Search

Abstract Background Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis. Methods We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision. Results We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%). Conclusions The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42021273811

Abstract Background Insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is a first-line treatment of acute hydrocephalus caused by aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). Once the patient is clinically stable, the EVD is either removed or replaced by a permanent internal shunt. The optimal strategy for cessation of the EVD is unknown. Prompt closure carries a risk of acute hydrocephalus or redundant shunt implantations, whereas gradual weaning may increase the risk of EVD-related infections. Methods DRAIN (Danish RAndomised Trial of External Ventricular Drainage Cessation IN Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Haemorrhage) is an international multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing prompt closure versus gradual weaning of the EVD after aSAH. The primary outcome is a composite of VP-shunt implantation, all-cause mortality, or EVD-related infection. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events excluding mortality and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Exploratory outcomes are modified Rankin Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, and length of stay in the neurointensive care unit and hospital. Outcome assessment will be performed 6 months after ictus. Based on the sample size calculation (event proportion 80% in the gradual weaning group, relative risk reduction 20%, alpha 5%, power 80%), 122 participants are required in each intervention group. Outcome assessment for the primary outcome, statistical analyses, and conclusion drawing will be blinded. Two independent statistical analyses and reports will be tracked using a version control system, and both will be published. Based on the final statistical report, the blinded steering group will formulate two abstracts. Conclusion We present a pre-defined statistical analysis plan for the randomised DRAIN trial, which limits bias, p-hacking, and data-driven interpretations. This statistical analysis plan is accompanied by tables with simulated data, which increases transparency and reproducibility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03948256. Registered on May 13, 2019.

Abstract Background To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. Methods From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. Results We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I 2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I 2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I 2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I 2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I 2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. Conclusions With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Objective To assess the benefits and harms of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease.Design Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and other sources, from inception to 9 May 2023.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials of deep brain stimulation with antiparkinsonian drug treatment use versus antiparkinsonian drugs only (primary comparison, seven trials) for Parkinson’s disease. Other comparisons were deep brain stimulation versus surgery with sham stimulation (three trials) and versus resective surgery (two trials).Results Primary outcomes were all cause mortality, serious adverse events, and disease specific symptoms. In seven trials, 1125 participants were randomised to receive deep brain stimulation with antiparkinsonian drugs versus antiparkinsonian drugs only. All results had a high risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was very low for all primary outcomes. Information size was insufficient for assessing all cause mortality (risk ratio 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 9.24; I2=0.0%; τ2=0.00; P=0.12; four trials). Meta-analysis showed that deep brain stimulation increased the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.09; I2=73.7%; τ2=0.24; P

Background Improved Pregnancy Outcomes via Early Detection (IMPROvED) is a multi-centre, European phase IIa clinical study. The primary aim of IMPROvED is to enable the assessment and refinement of innovative prototype preeclampsia risk assessment tests based on emerging biomarker technologies. Here we describe IMPROvED’s profile and invite researchers to collaborate. Methods A total of 4,038 low-risk nulliparous singleton pregnancies were recruited from maternity units in Ireland (N=1,501), United Kingdom (N=1,108), The Netherlands (N=810), and Sweden (N=619) between November 2013 to August 2017. Participants were interviewed by a research midwife at ~11 weeks (optional visit), ~15 weeks, ~20 weeks, ~34 weeks’ gestation (optional visit), and postpartum (within 72-hours following delivery). Findings to date Clinical data included information on maternal sociodemographic, medical history, and lifestyle factors collected at ~15 weeks’ gestation, and maternal measurements, collected at each study visit. Biobank samples included blood, urine, and hair collected at each study visit throughout pregnancy in all units plus umbilical cord/blood samples collected at birth in Ireland and Sweden. A total of 74.0% (N=2,922) had an uncomplicated pregnancy, 3.1% (N=122) developed preeclampsia, 3.6% (N=143) had a spontaneous preterm birth, and 10.5% (N=416) had a small for gestational age baby. We evaluated a panel of metabolite biomarkers and a panel of protein biomarkers at 15 weeks and 20 weeks’ gestation for preeclampsia risk assessment. Their translation into tests with clinical application, as conducted by commercial entities, was hampered by technical issues and changes in test requirements. Work on the panel of proteins was abandoned, while work on the use of metabolite biomarkers for preeclampsia risk assessment is ongoing. Future plans In accordance with the original goals of the IMPROvED study, the data and biobank are now available for international collaboration to conduct high quality research into the cause and prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Introduction Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups.Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.Ethics and dissemination This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42024499511.

