Search

Summary Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are increasing in popularity, but should they be used to inform clinical decision-making in anaesthesia? We present evidence that the certainty of evidence from SRMAs in anaesthesia (and in general) may be unacceptably low because of risks of bias exaggerating treatment effects, unexplained heterogeneity reducing certainty in estimates, random errors, and widespread prevalence of publication bias. We also present the latest methodological advances to help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs. The target audience includes both review authors and practising clinicians to help with SRMA appraisal. Issues discussed include minimising risks of bias from included trials, trial sequential analysis to reduce random error, updated methods for presenting effect estimates, and novel publication bias tests for commonly used outcome measures. These methods can help to reduce spurious conclusions on clinical significance, explain statistical heterogeneity, and reduce false positives when evaluating small-study effects. By reducing concerns in these domains of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, it should help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs used for decision-making in anaesthesia, pain, and perioperative medicine.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To conduct component network meta‐analyses (cNMAs) to investigate the comparative effectiveness, safety and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and electronic cigarettes (EC), singly and combined, when helping people to stop smoking tobacco. To investigate: how the different characteristics of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and EC interventions (e.g. intervention subtype, dose, length of intervention, whether the intervention is used prequit as well as from quit date or from quit date only) influence efficacy, safety and tolerability; whether identifiable participant characteristics and behavioural support suggest different optimal intervention strategies.

Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews are conducted to summarize evidence on the accuracy of a diagnostic test including a critical evaluation of the primary studies. Where appropriate, the evidence is meta-analyzed to obtain pooled estimates of effectiveness.In this study, we reviewed and critiqued three DTA guidance documents with respect to the graphical presentation of DTA meta-analysis results. All three documents recommended the use of two forms of graphical presentation: (a) forest plots displaying meta-analysis results for sensitivity (ie, the true positive rate) and specificity (ie, true negative rate) separately, and (b) Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve to provide a global summary of test performance. Two primary shortcomings were identified: (a) lack of incorporation of quality assessment results into the main analysis and; (b) ambiguity with which the contribution of individual studies is represented on SROC curves. In response, two alternative graphical approaches were developed: A quality assessment enhanced SROC plot which displays the results from individual studies in the meta-analysis with multiple indicators of quality assessed using QUADAS-2; and A percentage study weights enhanced SROC plot which accurately portrays the percentage contribution each study makes to the meta-analysis. The proposed enhanced SROC curves facilitate the exploration of DTA data, leading to a deeper understanding of the primary studies included in a DTA meta-analysis including identifying reasons for between study heterogeneity and why specific study results may be divergent. Both plots can easily be produced in the free online interactive application, MetaDTA (https://crsu.shinyapps.io/dta_ma/).

Objective The objective of the study is to establish how often continuous and time-to-event outcomes are synthesized in health technology assessment (HTA), the statistical methods and software used in their analysis and how often evidence synthesis informs decision models. Study Design and Setting This is a review of National Institute of Health Research HTA reports, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals, and NICE guidelines reporting quantitative meta-analysis or network meta-analysis of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome published from April 01, 2018 to March 31, 2019. Results We identified 47 eligible articles. At least one continuous or time-to-event outcome was synthesized in 51% and 55% of articles, respectively. Evidence synthesis results informed decision models in two-thirds of articles. The review and expert knowledge identified five areas where methodology is available for improving the synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes: i) outcomes reported on multiple scales, ii) reporting of multiple related outcomes, iii) appropriateness of the additive scale, iv) reporting of multiple time points, and v) nonproportional hazards. We identified three anticipated barriers to the uptake and implementation of these methods: i) statistical expertise, ii) software, and iii) reporting of trials. Conclusion Continuous and time-to-event outcomes are routinely reported in HTA. However, increased uptake of methodological advances could maximize the evidence base used to inform the decision making process.

Background Synthesis of clinical effectiveness from multiple trials is a well-established component of decision-making. Time-to-event outcomes are often synthesised using the Cox proportional hazards model assuming a constant hazard ratio over time. However, with an increasing proportion of trials reporting treatment effects where hazard ratios vary over time and with differing lengths of follow-up across trials, alternative synthesis methods are needed. Objectives To compare and contrast five modelling approaches for synthesis of time-to-event outcomes and provide guidance on key considerations for choosing between the modelling approaches. Methods The Cox proportional hazards model and five other methods of estimating treatment effects from time-to-event outcomes, which relax the proportional hazards assumption, were applied to a network of melanoma trials reporting overall survival: restricted mean survival time, generalised gamma, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models. Results All models fitted the melanoma network acceptably well. However, there were important differences in extrapolations of the survival curve and interpretability of the modelling constraints demonstrating the potential for different conclusions from different modelling approaches. Conclusion The restricted mean survival time, generalised gamma, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models can accommodate non-proportional hazards and differing lengths of trial follow-up within a network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes. We recommend that model choice is informed using available and relevant prior knowledge, model transparency, graphically comparing survival curves alongside observed data to aid consideration of the reliability of the survival estimates, and consideration of how the treatment effect estimates can be incorporated within a decision model.

