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and greater clinical progression (1 year: risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (1 year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; 2 years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens increased the risk for treatment discontinuation as a result of adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79- 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants) and gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19-22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flushes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19-0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flushes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation resulting from adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE; therefore, further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy.

Interobserver variability in the definition of target volumes (TVs) is a well-known confounding factor in (multicentre) clinical studies employing radiotherapy. Therefore, detailed contouring guidelines are provided in the prospective randomised multicentre PET-Plan (NCT00697333) clinical trial protocol. This trial compares strictly FDG-PET-based TV delineation with conventional TV delineation in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite detailed contouring guidelines, their interpretation by different radiation oncologists can vary considerably, leading to undesirable discrepancies in TV delineation. Considering this, as part of the PET-Plan study quality assurance (QA), a contouring dummy run (DR) consisting of two phases was performed to analyse the interobserver variability before and after teaching.In the first phase of the DR (DR1), radiation oncologists from 14 study centres were asked to delineate TVs as defined by the study protocol (gross TV, GTV; and two clinical TVs, CTV-A and CTV-B) in a test patient. A teaching session was held at a study group meeting, including a discussion of the results focussing on discordances in comparison to the per-protocol solution. Subsequently, the second phase of the DR (DR2) was performed in order to evaluate the impact of teaching.Teaching after DR1 resulted in a reduction of absolute TVs in DR2, as well as in better concordance of TVs. The Overall Kappa(κ) indices increased from 0.63 to 0.71 (GTV), 0.60 to 0.65 (CTV-A) and from 0.59 to 0.63 (CTV-B), demonstrating improvements in overall interobserver agreement.Contouring DRs and study group meetings as part of QA in multicentre clinical trials help to identify misinterpretations of per-protocol TV delineation. Teaching the correct interpretation of protocol contouring guidelines leads to a reduction in interobserver variability and to more consistent contouring, which should consequently improve the validity of the overall study results.

In systematic reviews based on network meta-analysis, the network structure should be visualized. Network plots often have been drawn by hand using generic graphical software. A typical way of drawing networks, also implemented in statistical software for network meta-analysis, is a circular representation, often with many crossing lines. We use methods from graph theory in order to generate network plots in an automated way. We give a number of requirements for graph drawing and present an algorithm that fits prespecified ideal distances between the nodes representing the treatments. The method was implemented in the function netgraph of the R package netmeta and applied to a number of networks from the literature. We show that graph representations with a small number of crossing lines are often preferable to circular representations.

Background Informal carers of people with dementia can suffer from depressive symptoms, emotional distress and other physiological, social and financial consequences. Objectives This review focuses on three main objectives: To: 1) produce a quantitative review of the efficacy of telephone counselling for informal carers of people with dementia; 2) synthesize qualitative studies to explore carers’ experiences of receiving telephone counselling and counsellors’ experiences of conducting telephone counselling; and 3) integrate 1) and 2) to identify aspects of the intervention that are valued and work well, and those interventional components that should be improved or redesigned. Search methods The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, Web of Science, DIMDI databases, Springer database, Science direct and trial registers were searched on 3 May 2011 and updated on 25 February 2013. A Forward Citation search was conducted for included studies in Web of Science and Google Scholar. We used the Related Articles service of PubMed for included studies, contacted experts and hand-searched abstracts of five congresses. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over trials that compared telephone counselling for informal carers of people with dementia against no treatment, usual care or friendly calls for chatting were included evaluation of efficacy. Qualitative studies with qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were also included to address experiences with telephone counselling. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quantitative trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the qualitative studies with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. The authors conducted meta-analyses, but reported some results in narrative form due to clinical heterogeneity. The authors synthesised the qualitative data and integrated quantitative RCT data with the qualitative data. Main results Nine RCTs and two qualitative studies were included. Six studies investigated telephone counselling without additional intervention, one study combined telephone counselling with video sessions, and two studies combined it with video sessions and a workbook. All quantitative studies had a high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and outcome assessment. Most studies provided no information about random sequence generation and allocation concealment. The quality of the qualitative studies ('thin descriptions') was assessed as moderate. Meta-analyses indicated a reduction of depressive symptoms for telephone counselling without additional intervention (three trials, 163 participants: standardised mean different (SMD) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.63, P value 0.04; moderate quality evidence). The estimated effects on other outcomes (burden, distress, anxiety, quality of life, self-efficacy, satisfaction and social support) were uncertain and differences could not be excluded (burden: four trials, 165 participants: SMD 0.45, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.90, P value 0.05; moderate quality evidence; support: two trials, 67 participants: SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.73, P value 0.32; low quality evidence). None of the quantitative studies included reported adverse effects or harm due to telephone counselling. Three analytical themes (barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of telephone counselling, counsellor's emotional attitude and content of telephone counselling) and 16 descriptive themes that present the carers’ needs for telephone counselling were identified in the thematic synthesis. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data shows potential for improvement. For example, no RCT reported that the counsellor provided 24-hour availability or that there was debriefing of the counsellor. Also, the qualitative studies covered a limited range of ways of performing telephone counselling. Authors' conclusions There is evidence that telephone counselling can reduce depressive symptoms for carers of people with dementia and that telephone counselling meets important needs of the carer. This result needs to be confirmed in future studies that evaluate efficacy through robust RCTs and the experience aspect through qualitative studies with rich data.