Question Tricyclic antidepressants are used to treat depression worldwide, but the adverse effects have not been systematically assessed. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of all tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder.Study selection and analysis We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing tricyclic antidepressants versus placebo or ‘active placebo’ for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were depressive symptoms measured on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), serious adverse events and quality of life. The minimal important difference was defined as three points on the HDRS-17.Findings We included 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low or low. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo (mean difference −3.77 HDRS-17 points; 95% CI −5.91 to −1.63; 17 trials). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo on serious adverse events (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.55; 35 trials), but the required information size was not reached. Only 2 out of 103 trials reported on quality of life and t-tests showed no evidence of a difference.Conclusions The long-term effects of tricyclic antidepressants and the effects on quality of life are unknown. Short-term results suggest that tricyclic antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms while also increasing the risks of serious adverse events, but these results were based on low and very low certainty evidence.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021226161.

Objectives This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age.Methods We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I²=24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I²=24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I²=66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined.Conclusions Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018104347.

Abstract Background Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial—SafeBoosC III—evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants. Methods The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as ‘posteriors’ and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol. Discussion This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Abstract Background The SafeBoosC project aims to test the clinical value of non-invasive cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in newborn infants. The purpose is to establish whether cerebral oximetry can be used to save newborn infants’ lives and brains or not. Newborns contribute heavily to total childhood mortality and neonatal brain damage is the cause of a large part of handicaps such as cerebral palsy. The objective of the SafeBoosC-IIIv trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. Methods/design SafeBoosC-IIIv is an investigator-initiated, multinational, randomised, pragmatic phase-III clinical trial. The inclusion criteria will be newborns with a gestational age more than 28 + 0 weeks, postnatal age less than 28 days, predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 24 h, and prior informed consent from the parents or deferred consent or absence of opt-out. The exclusion criteria will be no available cerebral oximeter, suspicion of or confirmed brain injury or disorder, or congenital heart disease likely to require surgery. A total of 3000 participants will be randomised in 60 neonatal intensive care units from 16 countries, in a 1:1 allocation ratio to cerebral oximetry versus usual care. Participants in the cerebral oximetry group will undergo cerebral oximetry monitoring during mechanical ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit for as long as deemed useful by the treating physician or until 28 days of life. The participants in the cerebral oximetry group will be treated according to the SafeBoosC treatment guideline. Participants in the usual care group will not receive cerebral oximetry and will receive usual care. We use two co-primary outcomes: (1) a composite of death from any cause or moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 2 years of corrected age and (2) the non-verbal cognitive score of the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) at 2 years of corrected age. Discussion There is need for a randomised clinical trial to evaluate cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. Trial registration The protocol is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05907317; registered 18 June 2023).

Abstract Background In the SafeBoosC-III trial, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth did not reduce the incidence of death or severe brain injury in extremely preterm infants at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age, as compared with usual care. Despite an association between severe brain injury diagnosed in the neonatal period and later neurodevelopmental disability, this relationship is not always strong. The objective of the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study is to assess mortality, neurodevelopmental disability, or any harm in trial participants at 2 years of corrected age. One important challenge is the lack of funding for local costs for a trial-specific assessment. Methods Of the 1601 infants randomised in the SafeBoosC-III trial, 1276 infants were alive at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age and will potentially be available for the 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria will be enrollment in a neonatal intensive care unit taking part in the follow-up study and parental consent if required by local regulations. We aim to collect data from routine follow-up programmes between the ages of 18 and 30 months of corrected age. If no routine follow-up has been conducted, we will collect informal assessments from other health care records from the age of at least 12 months. A local co-investigator blinded to group allocation will classify outcomes based on these records. We will supplement this with parental questionnaires including the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities—Revised. There will be two co-primary outcomes: the composite of death or moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability and mean Bayley-III/IV cognitive score. We will use a 3-tier model for prioritisation, based on the quality of data. This approach has been chosen to minimise loss to follow-up assuming that little data is better than no data at all. Discussion Follow-up at the age of 2 years is important for intervention trials in the newborn period as only time can show real benefits and harms later in childhood. To decrease the risk of generalisation and data-driven biased conclusions, we present a detailed description of the methodology for the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study. As funding is limited, a pragmatic approach is necessary. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05134116 . Registered on 24 November 2021.

Abstract Background Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes. Methods We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI −4.85, 4.86, I 2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI −11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence). Conclusions We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181144