Background\ud \ud Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non‐pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention. \ud \ud \ud \ud Objectives\ud \ud To assess the effectiveness of non‐pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).\ud \ud \ud \ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.\ud \ud \ud \ud Selection criteria\ud \ud We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non‐pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non‐pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium. \ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full‐text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre‐specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between‐group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta‐analysis fixed‐effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.\ud \ud \ud \ud Main results\ud \ud We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non‐pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies. \ud \ud Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain. \ud \ud Pooled data showed that multi‐component non‐pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias). \ud \ud There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low‐certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision). \ud \ud No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia. \ud \ud Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) ‐0.93, 95% CI ‐2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low‐certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‐0.49, 95% CI ‐1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low‐certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD ‐1.30 days, 95% CI ‐2.56 to ‐0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low‐certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low‐certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited. \ud \ud Our exploratory component network meta‐analysis found that re‐orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm. Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial. \ud \ud Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias). \ud \ud Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention. \ud \ud \ud \ud Authors' conclusions\ud \ud There is moderate‐certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non‐pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Meta-analyses are often conducted using trial-level summary data. However, when individual patient data (IPD ) is available, there is greater flexibility in the analysis and a wider range of statistical models that can be fitted. There are two approaches to fitting IPD models. The traditional two-stage approach involves analyzing each trial individually in the first stage and then combining trial estimates of treatment effectiveness in the second stage using methods developed for aggregate data meta-analysis. Growing in popularity is the one-stage approach in which trials are analyzed and synthesized within one statistical model whilst the clustering of patients within trials is accounted for. This chapter outlines both fixed effect and random effects one- and two-stage meta-analysis models for continuous, binary, and time-to-event outcomes. The meta-analysis framework is then extended to the scenario where there are more than two treatments and network meta-analysis models are described.The availability of IPD provides greater statistical power for investigating interactions between treatments and covariates. Treatment-covariate interactions contain both within- and across-trial information where the across-trial information may be subject to ecological bias. This chapter presents network meta-analysis models separating out the within- and across-trial information and finishes by considering practical solutions for dealing with missing covariate data, assessing the consistency assumption, combining IPD and aggregate data and specific considerations for time-to-event outcomes.

Meta-analyses are often conducted using trial-level summary data. However, when individual patient data (IPD ) is available, there is greater flexibility in the analysis and a wider range of statistical models that can be fitted. There are two approaches to fitting IPD models. The traditional two-stage approach involves analyzing each trial individually in the first stage and then combining trial estimates of treatment effectiveness in the second stage using methods developed for aggregate data meta-analysis. Growing in popularity is the one-stage approach in which trials are analyzed and synthesized within one statistical model whilst the clustering of patients within trials is accounted for. This chapter outlines both fixed effect and random effects one- and two-stage meta-analysis models for continuous, binary, and time-to-event outcomes. The meta-analysis framework is then extended to the scenario where there are more than two treatments and network meta-analysis models are described.The availability of IPD provides greater statistical power for investigating interactions between treatments and covariates. Treatment-covariate interactions contain both within- and across-trial information where the across-trial information may be subject to ecological bias. This chapter presents network meta-analysis models separating out the within- and across-trial information and finishes by considering practical solutions for dealing with missing covariate data, assessing the consistency assumption, combining IPD and aggregate data and specific considerations for time-to-event outcomes.