Background Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues. Objectives To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone–releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer. Data collection and analysis One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity. Main results Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear. Authors' conclusions Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.

Background Neuroborreliosis is a tick-borne infectious disease of the nervous system caused by Borrelia burgdorferi. Common clinical manifestations of neuroborreliosis are cranial nerve dysfunctions, polyradiculoneuritis, and meningitis. Diagnosis is usually based on clinical presentation, serologic testing, and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid. Many aspects of pharmacological treatment, such as choice of drug, dosage, and duration are subject of intense debate, leading to uncertainties in patients and healthcare providers alike. To approach the questions regarding pharmacological treatment of neuroborreliosis, we will perform a systematic review. Methods We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search for potentially eligible studies that report outcomes after pharmacological interventions. To adequately consider the wealth of research that has been conducted so far, this review will evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies on treatment of neuroborreliosis. We will assess potential risk of bias for each RCT meeting our selection criteria using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. For non-randomized studies, we will use the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the recently piloted Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies. Our primary outcome of interest will be neurological symptoms and the secondary outcomes will be disability, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, and, if reported separately from other neurological symptoms, pain, fatigue, depression, cognition, and sleep), adverse events, and cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis. Pooling of data and meta-analysis will only be deemed justified between studies with similar design (e.g., RCTs are only combined with other RCTs), characteristics (e.g., similar populations), and of acceptable heterogeneity (I2

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The integration of positron emission tomography (PET) information for target volume delineation in radiation treatment planning is routine in many centers. In contrast to automatic contouring, research on visual-manual delineation is scarce. The present study investigates the dependency of manual delineation on experience and qualification.PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 44 international interdisciplinary observers each defined a [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET based gross tumor volume (GTV) using the same PET/CT scan from a patient with lung cancer. The observers were "experts" (E; n = 3), "experienced interdisciplinary pairs" (EP; 9 teams of radiation oncologist (RO) + nuclear medicine physician (NP)), "single field specialists" (SFS; n = 13), and "students" (S; n = 10). Five automatic delineation methods (AM) were also included. Volume sizes and concordance indices within the groups (pCI) and relative to the experts (eCI) were calculated.RESULTS: E (pCI = 0.67) and EP (pCI = 0.53) showed a significantly higher agreement within the groups as compared to SFS (pCI = 0.43, p = 0.03, and p = 0.006). In relation to the experts, EP (eCI = 0.55) showed better concordance compared to SFS (eCI = 0.49) or S (eCI = 0.47). The intermethod variability of the AM (pCI = 0.44) was similar to that of SFS and S, showing poorer agreement with the experts (eCI = 0.35).CONCLUSION: The results suggest that interdisciplinary cooperation could be beneficial for consistent contouring. Joint delineation by a radiation oncologist and a nuclear medicine physician showed remarkable agreement and better concordance with the experts compared to other specialists. The relevant intermethod variability of the automatic algorithms underlines the need for further standardization and optimization in this field.

Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders, that occurs in about 2.2 per 1000 births worldwide. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood cell transfusions or are on long-term transfusion programmes for e.g. secondary stroke prevention. Iron chelation therapy can prevent long-term complications. Deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, questions exist about the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with SCD and secondary iron overload. Search methods We searched the Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: date of most recent search:13 March 2014. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE, EBMR and The Cochrane Library, respectively; date of most recent searches: 02 August 2013. We searched four trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/; www.drks.de; date of most recent searches: 03 June 2013. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the corresponding study authors for additional information. Main results Two studies (with 203 and 212 people) comparing the efficacy and safety of deferasirox and deferoxamine after 12 months and 24 weeks, respectively, were included. The overall quality, according to GRADE, for the main outcomes was moderate to low. Only limited data were available on mortality and end-organ damage, although one study did assess mortality, relative risk 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 30.41), the 24-week follow up was too short to allow us to draw firm conclusions. One study reported a relative risk of 1.26 for the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 30.41). Serum ferritin reduction was significantly greater with deferoxamine, mean difference of change of 440.69 µg/l (95% confidence interval 11.73 to 869.64). Liver iron concentration (reported in one study) measured by superconduction quantum interference device showed no significant difference for the overall group of patients adjusted for transfusion category, mean difference -0.20 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% confidence interval -3.15 to 2.75). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between drugs. Nausea, diarrhoea and rash occurred significantly more often in people treated with deferasirox, while adverse events of any kind were more often reported for patients treated with deferoxamine (one study). The mean increase of creatinine was also significantly higher with deferasirox, mean difference 3.24 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 6.03). Long-term adverse events could not be measured in the included studies (follow up 52 weeks and 24 weeks). Patient satisfaction and the likelihood of continuing treatment, were significantly better with deferasirox. Authors' conclusions Deferasirox appears to be of similar efficacy to deferoxamine depending on depending on the appropriate ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. However, only limited evidence is available assessing the efficacy regarding patient-important outcomes. The short-term safety of deferasirox seems to be acceptable, however, follow up in the available studies was too short to assess long-term side effects. Long-term safety and efficacy data are available from a non-controlled extension phase not included in our review; however, no valid comparative conclusions can be drawn and future studies should assess comparatively long-term outcomes both for safety and efficacy.

When right ventricular (RV) afterload is abnormally increased, it correlates inversely with right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF). We tested, whether this would be different with normal afterload. Additionally, we investigated whether previous studies on the slope of RV preload recruitable stroke work (SW) relation, which used rather non-physiological measures to change RV preload, could be transferred to more physiological loading conditions. RV volumes were determined by thermodilution in 16 patients with stable coronary artery disease and normal pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) at rest. Pre- and afterload were varied by body posture, nitroglycerin (NTG) application and by exercise at different body positions. At rest, the change from recumbent to sitting position decreased PAP, cardiac index (Ci), RV diastolic and systolic volumes, and RVEF. Additionally, mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) correlated positively with both RVEF and cardiac index. After correction for mathematical coupling, the RV preload recruitable SW relation was: right ventricular stroke work index (RVSWi) (103 erg m-2)= 8.1 x (RV end-diastolic volume index -4.9), with n=96, r=0.57, P< or =0.001. Exercise abolished this correlation and led to an inverse correlation between RV end-systolic volume (ESV) and RVSW. In conclusion, (i) RVEF correlates positively with RV afterload when afterload varies within normal range; (ii) the slope of the RV preload recruitable SW relation, which is obtained at steady state under normal loading conditions, is substantially flatter than previously described for dynamic changes of RV preload. With increasing afterload, preload loses its determining effect on RV performance, while afterload becomes more important. This puts earlier assumptions of an afterload independent RV preload recruitable SW relation into question.

Background The myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) comprises a diverse group of haematopoietic stem cell disorders. Due to symptomatic anaemia, most people with MDS require supportive therapy including repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. In combination with increased iron absorption, this contributes to the accumulation of iron resulting in secondary iron overload and the risk of organ dysfunction and reduced life expectancy. Since the human body has no natural means of removing excess iron, iron chelation therapy, i.e. the pharmacological treatment of iron overload, is usually recommended. However, it is unclear whether or not the newer oral chelator deferasirox leads to relevant benefit. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Search methods We searched the following databases up to 03 April 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File and four trial registries: Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), ICTRP (www.who.int./ictrp/en/), and German Clinical Trial Register (www.drks.de). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deferasirox with no therapy, placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment schedule. Data collection and analysis We did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in this review. Main results No trials met our inclusion criteria. However, we identified three ongoing and one completed trial (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail to permit us to decide on inclusion) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment. Authors' conclusions We planned to report evidence from RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of deferasirox compared to either placebo, no treatment or other chelating regimens, such as deferoxamine, in people with MDS. However, we did not identify any completed RCTs addressing this question. We found three ongoing and one completed RCT (published as an abstract only and in insufficient detail) comparing deferasirox with deferoxamine, placebo or no treatment and data will hopefully be available soon. These results will be important to inform physicians and patients on the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment option.