Background Improved Pregnancy Outcomes via Early Detection (IMPROvED) is a multi-centre, European phase IIa clinical study. The primary aim of IMPROvED is to enable the assessment and refinement of innovative prototype preeclampsia risk assessment tests based on emerging biomarker technologies. Here we describe IMPROvED’s profile and invite researchers to collaborate. Methods A total of 4,038 low-risk nulliparous singleton pregnancies were recruited from maternity units in Ireland (N=1,501), United Kingdom (N=1,108), The Netherlands (N=810), and Sweden (N=619) between November 2013 to August 2017. Participants were interviewed by a research midwife at ~11 weeks (optional visit), ~15 weeks, ~20 weeks, ~34 weeks’ gestation (optional visit), and postpartum (within 72-hours following delivery). Findings to date Clinical data included information on maternal sociodemographic, medical history, and lifestyle factors collected at ~15 weeks’ gestation, and maternal measurements, collected at each study visit. Biobank samples included blood, urine, and hair collected at each study visit throughout pregnancy in all units plus umbilical cord/blood samples collected at birth in Ireland and Sweden. A total of 74.0% (N=2,922) had an uncomplicated pregnancy, 3.1% (N=122) developed preeclampsia, 3.6% (N=143) had a spontaneous preterm birth, and 10.5% (N=416) had a small for gestational age baby. We evaluated a panel of metabolite biomarkers and a panel of protein biomarkers at 15 weeks and 20 weeks’ gestation for preeclampsia risk assessment. Their translation into tests with clinical application, as conducted by commercial entities, was hampered by technical issues and changes in test requirements. Work on the panel of proteins was abandoned, while work on the use of metabolite biomarkers for preeclampsia risk assessment is ongoing. Future plans In accordance with the original goals of the IMPROvED study, the data and biobank are now available for international collaboration to conduct high quality research into the cause and prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Abstract Background A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis. Methods The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for “site,” type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus ‘active placebo’, placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews. Methods This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with ‘active placebo’, placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Discussion Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022315395.

Abstract Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stone extraction and papillotomy with subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy—the two-step approach—is the standard treatment of common bile duct stones in many countries. However, ERC is associated with a high risk of complications and more than half of patients require multiple ERCs. Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials find no major differences of the two-step approach in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative laparoscopic stone clearance—the one-step approach. Currently, there are insufficient data to ascertain superiority. Methods The preGallstep trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Eligible patients are patients with common bile duct stones (identified by magnetic resonance cholagiopancreatography), age 18 years or above with the possibility to perform both interventions within a reasonable time. We intent to randomise 150 participants allocated 1:1. The experimental intervention is the one-step approach. This consists of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The control intervention is the two-step approach which consists of ERC plus sphincterotomy (first step) and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (second step). Feasibility outcomes include the proportion of eligible patients not wanting to participate, reasons for rejection to participate, difficulties during the informed consent procedure, difficulties with randomisation, difficulties with data management, difficulties with blinding patient charts and forms and difficulties with maintaining blinding for the outcome assessors. The primary pilot outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one postoperative complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score grade II and above until 90 days after randomisation. This outcome will be used for a future sample size calculation of a larger pragmatic trial. Further, a range of clinical explorative outcomes will be assessed. Discussion As no sample size is estimated in this trial, there is a risk of wrongly assessing the effect on the patient-related outcome. The surgical procedures cannot be blinded. However, blinding will be employed in all other aspects of the trial, including the establishment of a blinded outcome adjudication committee with three independent assessors. Heterogeneity in screening, randomisation, diagnostics, treatment procedures, interventions and follow-up across trial sites may cause challenges in conducting a larger pragmatic trial. To monitor inter-site differences, we have implemented a central data monitoring scheme. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT04801238 , Registered on 16 March 2021

Abstract Introduction Coronary artery bypass grafting can be conducted using the radial artery as a bypass graft. However, it remains unclear which harvesting method is superior, i.e. endoscopic or open radial artery, and which site for proximal anastomosis of the radial artery has the greatest benefits? Methods The NEO Trial is a single site randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The first comparison assesses endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest with a primary outcome of hand function and secondary outcomes of neurological deficits through clinical exams and neurophysiological studies. The primary outcome is postoperatively hand function at three months. We anticipate a mean difference of 3 points with a standard deviation of 8 points, a power of 90%, and a type I error of 5%, resulting in a required sample size of 300 participants randomised 1:1. Secondary outcomes are neurological deficits (based on nerve conduction measurements, algometry test and von Frey hair test), clinical neurological examination of cutaneous sensibility, and registration of complications in the donor arm (haematoma formation, wound dehiscence, and/or infection). The second comparison assesses two different proximal anastomotic sites, i.e. aorto-radial anastomosis versus mammario-radial anastomosis. The primary outcome is a composite of cerebrovascular events and the secondary outcome is graft patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography-scan. These outcomes will be assessed at 1 year postoperatively, and the results of this comparison will be exploratory only. Both comparisons will be analysed using intention-to-treat and intervention groups will be compared using linear regression, logistic regression, or Mann–Whitney U test depending on data type. Two independent statisticians will follow the present plan and conduct the analyses which will hereafter be fused into a final analysis based on consensus. Conclusion This detailed analysis plan will increase the validity of the NEO trial results by predefining the statistical analysis in detail. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886 . Registered 25 February 2013. Danish Ethics committee number: H-3–2012-116. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007–58-0015/jr. n:30–0838.