Background The prevalence of non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and the requirement for liver transplantation. Uncertainty surrounds relative benefits and harms of various nutritional supplements in NAFLD. Currently no nutritional supplement is recommended for people with NAFLD. Objectives • To assess the benefits and harms of different nutritional supplements for treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis • To generate rankings of different nutritional supplements according to their safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD. Selection criteria We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) for people with NAFLD, irrespective of method of diagnosis, age and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. Data collection and analysis We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods whenever possible and calculated differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. Main results We included in the review a total of 202 randomised clinical trials (14,200 participants). Nineteen trials were at low risk of bias. A total of 32 different interventions were compared in these trials. A total of 115 trials (7732 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to 28 months. The follow-up period in trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 28 months. During this follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. We did not calculate effect estimates for mortality because of sparse data (zero events for at least one of the groups in the trial). None of the trials reported that they measured overall health-related quality of life using a validated scale. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions on serious adverse events (number of people or number of events). We are very uncertain about effects on adverse events of most of the supplements that we investigated, as the evidence is of very low certainty. However, people taking PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) may be more likely to experience an adverse event than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis results: OR 4.44, 95% CrI 2.40 to 8.48; low-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 203 participants; direct evidence: OR 4.43, 95% CrI 2.43 to 8.42). People who take other supplements (a category that includes nutritional supplements other than vitamins, fatty acids, phospholipids, and antioxidants) had higher numbers of adverse events than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis: rate ratio 1.73, 95% CrI 1.26 to 2.41; 6 trials, 291 participants; direct evidence: rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.25 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). Data were sparse (zero events in all groups in the trial) for liver transplantation, liver decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. So, we did not perform formal analysis for these outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of other antioxidants (antioxidants other than vitamins) compared to no active intervention on liver cirrhosis (HR 1.68, 95% CrI 0.23 to 15.10; 1 trial, 99 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions in any of the remaining comparisons, or data were sparse (with zero events in at least one of the groups), precluding formal calculations of effect estimates. Data were probably because of the very short follow-up period (2 months to 28 months). It takes follow-up of 8 to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. Therefore, it is unlikely that differences in clinical outcomes are noted in trials providing less than 5 to 10 years of follow-up. Authors' conclusions The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about effects of nutritional supplementation compared to no additional intervention on all clinical outcomes for people with non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice) comparing interventions such as vitamin E, prebiotics/probiotics/synbiotics, PUFAs, and no nutritional supplementation. The reason for the choice of interventions is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes, which may translate to clinical benefit. Outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource utilisation measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare utilisation after minimum follow-up of 8 years (to find meaningful differences in clinically important outcomes).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of nonalcohol‐related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases the risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and requirement for liver transplantation. There is uncertainty surrounding the relative benefits and harms of various lifestyle interventions for people with NAFLD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different lifestyle interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta‐analysis, and to generate rankings of the different lifestyle interventions according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index ‐ Science, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in people with NAFLD, whatever the method of diagnosis, age, and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to perform a network meta‐analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and to calculate the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios (RaRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available‐participant analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. However, the data were too sparse for the clinical outcomes. We therefore performed only direct comparisons (head‐to‐head comparisons) with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 59 randomised clinical trials (3631 participants) in the review. All but two trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 33 different interventions, ranging from advice to supervised exercise and special diets, or a combination of these and no additional intervention were compared in these trials. The reference treatment was no active intervention. Twenty‐eight trials (1942 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The follow‐up ranged from 1 month to 24 months. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The follow‐up period in the trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 24 months. During this short follow‐up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver‐related mortality were sparse. This is probably because of the very short follow‐up periods. It takes a follow‐up of 8 years to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. It is therefore unlikely that differences by clinical outcomes will be noted in trials with less than 5 years to 10 years of follow‐up. In one trial, one participant developed an adverse event. There were no adverse events in any of the remaining participants in this trial, or in any of the remaining trials, which seemed to be directly related to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the lifestyle interventions compared with no additional intervention (to general public health advice) on any of the clinical outcomes after a short follow‐up period of 2 months to 24 months in people with nonalcohol‐related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high‐quality randomised clinical trials with adequate follow‐up are needed. We propose registry‐based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (a study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of participants to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice), comparing aerobic exercise and dietary advice versus standard of care (exercise and dietary advice received as part of national health promotion). The reason for the choice of aerobic exercise and dietary advice is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes which may translate to clinical benefit. The outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health‐related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource use measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare use after a minimum follow‐up of eight years, to find meaningful differences in the clinically important outcomes.

Aims To investigate the comparative and combined effectiveness of four types of components of behavioural interventions for cigarette smoking cessation: behavioural (e.g. counselling), motivational (e.g. focus on reasons to quit), delivery mode (e.g. phone), and provider (e.g. nurse). Design Systematic review and component network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified from Cochrane reviews. Interventions included behavioural interventions for smoking cessation (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials), compared with another behavioural intervention or no support. Building on a 2021 review (CD013229), we conducted three analyses, investigating: comparative effectiveness of the components, whether models that allowed interactions between components gave different results to models assuming additivity, and predicted effect estimates for combined effects of components that had showed promise but where there were few trials. Setting Community and healthcare settings Participants Adults who smoke tobacco Measurements Smoking cessation at ≥6 months, preferring sustained, biochemically validated outcomes where available. Findings 312 trials (250,563 participants) were included. 50 were at high risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, V1 (ROB1); excluding these studies did not change findings. Head-to-head comparisons of components suggested that support via text-message (SMS) compared with telephone (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.13 to 1.94) or print materials (OR 1.44, 95% CrI 1.14 to 1.83) was more effective, individual delivery was less effective than delivery as part of a group (OR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.64 to 0.95). There was no conclusive evidence of synergistic or antagonistic interactions when combining components that were commonly used together. Adding multiple components that are commonly used in behavioural counselling suggested clinically relevant and statistically conclusive evidence of benefit. Components with the largest effects that could be combined, but rarely have been, were estimated to increase the odds of quitting between two and threefold. For example, financial incentives delivered via SMS, with tailoring a focus on how to quit, had an estimated OR of 2.94 (95% CrI 1.91 to 4.52). Conclusions Among the components of behavioural support for smoking cessation, behavioural counselling and guaranteed financial incentives are associated with the greatest success. Incorporating additional components associated with effectiveness may further increase benefit, with delivery via text-message showing particular promise.