Background Pelargonium sidoides (P. sidoides), also known as Umckaloabo, is a herbal remedy thought to be effective in the treatment of acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of P. sidoides for the treatment of ARIs in children and adults. Search methods In April 2013 we searched MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid, The Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, CINAHL, CCMed, XToxline, Global Health, AMED, Derwent Drug File and Backfile, IPA, ISTPB + ISTP/ISSHP, EMBASE, Cambase, LILACS, PubMed component “Supplied by Publisher”, TRIPdatabase, the publisher databases: Deutsches Arzteblatt, Thieme, Springer, ScienceDirect from Elsevier. We conducted a cited reference search (forward) in Web of Science of relevant papers for inclusion. In addition we searched the study registries ClinicalTrials.gov, Deutsches Register klinischer Studien DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) – WHO ICTRP, Current Controlled Trials and EU Clinical Trials Register. Selection criteria Double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of P. sidoides preparations in ARIs compared to placebo or any other treatment. Complete resolution of all symptoms was defined as the primary outcome; in addition, we examined resolution of predefined key symptoms. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors (AT, JG, WK) independently extracted and quality scored the data. We performed separate analyses by age group and disease entity. Subanalysis considered type of preparation (liquid, tablets). We examined heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) using a fixed-effect model if heterogeneity was absent (I2 0.1), or a random-effects model in the presence of heterogeneity. If heterogeneity was substantial (I2 > 50%; P < 0.10), a pooled effect was not calculated. Main results Of 10 eligible studies eight were included in the analyses; two were of insufficient quality. Three trials (746 patients, low quality of evidence) of efficacy in acute bronchitis in adults showed effectiveness for most outcomes in the liquid preparation but not for tablets. Three other trials (819 children, low quality of evidence) showed similar results for acute bronchitis in children. For both meta-analyses, we did not pool subtotals due to relevant heterogeneity induced by type of preparation. One study in patients with sinusitis (n = 103 adults, very low quality of evidence) showed significant treatment effects (complete resolution at day 21; RR 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.62). One study in the common cold demonstrated efficacy after 10 days, but not five days (very low quality of evidence). We rated the study quality as moderate for all studies (unvalidated outcome assessment, minor attrition problems, investigator-initiated trials only). Based on the funnel plot there was suspicion of publication bias. There were no valid data for the treatment of other acute respiratory tract infections. Adverse events were more common with P. sidoides, but none were serious. Authors' conclusions P. sidoides may be effective in alleviating symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis and the common cold in adults, but doubt exists. It may be effective in relieving symptoms in acute bronchitis in adults and children, and sinusitis in adults. The overall quality of the evidence was considered low for main outcomes in acute bronchitis in children and adults, and very low for acute sinusitis and the common cold. Reliable data on treatment for other ARIs were not identified.

Network meta-analysis is a statistical method combining information from randomised trials that compare two or more treatments for a given medical condition. Consistent treatment effects are estimated for all possible treatment comparisons. For estimation, weighted least squares regression that in a natural way generalises standard pairwise meta-analysis can be used. Typically, as part of the network, multi-arm studies are found. In a multi-arm study, observed pairwise comparisons are correlated, which must be accounted for. To this aim, two methods have been proposed, a standard regression approach and a new approach coming from graph theory and based on contrast-based data (Rucker 2012). In the standard approach, the dimension of the design matrix is appropriately reduced until it is invertible ('reduce dimension'). In the alternative approach, the weights of comparisons coming from multi-arm studies are appropriately reduced ('reduce weights'). As it was unclear, to date, how these approaches are related to each other, we give a mathematical proof that both approaches lead to identical estimates. The 'reduce weights' approach can be interpreted as the construction of a network of independent two-arm studies, which is basically equivalent to the given network with multi-arm studies. Thus, a simple random-effects model is obtained, with one additional parameter for a common heterogeneity variance. This is applied to a systematic review in depression.