Abstract Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. Methods The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. Discussion This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018

Abstract Background Randomised clinical trials with a factorial design may assess the effects of multiple interventions in the same population. Factorial trials are carried out under the assumption that the trial interventions have no interactions on outcomes. Here, we present a protocol for a simulation study investigating the consequences of different levels of interactions between the trial interventions on outcomes for the future 2×2×2 factorial designed randomised clinical Sedation, TEmperature, and Pressure after Cardiac Arrest and REsuscitation (STEPCARE) trial in comatose patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods By simulating a multisite trial with 50 sites and 3278 participants, and a presumed six-month all-cause mortality of 60% in the control population, we will investigate the validity of the trial results with different levels of interaction effects on the outcome. The primary simulation outcome of the study is the risks of type-1 and type-2 errors in the simulated scenarios, i.e. at what level of interaction is the desired alpha and beta level exceeded. When keeping the overall risk of type-1 errors ≤ 5% and the risk of type-2 errors ≤ 10%, we will quantify the maximum interaction effect we can accept if the planned sample size is increased by 5% to take into account possible interaction between the trial interventions. Secondly, we will assess how interaction effects influence the minimal detectable difference we may confirm or reject to take into account 5% (small interaction effect), 10% (moderate), or 15% (large) positive interactions in simulations with no ‘true’ intervention effect (type-1 errors) and small (5%), moderate (10%), or large negative interactions (15%) in simulations with ‘true’ intervention effects (type-2 errors). Moreover, we will investigate how much the sample size must be increased to account for a small, moderate, or large interaction effects. Discussion This protocol for a simulation study will inform the design of a 2×2×2 factorial randomised clinical trial of how potential interactions between the assessed interventions might affect conclusions. Protocolising this simulation study is important to ensure valid and unbiased results. Trial registration Not relevant

Abstract Background Deep brain stimulation has been used since the 1980s for neurological disorders and the USA and Europe have now approved it for Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, dystonia, and epilepsy. Previous reviews have assessed the effects of deep brain stimulation on different neurological disorders. These reviews all had methodological limitations. Methods This is a protocol for a systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment. We will include published and unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing deep brain stimulation versus no intervention, usual care, sham stimulation, medical treatment, or resective surgery for Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, dystonia, or epilepsy. The effects of deep brain stimulation will be analysed separately for each of the different diagnoses. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, disease-specific symptoms, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, depressive symptoms, executive functioning, level of functioning, and non-serious adverse events. Data will be analysed using fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—version 2, an eight-step procedure to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion Deep brain stimulation is increasingly being used for different neurological diseases, and the effects are unclear based on previous evidence. There is a need for a comprehensive systematic review of the current evidence. This review will provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms when assessing deep brain stimulation as intervention for individual neurological disorders. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 306,556.

Background: Knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD is sparse. No official guidelines exist for defining or monitoring adverse events in psychotherapy. Recent recommendations call for more qualitative and quantitative assessment of adverse events in psychotherapy trials. This mixed methods study aims to expand knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD. Methods: This is an analysis plan for a convergent mixed methods study within a randomized clinical trial (the TECTO trial). We include at least 128 youth aged 8–17 years with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants are randomized to either family-based cognitive behavioral therapy (FCBT) or family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT). Adverse events are monitored quantitatively with the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Furthermore, we assess psychiatric symptoms, global functioning, quality of life, and family factors to investigate predictors for adverse events. We conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with all youths and their parents on their experience of adverse events in FCBT or FPRT. For the mixed methods analysis, we will merge 1) a qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics comparing the types, frequencies, and severity of adverse events; 2) a qualitative content analysis of the perceived causes for adverse events with prediction models for adverse events; and 3) a thematic analysis of the participants’ treatment evaluation with a correlational analysis of adverse events and OCD severity. Discussion: The in-depth mixed methods analysis can inform 1) safer and more effective psychotherapy for OCD; 2) instruments and guidelines for monitoring adverse events; and 3) patient information on potential adverse events. The main limitation is risk of missing data. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03595098. Registered on July 23, 2018.

Objectives To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients.Setting Outpatient treatment.Participants Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities.Interventions Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA.Primary outcome measures Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events.Results We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher’s exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p

Introduction It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the ‘true’ intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group.Methods and analysis We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70–0.79, 0.80–0.89, 0.90–1.09, 1.10–1.19, 1.20–1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy.Ethics and dissemination Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Background: The evidence on the effects of metformin and insulin in type 2 diabetes patients on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. Methods: The Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial is an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark. Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomised to metformin (n = 206) versus placebo (n = 206); in combination with open-label biphasic insulin aspart one to three times daily (n = 137) versus insulin aspart three times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n = 138) versus insulin detemir once daily (n = 137).We present a detailed description of the methodology and statistical analysis of the clinical CIMT outcomes including a detailed description of tests of the assumptions behind the statistical analyses. The outcomes are quality of life (Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)), Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (assessed at entry and 18 months after randomisation) and cardiovascular outcomes including time to a composite of either myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral amputation, coronary revascularisation, peripheral revascularisation, or death. Discussions: This statistical analysis plan ensure the highest possible quality of the subsequent post-hoc analyses. Trial registration: The protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H-D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT: 2007-006665-33 CIMT), and registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943, 8th of April 2008).