One of the biggest challenges for network meta-analysis is inconsistency, which occurs when the direct and indirect evidence conflict. Inconsistency causes problems for the estimation and interpretation of treatment effects and treatment contrasts. Krahn and colleagues proposed the net heat approach as a graphical tool for identifying and locating inconsistency within a network of randomized controlled trials. For networks with a treatment loop, the net heat plot displays statistics calculated by temporarily removing each design one at a time, in turn, and assessing the contribution of each remaining design to the inconsistency. The net heat plot takes the form of a matrix which is displayed graphically with coloring indicating the degree of inconsistency in the network. Applied to a network of individual participant data assessing overall survival in 7531 patients with lung cancer, we were surprised to find no evidence of important inconsistency from the net heat approach; this contradicted other approaches for assessing inconsistency such as the Bucher approach, Cochran's Q statistic, node-splitting, and the inconsistency parameter approach, which all suggested evidence of inconsistency within the network at the 5% level. Further theoretical work shows that the calculations underlying the net heat plot constitute an arbitrary weighting of the direct and indirect evidence which may be misleading. We illustrate this further using a simulation study and a network meta-analysis of 10 treatments for diabetes. We conclude that the net heat plot does not reliably signal inconsistency or identify designs that cause inconsistency.

Background Approximately 40% to 95% of people with liver cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed within about one to three years after diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, including, among others, endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, and balloon tamponade. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the individual and relative benefits and harms of these treatments. Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis, through a network meta-analysis; and to generate rankings of the different treatments for acute bleeding oesophageal varices, according to their benefits and harms. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until 17 December 2019, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in people with cirrhosis and acute bleeding from oesophageal varices. Selection criteria We included only RCTs (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and acutely bleeding oesophageal varices. We excluded RCTs in which participants had bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those in whom initial haemostasis was achieved before inclusion into the trial, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. Data collection and analysis We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS software, using Bayesian methods, and calculated the differences in treatments using odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed also the direct comparisons from RCTs using the same codes and the same technical details. Main results We included a total of 52 RCTs (4580 participants) in the review. Forty-eight trials (4042 participants) were included in one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those with and without a previous history of bleeding. We included outcomes assessed up to six weeks. All trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 19 interventions were compared in the trials (sclerotherapy, somatostatin analogues, vasopressin analogues, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues, variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade, somatostatin analogues plus variceal band ligation, nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, no active intervention, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy, balloon tamponade plus somatostatin analogues, balloon tamponade plus vasopressin analogues, variceal band ligation plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus nitrates plus vasopressin analogues, balloon tamponade plus variceal band ligation, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and sclerotherapy plus vasopressin analogues). We have reported the effect estimates for the primary and secondary outcomes when there was evidence of differences between the interventions against the reference treatment of sclerotherapy, but reported the other results of the primary and secondary outcomes versus the reference treatment of sclerotherapy without the effect estimates when there was no evidence of differences in order to provide a concise summary of the results. Overall, 15.8% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment of sclerotherapy (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) died during the follow-up periods, which ranged from three days to six weeks. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.57, 95% CrI 1.04 to 2.41; network estimate; direct comparison: 4 trials; 353 participants) and vasopressin analogues alone had higher mortality than sclerotherapy (OR 1.70, 95% CrI 1.13 to 2.62; network estimate; direct comparison: 2 trials; 438 participants). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, a higher proportion of people receiving balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy had more serious adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 4.23, 95% CrI 1.22 to 17.80; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 60 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, people receiving vasopressin analogues alone and those receiving variceal band ligation had fewer adverse events than those receiving only sclerotherapy (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.96; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 219 participants; and rate ratio 0.40, 95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74; network estimate; direct comparison: 1 RCT; 77 participants; respectively). Based on low-certainty evidence, the proportion of people who developed symptomatic rebleed was smaller in people who received sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues than those receiving only sclerotherapy (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.94; direct estimate; 1 RCT; 105 participants). The evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons where sclerotherapy was the control intervention. Authors' conclusions Based on moderate-certainty evidence, somatostatin analogues alone and vasopressin analogues alone (with supportive therapy) probably result in increased mortality, compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, vasopressin analogues alone and band ligation alone probably result in fewer adverse events compared to endoscopic sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, balloon tamponade plus sclerotherapy may result in large increases in serious adverse events compared to sclerotherapy. Based on low-certainty evidence, sclerotherapy plus somatostatin analogues may result in large decreases in symptomatic rebleed compared to sclerotherapy. In the remaining comparisons, the evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effects of the interventions, compared to sclerotherapy.

