Search

Abstract Background Autonomy-supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve better long-term management of type 2 diabetes. Evidence suggests that the guided self-determination (GSD) method might improve haemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes. The evidence of an effect of a GSD intervention compared with an attention control group in adults with type 2 diabetes is unknown. Methods/design The trial is designed as a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, dual-centre, randomised, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority clinical trial of persons with type 2 diabetes. A nurse will administer GSD intervention versus an attention control. The primary outcome is diabetes distress, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, depressive symptoms, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes are haemoglobin A1c, motivation, and serious adverse events. Participants are assessed at baseline, 5-, and 12-month follow-up. Here, we present a detailed, comprehensive plan of all statistical analyses, including methods to handle missing data, and assessments of the underlying statistical assumptions. The statistical analyses will be conducted independently by two statisticians following the present plan. Discussion To mitigate the risk of analysis bias and increase the validity of the OVEROME trial, this statistical analysis plan was developed prior to unblinding of the trial results in concordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Conference on Harmonization of Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 04601311. Registered on October 2020.

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 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

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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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

Abstract Background: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery. Method Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis. Results A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment. Conclusion The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery. Trial registration Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01361698).

Introduction Intensive care for patients with severe acute brain injury aims both to treat the immediate consequences of the injury and to prevent and treat secondary brain injury to ensure a good functional outcome. Sedation may be used to facilitate mechanical ventilation, for treating agitation, and for controlling intracranial pressure. Ketamine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist with sedative, analgesic, and potentially neuroprotective properties. We describe a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury. Methods and analysis We will systematically search international databases for randomised clinical trials, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries. Two authors will independently review and select trials for inclusion, and extract data. We will compare ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or other sedatives or analgesics for patients with severe acute brain injury. The primary outcomes will be functional outcome at maximal follow up, quality of life, and serious adverse events. We will also assess secondary and exploratory outcomes. The extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager and Trials Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty will be graded using GRADE. Ethics and dissemination The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice. PROSPERO no CRD42021210447.

BACKGROUND:There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS:We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury and were analysed conducting random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS:We identified four randomised clinical trials (total n = 385 patients) with severe acquired brain injury (stroke 86% and traumatic brain injury 13%). Two trials were at low risk and two at high risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation vs. standard care on mortality or poor functional outcome at end of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.53; I2 0%; very low certainty) or at maximal follow-up (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; I2 0%; very low certainty). We found evidence against an effect on quality of life at maximal follow-up. The proportion of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ at end of intervention or at maximal follow-up. For most comparisons, TSA suggested that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS:We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury. Early mobilisation appeared not to exert a major impact on quality of life. This systematic review highlights the insufficient evidence in patients with severe brain injury, and no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Protocol uploaded to PROSPERO: April 2018 (revised October 2018, CRD42018088790).

Objectives: Rehabilitation of patients following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been widely studied; however, research into early rehabilitation after CABG is sparse. The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of early rehabilitation, compared with usual care in patients following CABG. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Patients: A total of 326 patients treated with CABG. Methods: Patients treated with CABG were randomized 1:1 to 4 weeks of comprehensive early rehabilitation or usual care. The primary outcome was the Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were mental health and physical activity (Medical Outcome Study Short Form; SF-12); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS); physical and emotional scores; sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PSQI); pain (Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire; ÖMSQ) and muscle endurance (Sit-To-Stand test). Results: Sixteen patients dropped out. No significant differences between groups in the primary outcome (6MWT) were found after 4 weeks (p = 0.27). For secondary outcomes the odds ratio of HADS-D ≥ 8 decreased in favour of the experimental intervention (p = 0.04). There was non-adherence to parts of the intervention. Per-protocol analysis showed differences between groups for the 6MWT (p = 0.02) and the Sit-To-Stand test (p = 0.046). Conclusion: In general, the intervention had no effect on the 6MWT, or secondary outcomes, except for depressive symptoms. However, in adherent participants, the intervention had a positive effect for the primary and several secondary outcomes.