Abstract Background Adequately conducted systematic reviews with meta-analyses are considered the highest level of evidence and thus directly defines many clinical guidelines. However, the risks of type I and II errors in meta-analyses are substantial. Trial Sequential Analysis is a method for controlling these risks. Erroneous use of the method might lead to research waste or misleading conclusions. Methods The current protocol describes a systematic review aimed to identify common and major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis by evaluating published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include this method. We plan to include all studies using Trial Sequential Analysis published from January 2018 to January 2022, an estimated 400 to 600 publications. We will search Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, including studies with all types of participants, interventions, and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, include relevant full text articles, extract data from the studies into a predefined checklist, and evaluate the methodological quality of the study using the AMSTAR 2, assessing the methodological quality of the systematic reviews. Discussion This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The identified mistakes and errors will be published in peer reviewed articles and form the basis of a reviewed guideline for the use of Trial Sequential Analysis. Appropriately controlling for type I and II errors might reduce research waste and improve quality and precision of the evidence that clinical guidelines are based upon.

Abstract Background Fluid overload is a risk factor for organ dysfunction and death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no guidelines exist for its management. We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of a single loop diuretic, the predominant treatment used for fluid overload in these patients. Methods We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of a single loop diuretic vs. other interventions reported in randomised clinical trials, adhering to our published protocol, the Cochrane Handbook, and PRISMA statement. We assessed the risks of bias with the ROB2-tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020184799). Results We included 10 trials (804 participants), all at overall high risk of bias. For loop diuretics vs. placebo/no intervention, we found no difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–1.06; 4 trials; 359 participants; I 2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI 0.15–3.48; very low certainty of evidence). Fewer serious adverse events were registered in the group treated with loop diuretics (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66–0.99; 6 trials; 476 participants; I 2 = 0%; very low certainty of evidence), though contested by TSA (TSA-adjusted CI 0.55–1.20). Conclusions The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of loop diuretics on mortality and serious adverse events in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. Loop diuretics may reduce the occurrence of these outcomes, but large randomised placebo-controlled trials at low risk of bias are needed.

When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.

Abstract Background Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. Methods This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8–17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient

Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.

ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain.DesignSystematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesPublished and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain.Main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep.ResultsWe included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis.ConclusionsCannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.

Abstract Background Early onset fetal growth restriction secondary to placental insufficiency can lead to severe maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Pre-clinical studies and a few small randomised clinical trials have suggested that phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors may have protective effects against placental insufficiency in this context; however, robust evidence is lacking. The STRIDER Consortium conducted four randomised trials to investigate the use of a PDE-5 inhibitor, sildenafil, for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. We present a protocol for the pre-planned systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis, aggregate meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of these and other eligible trials. The main objective of this study will be to evaluate the effects of PDE-5 inhibitors on neonatal morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction. Methods We will search the following electronic databases with no language or date restrictions: OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and the clinical trial registers Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We will identify randomised trials of PDE-5 inhibitors in singleton pregnancies with growth restriction. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Our primary outcome will be infant survival without evidence of serious adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcomes will include gestational age at birth and birth weight z-scores. We will assess bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We will conduct aggregate meta-analysis using fixed and random effects models, Trial Sequential Analysis, and individual participant data meta-analysis using one- and two-stage approaches. The certainty of evidence will be assessed with GRADE. Discussion This pre-defined protocol will minimise bias during analysis and interpretation of results, toward the goal of providing robust evidence regarding the use of PDE-5 inhibitors for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42017069688).