For some patients with recurrent, unresectable, and previously irradiated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), reirradiation (re-RT) may be a curative option. Chemotherapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition is established as palliative management. This retrospective single-institutional study investigates feasibility, toxicity, and outcome of reirradiation (re-RT) combined with EGFR blockade for these patients. Between June 2008 and June 2012, 23 patients with inoperable and previously irradiated HNSCC were reirradiated. Concomitant EGFR blockade (cetuximab) was given initially at 400 mg/m2 two days prior to re-RT and weekly (250 mg/m2) thereafter. PET/CT imaging was fused with planning CT in 8 patients. One patient died of anaphylactic shock during the first cetuximab administration; two discontinued treatment on their own request. In all, 20 patients completed re-RT (50.4–66.6 Gy) and received cetuximab as prescribed. Grade 3 acute side effects were documented for dermatitis (35 %), dysphagia (30 %), acneiform rash (30 %), and mucositis (15 %). The 1-year overall survival rate was 34.8 %. Median overall and progression-free survival times were 9 and 4.3 months, respectively. A multivariable analysis using the Cox regression model showed significant positive impact of acneiform rash (hazard ratio [HR] 0.1531, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.0383–0.6111), while a period from first radiation to re-RT longer than 120 months negatively (HR 0.1633, 95 % CI 0.0305–0.8734) influenced patient survival. re-RT with concurrent cetuximab was feasible. Compared to platinum-based chemotherapy with fluorouracil and cetuximab, this therapeutic approach did not demonstrate survival benefit. Prolonged intervals from first treatment to re-RT seem to be unfavorable.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of respiratory viruses and to prospectively evaluate the performance of the fast-track diagnostics (FTD) respiratory pathogens multiplex PCR assay shortly after the 2009/10 influenza pandemic. Highly sensitive monoplex real-time PCR assays served as references. Discrepant results were further analyzed by the xTAG RVP Fast assay. A total of 369 respiratory samples from children and adults were collected prospectively in Germany from December 2009 until June 2010. The sensitivity and specificity of the FTD assay after resolution of discrepant results was 92.2 % and 99.5 %, respectively. Lowest specificity of the FTD assay was observed for human bocavirus. Multiple detections were recorded in 33/369 (8.9 %) of the samples by monoplex PCR and in 43/369 (11.7 %) using the FTD assay. The most prevalent viruses were respiratory syncytial virus and human metapneumovirus. Only pandemic influenza virus A/H1N1 (2009), and not seasonal influenza virus, was detected. Viruses other than influenza virus accounted for the majority of acute respiratory infections. The FTD assay can be easily implemented in general diagnostic laboratories and facilitate the optimization of patient-management schemes.

Background There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal timing for androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer that have undergone local therapy with curative intent but are proven to have node-positive disease without signs of distant metastases at the time of local therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the benefits and harms of early (at the time of local therapy) versus deferred (at the time of clinical disease progression) androgen suppression therapy for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy. Methods The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42011001221; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, as well as reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences, and three trial registers, to identify randomized controlled trials (search update 04/08/2012). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Results Four studies including 398 patients were identified for inclusion. Early androgen suppression therapy lead to a significant decrease in overall mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64), and clinical progression at 3 or 9 years (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52 at 3 years and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.67 at 9 years). One study showed an increase of adverse effects with early androgen suppression therapy. All trials had substantial methodological limitations. Conclusions The data available suggest an improvement in survival and delayed disease progression but increased adverse events for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy treated with early androgen suppression therapy versus deferred androgen suppression therapy. However, quality of data is low. Randomized controlled trials with blinding of outcome assessment, planned to determine the timing of androgen suppression therapy in node-positive prostate cancer using modern diagnostic imaging modalities, biochemical testing, and standardized follow-up schedules should be conducted to confirm these findings.

SummaryBackground: In medical imaging used for planning of radiation therapy, observers delineate contours of a treatment volume in a series of images of uniform slice thickness.Objective: To summarize agreement in contouring between an arbitrary number of observers by a single number, we generalized the kappa index proposed by Zijdenbos et al. (1994).Methods: Observers characterized voxels by allocating them to one of two categories, inside or outside the contoured region. Fleiss’ kappa was used to measure association between n indistinguishable observers. Given the number Vi of voxels contoured by exactly i observers (i = 1, …, n), the resulting overall kappa is representable as a ratio of weighted sums of the Vi .Results: Overall kappa was applied to analyze inter-center variations in a multicenter trial on radiotherapy planning in patients with locally advanced lung cancer. A contouring dummy run was performed within the quality assurance program. Contouring was done twice, once before and once after a training program. Observer agreement was enhanced from 0.59 (with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.51 – 0.67) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 – 0.78)Conclusion: By contrast to average pairwise indices, overall kappa measures observer agreement for more than two observers using the full information about overlapping volumes, while not distinguishing between observers. It is particularly adequate for measuring observer agreement when identification of observers is not possible or desirable and when there is no gold standard.

Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Background Several systematic reviews have summarized the evidence for specific treatments of primary care patients suffering from depression. However, it is not possible to answer the question how the available treatment options compare with each other as review methods differ. We aim to systematically review and compare the available evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological, and combined treatments for patients with depressive disorders in primary care. Methods/Design To be included, studies have to be randomized trials comparing antidepressant medication (tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), hypericum extracts, other agents) and/or psychological therapies (e.g. interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioural therapy, short dynamically-oriented psychotherapy) with another active therapy, placebo or sham intervention, routine care or no treatment in primary care patients in the acute phase of a depressive episode. Main outcome measure is response after completion of acute phase treatment. Eligible studies will be identified from available systematic reviews, from searches in electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Central), trial registers, and citation tracking. Two reviewers will independently extract study data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's corresponding tool. Meta-analyses (random effects model, inverse variance weighting) will be performed for direct comparisons of single interventions and for groups of similar interventions (e.g. SSRIs vs. tricyclics) and defined time-windows (up to 3 months and above). If possible, a global analysis of the relative effectiveness of treatments will be estimated from all available direct and indirect evidence that is present in a network of treatments and comparisons. Discussion Practitioners do not only want to know whether there is evidence that a specific treatment is more effective than placebo, but also how the treatment options compare to each other. Therefore, we believe that a multiple treatment systematic review of primary-care based randomized controlled trials on the most important therapies against depression is timely.

Funnel plots, and tests for funnel plot asymmetry, have been widely used to examine bias in the results of meta-analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry should not be equated with publication bias, because it has a number of other possible causes. This article describes how to interpret funnel plot asymmetry, recommends appropriate tests, and explains the implications for choice of meta-analysis model

Background The effect of psychological interventions in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of psychological interventions (psychotherapy, patient education, relaxation techniques) on health related quality of life, coping, emotional state and disease activity in IBD. Search methods We searched the specialized register of the IBD/FBD Group, CENTRAL (Issue 5, 2010) and from inception to April 2010: Medline, Embase, LILACS, Psyndex, CINAHL, PsyInfo, CCMed, SOMED and Social SciSearch. Conference abstracts and reference lists were also checked. Selection criteria Randomized, quasi-randomized and non randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions in children or adults with IBD with a minimum follow up time of 2 months. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted and study quality was independently assessed by two raters. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Main results Twenty-one studies were eligible for inclusion (1745 participants; 19 in adults, 2 in adolescents). Most studies used multimodular approaches. The risk of bias was high for all studies. In adults, psychotherapy had no effect on quality of life at around 12 months (3 studies, 235 patients, SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19), emotional status (depression, 4 studies, 266 patients, SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.27) or proportion of patients not in remission (5 studies, 287 patients, OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.48). Results were similar at 3 to 8 months. There was no evidence for statistical heterogeneity or subgroup effects based on type of disease or intensity of the therapy. In adolescents, there were positive short term effects of psychotherapy on most outcomes assessed including quality of life (2 studies, 71 patients, SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.18) and depression (1 study, 41 patients, SMD -0.62; 95% CI -1.25 to 0.01). Educational interventions had no effect on quality of life at 12 months (5 studies, 947 patients, SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.24), depression (3 studies, 378 patients, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.12) and proportion of patients not in remission (3 studies, 434 patients, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.53). No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. Authors' conclusions There is no evidence for efficacy of psychological therapy in adult patients with IBD in general. In adolescents, psychological interventions may be beneficial, but the evidence is limited. Further evidence is needed to assess the efficacy of these therapies in subgroups identified as being in need of psychological interventions, and to identify what type of therapy may be most useful.

Established approaches for analyzing meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy model the bivariate distribution of the observed pairs of specificity Sp and sensitivity Se, thus accounting for across-study correlation. However, it is still a matter of debate how to define a summary ROC (SROC) curve. It was recently pointed out that the SROC curve is in principle unidentifiable if only one (Sp, Se) pair per study is known. We evaluate an alternative approach, modeling the study-specific ROC curves based on the assumption of linearity in logit space. A setting is considered in which the pair (Sp, Se) that is selected for publication in a particular study maximizes a weighted Youden index λSe+(1-λ)Sp with a given weight λ.This leads to a fixed slope (1-λ)/λ of the ROC curve in (1-Sp, Se), equivalent to a slope of (1-λ)Sp(1-Sp)/(λSe(1-Se)) for the corresponding straight line in logit space. While the slope depends on the variance ratio of the underlying distributions, the intercept is a function of the mean difference. Our approach leads in a natural way to a new, model-based proposal for a summary ROC curve. It is illustrated using an example from the literature.