Background Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. Selection criteria We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. Data collection and analysis We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. Main results We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Authors' conclusions Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Background Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years of diagnosis. Several different treatments are available, which include endoscopic sclerotherapy, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgical portocaval shunts, among others. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of different initial treatments for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in adults with previous oesophageal variceal bleeding due to decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for secondary prevention according to their safety and efficacy. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and a previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. Selection criteria We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had no previous history of bleeding from oesophageal varices, previous history of bleeding only from gastric varices, those who failed previous treatment (refractory bleeding), those who had acute bleeding at the time of treatment, and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation. Data collection and analysis We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. Main results We included a total of 48 randomised clinical trials (3526 participants) in the review. Forty-six trials (3442 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies. The follow-up ranged from two months to 61 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 12 interventions were compared in these trials (sclerotherapy, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, no active intervention, TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt), beta-blockers plus nitrates, portocaval shunt, sclerotherapy plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy plus nitrates). Overall, 22.5% of the trial participants who received the reference treatment (chosen because this was the commonest treatment compared in the trials) of sclerotherapy died during the follow-up period ranging from two months to 61 months. There was considerable uncertainty in the effects of interventions on mortality. Accordingly, none of the interventions showed superiority over another. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in fewer serious adverse events (number of people) than sclerotherapy (OR 0.19; 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.54; 1 trial; 100 participants). Based on low or very low-certainty evidence, the adverse events (number of participants) and adverse events (number of events) may be different across many comparisons; however, these differences are due to very small trials at high risk of bias showing large differences in some comparisons leading to many differences despite absence of direct evidence. Based on low-certainty evidence, TIPS may result in large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation (HR 0.12; 95% CrI 0.03 to 0.41; 1 trial; 58 participants). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, any variceal rebleed was probably lower in sclerotherapy than in no active intervention (HR 0.62; 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.99, direct comparison HR 0.66; 95% CrI 0.11 to 3.13; 3 trials; 296 participants), beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy than sclerotherapy alone (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95; direct comparison HR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.07 to 2.96; 4 trials; 231 participants); TIPS than sclerotherapy (HR 0.18; 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.38; direct comparison HR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.01 to 7.51; 2 trials; 109 participants), and in portocaval shunt than sclerotherapy (HR 0.21; 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.77; no direct comparison) groups. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more, other compensation, events than sclerotherapy (rate ratio 2.37; 95% CrI 1.35 to 4.67; 1 trial; 65 participants and rate ratio 2.30; 95% CrI 1.20 to 4.65; 2 trials; 109 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions including those related to beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation in the remaining comparisons. Authors' conclusions The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions on mortality. Variceal band ligation might result in fewer serious adverse events than sclerotherapy. TIPS might result in a large decrease in symptomatic rebleed than variceal band ligation. Sclerotherapy probably results in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than no active intervention. Beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy and TIPS probably result in fewer 'any' variceal rebleeding than sclerotherapy. Beta-blockers alone and TIPS might result in more other compensation events than sclerotherapy. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials are needed.