Abstract Background Non‐suicidal self‐injury (NSSI) is common in adolescents receiving psychiatric treatment and is a significant risk factor for suicidal behavior. There are few randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for NSSI in youth, and knowledge about internet‐delivered interventions is limited. Objective We assessed the feasibility of Internet based Emotion Regulation Individual Therapy for Adolescents (ERITA) in psychiatric outpatients aged 13–17 years who engaged in NSSI. Method A randomised clinical feasibility trial with a parallel group design. Non‐suicidal self‐injury engaging patients were recruited from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Outpatient Services in the Capital Region of Denmark from May to October 2020. ERITA was provided as add‐on to treatment as usual (TAU). ERITA is a therapist‐guided, internet‐based program of emotion regulation and skills training involving a parent. The control intervention was TAU. Feasibility outcomes were the proportion who completed follow‐up interviews at end of intervention; proportion of eligible patients who participated in the trial; proportion of participants completing ERITA. We further investigated relevant exploratory outcomes, including adverse risk‐related events. Results We included 30 adolescent participants, 15 in each group (ERITA vs. Treatment as usual). 90% (95% CI, 72%–97%) of the participants completed post‐treatment interviews; 54% (95% CI, 40%–67%) of the eligible participants were included and randomised; and 87% (95% CI, 58%–98%) of the participants completed at least six out of 11 ERITA modules. We identified no difference for the primary exploratory clinical outcome of NSSI between the two groups. Conclusion There are few randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for NSSI in youth, and knowledge about internet‐delivered interventions is limited. Based on our results we conclude that a large‐scale trial seems feasible and warranted.

Introduction Neurodevelopmental disorders are a group of disorders thought to be associated with the functioning of the brain and the nervous system. Children with neurodevelopmental disorders often have sleep-related comorbidities that may negatively affect quality of life for both the children and their families. Melatonin is one of the most used interventions in children with neurodevelopmental disorders and sleep disorders. Previous reviews have investigated the effects of melatonin for sleep disorders in children with neurodevelopmental disorders, but these had important limitations, such as inadequate analysis of adverse effects, small sample sizes and short follow-up.Methods and analysis This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials. The protocol is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search for published and unpublished trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will search the databases from their inception without language restrictions. We will also request clinical study reports from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Review authors working in pairs will screen reports, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing melatonin versus placebo or no intervention for sleep disorders in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Primary outcomes will be total sleep time and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life of the child and caregivers and sleep onset latency. Data will be analysed using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence will be assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was not required for this protocol. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022337530.

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder causing great burden on patients and societies. Tricyclic antidepressants are frequently used worldwide to treat patients with major depressive disorder. It has repeatedly been shown that tricyclic antidepressants reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the effect is small and of questionable clinical importance. Moreover, the beneficial and harmful effects of all types of tricyclic antidepressants have not previously been systematically assessed. Therefore, we aim to investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants versus ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis that will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—version 2, our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control random errors and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers, such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 12 May 2021. Clinical study reports will be applied for from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing tricyclic antidepressants with ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following interventions will be assessed: amineptine, amitriptyline, amoxapine, butriptyline, cianopramine, clomipramine, desipramine, demexiptiline, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, imipramine, iprindole, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, protriptyline, tianeptine, trimipramine and quinupramine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide-attempts and non-serious adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Discussion Tricyclic antidepressants are recommended by clinical guidelines and frequently used worldwide in the treatment of major depressive disorder. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021226161 .

Objective: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in increasing proportions of children and adolescents. The psychostimulant methylphenidate has been considered the first-line pharmacological treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD for more than 60 years. Considering recent publications on methylphenidate for ADHD, we here give an overview of its effects in children and adolescents with ADHD, elicited by a well-disputed Cochrane review and narratively synthesise the evidence in the field. Method: We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated methylphenidate as an intervention for children and adolescence with ADHD compared with placebo or no treatment. We assessed the quality of the evidence using AMSTAR II. Results: We found 24 eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses of which 11 were rated as high- quality evidence according to AMSTAR II. The evidence claiming that methylphenidate is beneficial in treating children and adolescents with ADHD was of very low certainty. The underreporting of adverse events in randomised clinical trials may impede an adequate depiction of the balance between benefits and harms. Conclusions: It appears that there is uncertain evidence on group-level to support the claim that methylphenidate is beneficial in treating children and adolescents with ADHD. Future randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews should include individual participant data, which would allow us to assess intervention effects across modifiers, like age, sex, ADHD subtypes, comorbidities, and dose.

Abstract Background Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has a lifetime prevalence of 17% in adolescents in the general population and up to 74% in adolescents with psychiatric disorders. NSSI is one of the most important predictors of later suicidal behaviour and death by suicide. The TEENS feasibility trial was initiated to assess the feasibility and safety of Internet-based Emotion Regulation Individual Therapy for Adolescents (ERITA) as an add-on to treatment as usual in 13–17-year-old patients with NSSI referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Methods The TEENS feasibility trial is a randomised clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial intervention is an 11-week online therapy which is tested as an add-on to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual. The primary feasibility outcomes are the fraction of participants who (1) completed 12 weeks of follow-up interview or assessment, (2) consented to inclusion and randomisation out of all eligible participants, and (3) were compliant with the experimental intervention, assessed as completion of at least six out of eleven modules in the programme. Since this is a feasibility trial, we did not predefine a required sample size. The exploratory clinical outcome, the frequency of NSSI episodes, assessed using Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory – Youth version (DSHI-Y), at the end of intervention, is planned to be the future primary outcome in a larger pragmatic definitive randomised clinical trial. After completion of the feasibility trial, blinded data will be analysed by two independent statisticians blinded to the intervention, where ‘A’ and ‘B’ refer to the two groups. A third party will compare these reports, and discrepancies will be discussed. The statistical report with the analyses chosen for the manuscript is being tracked using a version control system, and both statistical reports will be published as a supplementary material. Based on the final statistical report, two blinded conclusions will be drawn by the steering group. Discussion We present a pre-defined statistical analysis plan for the TEENS feasibility trial, which limits bias, p-hacking, data-driven interpretations. This statistical analysis plan is accompanied by a pre-programmed version-controlled statistical report with simulated data, which increases transparency and reproducibility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04243603 . Registered on 28 January 2020