Evidence synthesis, both qualitatively and quantitatively through meta-analysis, is central to the development of evidence-based medicine. Unfortunately, meta-analysis is often complicated by the suspicion that the available studies represent a biased subset of the evidence, possibly due to publication bias or other systematically different effects in small studies. A number of statistical methods have been proposed to address this, among which the trim-and-fill method and the Copas selection model are two of the most widely discussed. However, both methods have drawbacks: the trim-and-fill method is based on strong assumptions about the symmetry of the funnel plot; the Copas selection model is less accessible to systematic reviewers, and sometimes encounters estimation problems. In this article, we adopt a logistic selection model, and show how treatment effects can be rapidly estimated via multiple imputation. Specifically, we impute studies under a missing at random assumption, and then reweight to obtain estimates under nonrandom selection. Our proposal is computationally straightforward. It allows users to increase selection while monitoring the extent of remaining funnel plot asymmetry, and also visualize the results using the funnel plot. We illustrate our approach using a small meta-analysis of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Publication bias in meta-analysis occurs if the probability of publication depends on the estimated treatment effect and the precision/size of a study. In this article we describe the funnel plot as a graphical method to evaluate the presence of publication bias. Furthermore, tests of publication bias based on funnel plots are explained, and methods are presented that estimate treatment effects adjusted for publication bias. The article closes with a critical discussion of the various statistical methods.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. Increasingly, some people with SCD develop secondary iron overload due to occasional red blood cell transfusions or are on long-term transfusion programmes for e.g. secondary stroke prevention. Iron chelation therapy can prevent long-term complications.Deferoxamine and deferiprone have been found to be efficacious. However, questions exist about the effectiveness and safety of the new oral chelator deferasirox.To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with SCD and secondary iron overload.We searched the Cystic FibrosisGenetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register (06 April 2010).We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBMR, Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Derwent Drug File, XTOXLINE and three trial registries: www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov; www.who.int./ictrp/en/. Most recent searches: 22 June 2009.Randomised controlled trials comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron chelating treatment schedule.Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted the study author for additional information.One study (203 people) was included comparing the efficacy and safety of deferasirox and deferoxamine after 12 months. Data were not available on mortality or end-organ damage. Using a pre-specified dosing algorithm serum ferritin reduction was similar in both groups, mean difference (MD) 375.00 microg/l in favour of deferoxamine; (95% confidence interval (CI) -106.08 to 856.08). Liver iron concentration measured by superconduction quantum interference device showed no difference for the overall group of patients adjusted for transfusion category, MD -0.20 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -3.15 to 2.75).Mild stable increases in creatine were observed more often in people treated with deferasirox, risk ratio 1.64 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.74). Abdominal pain and diarrhoea occurred significantly more often in people treated with deferasirox. Rare adverse events (less than 5% increase) were not reported; long-term adverse events could not be measured in the included study (follow-up 52 weeks). Patient satisfaction with, and convenience of treatment were significantly better with deferasirox.Deferasirox appears to be as effective as deferoxamine. However, only limited evidence is available assessing the efficacy regarding patient-important outcomes. The short-term safety of deferasirox seems to be acceptable, however, follow-up was too short to exclude long-term side effects and thus treatment with deferasirox cannot be judged completely safe. Future studies should assess long-term outcomes for safety and efficacy, and also evaluate rarer adverse effects.

Publication bias and related types of small-study effects threaten the validity of systematic reviews. The existence of small-study effects has been demonstrated in empirical studies. Small-study effects are graphically diagnosed by inspection of the funnel plot. Though observed funnel plot asymmetry cannot be easily linked to a specific reason, tests based on funnel plot asymmetry have been proposed. Beyond a vast range of funnel plot tests, there exist several methods for adjusting treatment effect estimates for these biases. In this article, we consider the trim-and-fill method, the Copas selection model, and more recent regression-based approaches. The methods are exemplified using a meta-analysis from the literature and compared in a simulation study, based on binary response data. They are also applied to a large set of meta-analyses. Some fundamental differences between the approaches are discussed. An assumption common to the trim-and-fill method and the Copas selection model is that the small-study effect is caused by selection. The trim-and-fill method corresponds to an unknown implicit model generated by the symmetry assumption, whereas the Copas selection model is a parametric statistical model. However, it requires a sensitivity analysis. Regression-based approaches are easier to implement and not based on a specific selection model. Both simulations and applications suggest that in the presence of strong selection both the trim-and-fill method and the Copas selection model may not fully eliminate bias, while regression-based approaches seem to be a promising alternative.