Background Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. Methods We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. Results From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. Conclusions Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness.To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary.This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components.We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.El tabaquismo es una causa principal de enfermedad y muerte en todo el mundo. En las personas que fuman, dejar de fumar puede revertir gran parte del daño. Muchas personas utilizan intervenciones conductuales para ayudarles a dejar de fumar y estas intervenciones pueden variar considerablemente en contenido y efectividad.Resumir la evidencia de las revisiones Cochrane que evaluaron el efecto de las intervenciones conductuales diseñadas para apoyar los intentos de abandono del hábito de fumar y realizar un metanálisis en red para determinar cómo las modalidades de prestación; la persona que administra la intervención; y la naturaleza, el enfoque y la intensidad de las intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar influyen en la probabilidad de lograr la abstinencia seis meses después de intentar dejar de fumar; y si los efectos de las intervenciones conductuales dependen de otras características, como la población, el contexto y la administración de farmacoterapia. Resumir la disponibilidad y los hallazgos principales de las evaluaciones económicas de intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar, en términos de costes y coste‐efectividad, mediante un breve comentario económico. MÉTODOS: Este artículo comprende dos elementos principales. 1. Se realizó una revisión global Cochrane de revisiones según los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Mediante una búsqueda en la Biblioteca Cochrane en julio de 2020 se identificaron las revisiones Cochrane de intervenciones conductuales (incluidas todas las intervenciones no farmacológicas, p.ej., orientación, ejercicio, hipnoterapia, materiales de autoayuda) para el abandono del hábito de fumar. La calidad metodológica de las revisiones se evaluó mediante AMSTAR 2 y los datos de las revisiones se resumieron de manera narrativa. 2. Las revisiones incluidas se utilizaron para identificar los ensayos controlados aleatorizados de intervenciones conductuales para el abandono del hábito de fumar en comparación con otras intervenciones conductuales o ninguna intervención para el abandono del hábito de fumar. Para ser incluidos, los estudios debían incluir a fumadores adultos y medir la abstinencia de fumar a los seis meses o más. La selección, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo siguieron los métodos Cochrane estándar. Los datos se resumieron mediante un metanálisis en red de componentes (MARC) bayesiano, y se examinaron los efectos de 38 componentes diferentes en comparación con una intervención mínima. Los componentes incluyeron elementos conductuales y motivacionales, proveedores de la intervención, modos de administración, naturaleza, enfoque e intensidad de la intervención conductual. Se utilizó la metarregresión en red de componentes (MRRC) para evaluar la influencia de las características de la población, la administración de farmacoterapia y la intensidad de la intervención sobre los efectos de los componentes. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los dominios de GRADE. Se presupuso un efecto aditivo para los componentes individuales.Se incluyeron 33 revisiones Cochrane, de las cuales 312 ensayos controlados aleatorizados, que representaban a 250 563 participantes y 845 grupos de estudio distintos, cumplieron los criterios para su inclusión en el metanálisis en red de componentes. Esto representó 437 combinaciones diferentes de componentes. De las 33 revisiones, la confianza en los hallazgos de la revisión fue alta en cuatro y moderada en nueve, medida con la herramienta de lectura crítica AMSTAR 2. Las 20 revisiones restantes tuvieron una confianza baja o críticamente baja debido a una o más deficiencias graves, las más habituales fueron una investigación o discusión (o ambas) insuficiente acerca del impacto del sesgo de publicación. Cabe señalar que las debilidades críticas identificadas no afectaron los elementos de la búsqueda, la selección o la extracción de los datos del proceso de revisión, que mantienen una relación directa en este MARC. Entre los estudios incluidos, 125/312 tuvieron un riesgo general de sesgo bajo, 50 un riesgo de sesgo alto y el resto un riesgo de sesgo poco claro. Los análisis de las revisiones contribuyentes y de este MARC mostraron que las intervenciones conductuales para dejar de fumar pueden aumentar las tasas de abandono del hábito, pero la efectividad varía según las características del apoyo proporcionado. Hubo evidencia de certeza alta de un efecto beneficioso de la prestación de orientación (odds ratio [OR] 1,44; intervalo de credibilidad [ICr] del 95%: 1,22 a 1,70, 194 estudios, n = 72 273) y de los incentivos económicos garantizados (OR 1,46; ICr del 95% 1,15 a 1,85, 19 estudios, n = 8877). La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso se mantuvo cuando se eliminaron los estudios con alto riesgo de sesgo. Estos hallazgos fueron concordantes con los metanálisis pareados de las revisiones contribuyentes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de un efecto beneficioso de las intervenciones administradas a través de mensajes de texto (la certeza se disminuyó debido a una heterogeneidad estadística inexplicada en la comparación pareada), y de los siguientes componentes en los que las estimaciones puntuales indicaron un efecto beneficioso pero los ICr no incorporaron una diferencia clínicamente significativa: personalización; contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales; contenido de la intervención centrado en cómo dejar de fumar. Los otros componentes de la intervención tuvieron evidencia de certeza muy baja a baja, y sus problemas principales fueron la imprecisión y el riesgo de sesgo. No hubo evidencia que indicara un aumento de los efectos perjudiciales en los grupos que recibieron apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar. Los efectos de la intervención no cambiaron al ajustar las características de la población, pero los datos fueron limitados. El aumento de la intensidad del apoyo conductual, medido a través del número de contactos, la duración de cada contacto y la duración del programa, tuvo estimaciones puntuales asociadas con un modesto aumento de las posibilidades de dejar de fumar, pero los ICr no incluyeron una diferencia. El efecto del apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar pareció ser ligeramente menos pronunciado cuando las personas ya recibían farmacoterapias para dejar de fumar.El apoyo conductual para dejar de fumar puede aumentar las tasas de abandono a los seis meses o más, sin evidencia de que este apoyo aumente los efectos perjudiciales. Esto es así tanto si se proporciona una farmacoterapia para dejar de fumar como si no, pero el efecto es ligeramente más pronunciado sin farmacoterapia. La evidencia de un efecto beneficioso es más sólida para la prestación de cualquier tipo de orientación y de incentivos económicos garantizados. La evidencia indicó un posible efecto beneficioso, pero la necesidad de realizar más estudios para evaluar: la personalización; la administración mediante mensajes de texto, correos electrónicos y grabaciones de audio; la administración por parte de un asesor de salud no profesional; y el contenido de la intervención con componentes motivacionales y centrada en cómo dejar de fumar. Se identificaron 23 evaluaciones económicas; la evidencia no indicó de manera homogénea que un tipo de intervención conductual para el abandono del hábito de fumar fuera más coste‐efectiva que otra. Las revisiones futuras deberían examinar a fondo el sesgo de publicación. Se necesitan herramientas para investigar el sesgo de publicación y evaluar la certeza en MARC.

Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This study aimed to determine for continuous outcomes dependent on baseline risk, whether funnel plot asymmetry may be due to statistical artefact rather than publication bias and evaluate a novel test to resolve this. Firstly, we conducted assessment for publication bias in nine meta-analyses of postoperative analgesics (344 trials with 25 348 participants). Secondly, we attempted to resolve the observed asymmetry by considering meta-regression residuals as outcome (rather than mean difference) and (inverse) sample size as the exploratory variable (rather than SE). Since the approach resolved the asymmetry, we evaluated it, and related approaches, using a simulation study considering four scenarios comprised of every combination of baseline interactions and absolute selective publication bias being present or not (10 000 simulated meta-analyses per scenario with no residual between-study heterogeneity). The test based on meta-regression residuals and inverse sample size performed as well as conventional tests (Egger's test) when no baseline risk was present and reduced type I errors when baseline risk was present. It also had modest power to detect publication bias in the presence of baseline risk. We demonstrated that correlation between effect estimates and SEs produces funnel plot asymmetry in the presence of no publication bias for continuous outcomes dependent on baseline risk. Our novel approach of assessing funnel plot asymmetry using a modified funnel plot and test based on residuals and inverse sample size may have improved performance when carrying out publication bias assessments for unstandardized mean differences where treatment effects are dependent on baseline risk.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with liver cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is associated with significant short‐term mortality; therefore, it is important to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people at high risk of developing it. Antibiotic prophylaxis forms the mainstay preventive method, but this has to be balanced against the development of drug‐resistant spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which is difficult to treat, and other adverse events. Several different prophylactic antibiotic treatments are available; however, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy and optimal combination. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antibiotic treatments for prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis using a network meta‐analysis and to generate rankings of the different prophylactic antibiotic treatments according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis at risk of developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis undergoing prophylactic treatment to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation, or were receiving antibiotics for treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or other purposes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta‐analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available‐case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 randomised clinical trials (3896 participants; nine antibiotic regimens (ciprofloxacin, neomycin, norfloxacin, norfloxacin plus neomycin, norfloxacin plus rifaximin, rifaximin, rufloxacin, sparfloxacin, sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim), and 'no active intervention' in the review. Twenty‐three trials (2587 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, with or without other features of decompensation, having ascites with low protein or previous history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The follow‐up in the trials ranged from 1 to 12 months. Many of the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Overall, approximately 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality (very low certainty) or number of serious adverse events (very low certainty). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the trials reported health‐related quality of life or the proportion of people with serious adverse events. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of proportion of people with 'any adverse events' (very low certainty), liver transplantation (very low certainty), or the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (very low certainty). The number of 'any' adverse events per participant was fewer with norfloxacin (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.94; 4 trials, 546 participants; low certainty) and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (rate ratio 0.19, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.81; 1 trial, 60 participants; low certainty) versus no active intervention. There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of 'any' adverse events per participant (very low certainty). There were fewer other decompensation events with rifaximin versus no active intervention (rate ratio 0.61, 65% CrI 0.46 to 0.80; 3 trials, 575 participants; low certainty) and norfloxacin plus neomycin (rate ratio 0.06, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.33; 1 trial, 22 participants; low certainty). There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of decompensations events per participant (very low certainty). None of the trials reported health‐related quality of life or development of symptomatic spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. One would expect some correlation between the above outcomes, with interventions demonstrating effectiveness across several outcomes. This was not the case. The possible reasons for this include sparse data and selective reporting bias, which makes the results unreliable. Therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions from these inconsistent differences based on sparse data. There was no evidence of any differences in the subgroup analyses (performed when possible) based on whether the prophylaxis was primary or secondary. Funding: the source of funding for five trials were organisations who would benefit from the results of the study; six trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 18 trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low‐certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial, and if beneficial, which antibiotic prophylaxis is most beneficial in people with cirrhosis and ascites with low protein or history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid postrandomisation dropouts (or perform intention‐to‐treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health‐related quality of life, and decompensation events.