Abstract Background Data monitoring of clinical trials is a tool aimed at reducing the risks of random errors (e.g. clerical errors) and systematic errors, which include misinterpretation, misunderstandings, and fabrication. Traditional ‘good clinical practice data monitoring’ with on-site monitors increases trial costs and is time consuming for the local investigators. This paper aims to outline our approach of time-effective central data monitoring for the SafeBoosC-III multicentre randomised clinical trial and present the results from the first three central data monitoring meetings. Methods The present approach to central data monitoring was implemented for the SafeBoosC-III trial, a large, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial evaluating the benefits and harms of treatment based on cerebral oxygenation monitoring in preterm infants during the first days of life versus monitoring and treatment as usual. We aimed to optimise completeness and quality and to minimise deviations, thereby limiting random and systematic errors. We designed an automated report which was blinded to group allocation, to ease the work of data monitoring. The central data monitoring group first reviewed the data using summary plots only, and thereafter included the results of the multivariate Mahalanobis distance of each centre from the common mean. The decisions of the group were manually added to the reports for dissemination, information, correcting errors, preventing furture errors and documentation. Results The first three central monitoring meetings identified 156 entries of interest, decided upon contacting the local investigators for 146 of these, which resulted in correction of 53 entries. Multiple systematic errors and protocol violations were identified, one of these included 103/818 randomised participants. Accordingly, the electronic participant record form (ePRF) was improved to reduce ambiguity. Discussion We present a methodology for central data monitoring to optimise quality control and quality development. The initial results included identification of random errors in data entries leading to correction of the ePRF, systematic protocol violations, and potential protocol adherence issues. Central data monitoring may optimise concurrent data completeness and may help timely detection of data deviations due to misunderstandings or fabricated data.

Abstract Background Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods/design A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events. Discussion No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931

Abstract Background Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques. Methods Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Results We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Conclusions This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality,

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

Abstract Background Multiple clinical conditions are associated with cerebral hypoxia/ischaemia and thereby an increased risk of hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury. Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring (NIRS) is a tool to monitor brain oxygenation and perfusion, and the clinical uptake of NIRS has expanded over recent years. Specifically, NIRS is used in the neonatal, paediatric, and adult perioperative and intensive care settings. However, the available literature suggests that clinical benefits and harms of cerebral NIRS monitoring are uncertain. As rates of clinically significant hypoxic-ischaemic brain injuries are typically low, it is difficult for randomised clinical trials to capture a sufficiently large number of events to evaluate the clinical effect of cerebral NIRS monitoring, when focusing on specific clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review will be to evaluate the benefits and harms of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring versus clinical care without cerebral NIRS monitoring in children and adults across all clinical settings. Methods We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We will only include randomised clinical trials. The primary outcomes are all-cause mortality, moderate or severe persistent cognitive or neurological deficit, and proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events. We will search CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Science Citation Index Expanded from their inception and onwards. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. The risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2.0. If feasible, we will conduct both random-effects meta-analysis and fixed-effect meta-analysis of outcome data. Additional analysis will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. risk of bias, clinical setting). Discussion As we include trials across multiple clinical settings, there is an increased probability of reaching a sufficient information size. However, heterogeneity between the included trials may impair our ability to interpret results to specific clinical settings. In this situation, we may have to depend on subgroup analyses with inherent increased risks of type I and II errors. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020202986 . This systematic review protocol has been submitted for registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) on the 12th of October 2020 and published on the 12th of November 2020 (registration ID CRD42020202986 ).