Abstract Background Intensive rehabilitation of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is generally applied in the subacute stages of the hospital stay. Few studies have assessed the association between early and intensive physical rehabilitation and functional outcomes. The aim of this trial is to assess the feasibility of an intensive physical rehabilitation intervention focusing on mobilisation to the upright position, starting as early as clinically possible versus standard care in the intensive care unit. The feasibility study is intended to inform a subsequent randomised clinical trial that will investigate benefits and harms of the intervention. Methods This randomised clinical feasibility trial with a follow-up period of 1 year will use blinded outcome assessors for the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised. A maximum of 60 patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, with traumatic brain injury (age of at least 18 years), a low level of consciousness, and stable intracranial pressure will be included in the trial. Patients will be randomly assigned to experimental intervention versus standard care (1:1) stratified according to their Glasgow Coma Score. The intervention group will receive daily mobilisation in a tilt table with an integrated stepping device (ERIGO®). Feasibility is declared if more than 60% (the lower 95% confidence interval of the proportion) of eligible patients are included in the trial and more than 52% (the lower 95% confidence interval of the proportion) of patients in the intervention group receive more than 60% of the planned interventions. Safety is assessed by the occurrence of adverse events and adverse reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes consist of cerebral haemodynamics (blood flow velocity and pressure autoregulation) and baroreceptor sensitivity in the early phase as well as functional outcomes (Coma Recovery Scale–Revised, Early Functional Ability scale, and Functional Independence Measure). Discussion Our findings will inform a future, larger-scale randomised clinical trial on early mobilisation using a tilt table early after severe traumatic brain injury. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02924649. Registered on 3 October 2016.

OBJECTIVE: Occupational hand eczema has adverse health and socioeconomic impacts for the afflicted individuals and society. Prevention and treatment strategies are needed. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an educational intervention on sickness absence, quality of life and severity of hand eczema. METHODS: PREVEX (PreVention of EXema) is an individually randomized, parallel-group superiority trial investigating the pros and cons of one-time, 2-hour, group-based education in skin-protective behavior versus treatment as usual among patients with newly notified occupational hand eczema, with follow-up after one year. Co-primary outcomes were total sickness absence, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), and self-reported severity of hand eczema. RESULTS: Patients (N=1668) with notified occupational skin diseases from July 2012 to November 2014 were invited to participate in the trial. Of these, 756 were randomized to the intervention (N= 376) versus control (N=380) group. The intervention group had 21% fewer sickness absence days compared with the control group [95% confidence interval (CI) -55–40%, P=0.43]. We found no significant difference in the change of HR-QoL for the intervention compared with the control group (4% lower in the intervention group, 95% CI -18–13%, P=0.67). The ordinal odds of scoring worse on self-reported hand eczema severity was 15% lower in the intervention compared with the control group (95% CI -39–18%, P=0.34). Post-hoc sub-group analyses indicated that the effect of the intervention on severity differed between occupations, being detrimental to healthcare workers and beneficial in all other occupations. CONCLUSION: The educational skincare program had no marked effect on the primary outcomes sickness absence, HR-QoL, and severity of hand eczema when compared with treatment as usual.

Abstract Background Cooling may reduce infarct size and improve neurological outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke. In phase II trials, cooling awake patients with ischaemic stroke has been shown to be feasible and safe, but the effects in functional outcomes has not yet been investigated in an adequately sized randomised clinical trial. Methods/design The EuroHYP-1 trial is a multinational, randomised, superiority phase III clinical trial with masked outcome assessment testing the benefits and harms of therapeutic cooling in awake adult patients with acute ischaemic stroke. The outcomes dealt with here include the primary outcome the Rankin score (mRS) at day 91 +/-14 days after randomisation. The secondary and exploratory outcomes at day 91 +/-14 days unless otherwise stated encompassing: (1) death or dependency, defined as mRS score > 2; (2) death; (3) National Institutes of Health Stroke Score; (4) brain infarct size at 48 +/-24 hours; (5) EQ-5D-5 L score, and (6) WHODAS 2.0 score. Other outcomes are: the primary safety outcome serious adverse events; and the incremental cost-effectiveness, and cost utility ratios. The analysis sets include (1) the intention-to-treat population, and (2) the per protocol population. The sample size is estimated to 800 patients (5% type 1 and 20% type 2 errors). All analyses are adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification variables (nationality of centre), and the minimisation variables. In the analysis, we use ordinal regression (the primary outcome), logistic regression (binary outcomes), general linear model (continuous outcomes), and the Poisson or negative binomial model (rate outcomes). Discussion Major adjustments compared with the original statistical analysis plan encompass: (1) adjustment of analyses by nationality; (2) power calculations for the secondary outcomes; (3) to address the multiplicity problem using of a fixed-sequence testing procedure starting with the primary outcome followed by the secondary outcomes ordered according to falling power; (4) assignment of worst possible score to patients who are not alive at the planned date of measurement of the continuous scores; (5) improved imputations; (6) outline of a supplementary exploratory analysis of the temperature measurements and time to death; and (7) substantial reduction of sample size. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01833312 . 4 April 2013.

Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach. The program has been evaluated in different settings; however evidence for the effects of IMR is still deficient. The aim of this trial was to investigate the benefits and harms of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual in Danish patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.The trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, multi-center, clinical trial investigating the IMR program compared with usual treatment. 198 people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder participated. The primary outcome was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F) at the end of intervention and the secondary and explorative outcomes included severity of symptoms and service utilization.IMR had no significant effect on functioning, symptoms, substance use or service utilization.This randomized trial contributes to the evidence base of IMR by providing a methodological solid base for its conclusions; however the trial has some important limitations. More research is needed to get a firm answer on the effectiveness of the IMR.

Prospective parents widely use education to gain information about, e.g., labour and parenting skills. It is unknown if antenatal education in small classes is more beneficial for parenting stress and parenting alliance compared with other types of antenatal education. In the present randomised trial, we examined the effect of antenatal education in small classes versus auditorium-based lectures on perceived stress, parenting stress, and parenting alliance. A total of 1,766 pregnant women were randomised to receive: antenatal education in small classes three times in pregnancy and one time after delivery, each session lasted 2.5 hours, versus standard care consisting of two times two hours auditorium-based lectures. Previous analysis of the primary outcome showed no difference between intervention and control group. Here we conduct an exploratory analysis of three secondary outcomes. Effects of the interventions on parents' global feelings of stress at 37 weeks gestation and nine weeks and six months postpartum and parenting stress nine weeks and six months postpartum were examined using linear regression analyses and mixed models with repeated measurements. The effect on parenting alliance six months postpartum was examined using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Antenatal education in small classes had a small beneficial main effect on global feelings of stress six months postpartum and a statistically significant interaction between time and group favoring antenatal education in small classes. The P values of intervention effects on parenting stress and parenting alliance were all larger than the threshold value (0.05).

Immunological disturbances are hypothesised to play a role in recurrent miscarriage (RM) and therefore intravenous immunoglubulins (IVIg) have been tested in RM patients.The objectives were to investigate the benefits and harms of IVIg versus placebo, no intervention, or treatment as usual in women with RM.We searched the published literature in all relevant databases.Randomised trials investigating IVIg versus placebo, no intervention, or treatment as usual in women with RM.We undertook meta-analyses of aggregated data and individual patient data using a two-step approach, and we conducted bias domain assessments and trial sequential analyses to assess the risks of systematic and random errors.We identified 11 randomised clinical trials. No significant difference in the frequency of no live birth was found when IVIg was compared with placebo or treatment as usual (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.12, p = 0.42). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size of 1,008 participants was not obtained. IVIg compared with placebo seems to increase the risk of adverse events. Subgroup analysis suggests that women with RM after a birth (secondary RM) seemed most likely to obtain a potential beneficial effect of IVIg (RR for no live birth 0.77, 95%CI 0.58-1.02, p = 0.06), however, trial sequential analysis showed that insufficient information is presently accrued.We cannot recommend or refute IVIg in women with RM. IVIg should therefore be assessed in further randomised clinical trials with positive outcomes before any clinical use is considered.

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Methods/principal findingsCochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; PDiscussionCognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed 'interpersonal psychotherapy' and only one trial assessed 'psychodynamic psychotherapy'. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference -3.12 (95% confidence interval -4.39 to -1.86;P