Background Drugs are widely used in borderline personality disorder (BPD) treatment, chosen because of properties known from other psychiatric disorders ("off-label use"), mostly targeting affective or impulsive symptom clusters. Objectives To assess the effects of drug treatment in BPD patients. Search methods We searched bibliographic databases according to the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group strategy up to September 2009, reference lists of articles, and contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria Randomised studies comparing drug versus placebo, or drug versus drug(s) in BPD patients. Outcomes included total BPD severity, distinct BPD symptom facets according to DSM-IV criteria, associated psychopathology not specific to BPD, attrition and adverse effects. Data collection and analysis Two authors selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data, independently. Main results Twenty-eight trials involving a total of 1742 trial participants were included. First-generation antipsychotics (flupenthixol decanoate, haloperidol, thiothixene); second-generation antipsychotics (aripirazole, olanzapine, ziprasidone), mood stabilisers (carbamazepine, valproate semisodium, lamotrigine, topiramate), antidepressants (amitriptyline, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, phenelzine sulfate, mianserin), and dietary supplementation (omega-3 fatty acid) were tested. First-generation antipsychotics were subject to older trials, whereas recent studies focussed on second-generation antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Data were sparse for individual comparisons, indicating marginal effects for first-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants. The findings were suggestive in supporting the use of second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and omega-3 fatty acids, but require replication, since most effect estimates were based on single studies. The long-term use of these drugs has not been assessed. Adverse event data were scarce, except for olanzapine. There was a possible increase in self-harming behaviour, significant weight gain, sedation and changes in haemogram parameters with olanzapine. A significant decrease in body weight was observed with topiramate treatment. All drugs were well tolerated in terms of attrition. Direct drug comparisons comprised two first-generation antipsychotics (loxapine versus chlorpromazine), first-generation antipsychotic against antidepressant (haloperidol versus amitriptyline; haloperidol versus phenelzine sulfate), and second-generation antipsychotic against antidepressant (olanzapine versus fluoxetine). Data indicated better outcomes for phenelzine sulfate but no significant differences in the other comparisons, except olanzapine which showed more weight gain and sedation than fluoxetine. The only trial testing single versus combined drug treatment (olanzapine versus olanzapine plus fluoxetine; fluoxetine versus fluoxetine plus olanzapine) yielded no significant differences in outcomes. Authors' conclusions The available evidence indicates some beneficial effects with second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and dietary supplementation by omega-3 fatty acids. However, these are mostly based on single study effect estimates. Antidepressants are not widely supported for BPD treatment, but may be helpful in the presence of comorbid conditions. Total BPD severity was not significantly influenced by any drug. No promising results are available for the core BPD symptoms of chronic feelings of emptiness, identity disturbance and abandonment. Conclusions have to be drawn carefully in the light of several limitations of the RCT evidence that constrain applicability to everyday clinical settings (among others, patients' characteristics and duration of interventions and observation periods).

BackgroundMany patients with borderline personality disorder receive pharmacological treatment, but there is uncertainty about the usefulness of such therapies.AimsTo evaluate the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating different facets of the psychopathology of borderline personality disorder.MethodA Cochrane Collaboration systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised comparisons of drug v. placebo, drug v. drug, or single drug v. combined drug treatment in adult patients with borderline personality disorder was conducted. Primary outcomes were overall disorder severity as well as specific core symptoms. Secondary outcomes comprised associated psychiatric pathology and drug tolerability.ResultsTwenty-seven trials were included in which first- and second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, antidepressants and omega-3 fatty acids were tested. Most beneficial effects were found for the mood stabilisers topiramate, lamotrigine and valproate semisodium, and the second-generation antipsychotics aripiprazole and olanzapine. However, the robustness of findings is low, since they are based mostly on single, small studies. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors so far lack high-level evidence of effectiveness.ConclusionsThe current evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that drug treatment, especially with mood stabilisers and second-generation antipsychotics, may be effective for treating a number of core symptoms and associated psychopathology, but the evidence does not currently support effectiveness for overall severity of borderline personality disorder. Pharmacotherapy should therefore be targeted at specific symptoms.

Background Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications. Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload. Search methods We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016. We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015. Selection criteria Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups. The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted. Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence). For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed. One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.