Abstract Background Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has gained increased attention in recent years due to increased prevalence, especially among adolescents. Evidence-based interventions for NSSI are sparse. Emotion regulation individual therapy for adolescents (ERITA) is an online intervention that needs investigation. Non-randomised studies suggest ERITA improves emotion regulations skills and reduces NSSI frequency. Before conducting a large pragmatic randomised clinical trial, we aim to investigate the feasibility of ERITA in Denmark. Methods A randomised, parallel group feasibility trial comparing ERITA as add on to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual in 30 adolescents age 13–17 years with recurrent NSSI referred to outpatient clinics in The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark. Feasibility outcomes are (1) completion of follow-up, (2) the fraction of eligible participants who consent to inclusion and randomisation and (3) compliance with the intervention. Clinical outcomes such as self-injury frequency and the ability to regulate emotions will be investigated exploratorily. Discussion Internet-based interventions are assumed to be appealing to adolescents by being easily accessible and easy to navigate by tech natives. Disclosure of self-injury behaviour may be facilitated by an online intervention. The evidence for self-injury specific treatment needs to be extended but prior to a large clinical trial, the feasibility of methods and procedures must be assessed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT04243603 .

Abstract Background Existing self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve ‘real life’ patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes’ motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes. Methods/design We will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any healthcare professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and trial sequential analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE. Discussion Self-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181144

Abstract Background Assessing benefits and harms of health interventions is resource-intensive and often requires feasibility and pilot trials followed by adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Data from feasibility and pilot trials are used to inform the design and sample size of the adequately powered randomised clinical trials. When a randomised clinical trial is conducted, results from feasibility and pilot trials may be disregarded in terms of benefits and harms. Methods We describe using feasibility and pilot trial data in the Trial Sequential Analysis software to estimate the required sample size for one or more trials investigating a behavioural smoking cessation intervention. We show how data from a new, planned trial can be combined with data from the earlier trials using trial sequential analysis methods to assess the intervention’s effects. Results We provide a worked example to illustrate how we successfully used the Trial Sequential Analysis software to arrive at a sensible sample size for a new randomised clinical trial and use it in the argumentation for research funds for the trial. Conclusions Trial Sequential Analysis can utilise data from feasibility and pilot trials as well as other trials, to estimate a sample size for one or more, similarly designed, future randomised clinical trials. As this method uses available data, estimated sample sizes may be smaller than they would have been using conventional sample size estimation methods.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Abstract Background Metformin has been shown to have both neuroprotective and neurodegenerative effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of metformin in combination with insulin on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) and distal peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods The study is a sub-study of the CIMT trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, where 412 patients with T2DM were randomized to 18 months of metformin or placebo in addition to open-labelled insulin. Outcomes were measures of CAN: Changes in heart rate response to deep breathing (beat-to-beat), orthostatic blood pressure (OBP) and heart rate and vibration detection threshold (VDT) as a marker DPN. Serum levels of vitamin B12 and methyl malonic acid (MMA) were analysed. Results After 18 months early drop in OBP (30 s after standing) was increased in the metformin group compared to placebo: systolic blood pressure drop increased by 3.4 mmHg (95% CI 0.6; 6.2, p = 0.02) and diastolic blood pressure drop increased by 1.3 mmHg (95% CI 0.3; 2.6, p = 0.045) compared to placebo. Beat-to-beat variation decreased in the metformin group by 1.1 beats per minute (95% CI − 2.4; 0.2, p = 0.10). Metformin treatment did not affect VDT group difference − 0.33 V (95% CI − 1.99; 1.33, p = 0.39) or other outcomes. Changes in B12, MMA and HbA1c did not confound the associations. Conclusions Eighteen months of metformin treatment in combination with insulin compared with insulin alone increased early drop in OBP indicating an adverse effect of metformin on CAN independent of vitamin B12, MMA HbA1c. Trial registration The protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H–D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943).

Abstract Background COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an “active” comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or “active placebo”) for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020178787

Abstract Background The prevalence of overweight is increasing worldwide in children. Multi-component interventions incorporating diet, physical activity, and behavioural change have been shown to reduce body mass index (BMI). Whilst many children have their own smartphone, the clinical effects of using smartphone applications (apps) for overweight are unknown. This systematic review aims to ascertain the effects of mHealth apps in children with overweight. Methods We will include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, year, status, or language. Children between 0 and 18 years with overweight will be included. We will compare apps targeting overweight versus sham app, no app, or usual intervention. No distinction about operative system will be considered (i.e. Android, iOS, and Window Mobile will be included). The following databases will be searched: The Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, IEEE Explore, Web of Science, CINAHL, and LILACS. Primary outcomes will be body weight, quality of life, and serious adverse event. Secondary outcomes will be self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, and adverse event not considered serious. Trial inclusion, data extraction, and bias risk assessment will be conducted independently by at least two authors. We will assess risk of bias through eight domains and control risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool (GRADE). Discussion We will provide evidence of the beneficial and harmful effects of smartphone apps for children with overweight and highlight any gaps in the evidence in order to shape future potential interventions. By only including randomised clinical trials, we know that we bias our review towards benefits. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019120210

Background COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, −5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. Conclusions The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.