Background Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents. Objectives To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation. Selection criteria We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections. Data collection and analysis We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. Main results We included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life. Funding the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear. Authors' conclusions Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

Background: Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Antibiotics, in addition to supportive treatment (fluid and electrolyte balance, treatment of shock), form the mainstay treatments of SBP. Various antibiotics are available for the treatment of SBP, but there is uncertainty regarding the best antibiotic for SBP. Objectives: To compare the benefits and harms of different antibiotic treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on people with cirrhosis and SBP. Selection criteria: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and SBP. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of SBP, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta‐analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available‐case analysis, according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit guidance. Main results: We included a total of 12 trials (1278 participants; 13 antibiotics) in the review. Ten trials (893 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included patients having cirrhosis with or without other features of decompensation of varied aetiologies. The follow‐up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Only one trial was included under each comparison for most of the outcomes. Because of these reasons, there is very low certainty in all the results. The majority of the randomised clinical trials used third‐generation cephalosporins, such as intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ciprofloxacin as one of the interventions. Overall, approximately 75% of trial participants recovered from SBP and 25% of people died within three months. There was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes for which network meta‐analysis was possible: mortality (9 trials; 653 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (5 trials; 297 participants), resolution of SBP (as per standard definition, 9 trials; 873 participants), or other features of decompensation (6 trials; 535 participants). The effect estimates in the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of network meta‐analysis. For the comparisons where network meta‐analysis was not possible, there was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes (proportion of participants with serious adverse events, number of adverse events, and proportion of participants requiring liver transplantation). Due to the wide CrIs and the very low‐certainty evidence for all the outcomes, significant benefits or harms of antibiotics are possible. None of the trials reported health‐related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from SBP. Funding: the source of funding for two trials were industrial organisations who would benefit from the results of the trial; the source of funding for the remaining 10 trials was unclear. Authors' conclusions: Short‐term mortality after SBP is about 25%. There is significant uncertainty about which antibiotic therapy is better in people with SBP. We need adequately powered randomised clinical trials, with adequate blinding, avoiding post‐randomisation dropouts (or performing intention‐to‐treat analysis), and using clinically important outcomes, such as mortality, health‐related quality of life, and adverse events.

Background Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective. Objectives To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness. Search methods We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status. Selection criteria We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta‐analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks. Main results We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed‐treatment contrasts. The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5‐ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty. We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5‐ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low‐certainty evidence) and 5‐ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate‐certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low‐certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low‐certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low‐certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low‐certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective. Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low‐certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low‐certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied. Authors' conclusions Due to low‐certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.

Background:\ud Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta‐analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available‐case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.\ud \ud Main results:\ud We included a total of 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty‐three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow‐up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.\ud \ud There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow‐up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health‐related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow‐up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow‐up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta‐analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.\ud \ud Funding: two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud Based on very low‐certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all‐cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low‐certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low‐ or very low‐certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.\ud \ud Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post‐randomisation dropouts or planned cross‐overs (or perform an intention‐to‐treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health‐related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.

IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduction of the evidence base, which can be further reduced at the cost-effectiveness stage as common outcome measures, such as standardized mean differences, cannot easily be incorporated into the economic decision model. Recent methodological advances for synthesizing continuous and time-to-event outcomes aim to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis.MethodsTo assess the statistical methods commonly used in health technology assessment (HTA) and establish whether recent advances in synthesis methods have been adopted in practice, we conducted a review of HTA reports and guidelines published in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 reporting a quantitative meta-analysis (MA), network meta-analysis (NMA) or indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome.ResultsForty-seven articles were considered eligible for this review. Fifty-one percent of eligible articles reported at least one continuous outcome and 55 percent at least one time-to-event outcome. Twenty-nine articles reported NMA or ITC and twenty-seven reported MA of a continuous or time-to-event outcome. Forty articles included a decision model, of which twenty-seven incorporated evidence from a synthesis of a continuous or time-to-event outcome with eleven informed by a single trial (despite synthesis being conducted).ConclusionsUptake of methods to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis in UK HTA reports has been slow. Evaluating health technologies using an evidence-based approach often results in better outcomes for patients. Therefore, HTA analysts and decision modelers must be aware of the expanding literature for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes and appreciate the limitations of simpler approaches.

Background Recommended statistical methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies require relatively complex bivariate statistical models which can be a barrier for non-statisticians. A further barrier exists in the software options available for fitting such models. Software accessible to non-statisticians, such as RevMan, does not support the fitting of bivariate models thus users must seek statistical support to use R, Stata or SAS. Recent advances in web technologies make analysis tool creation much simpler than previously. As well as accessibility, online tools can allow tailored interactivity not found in other packages allowing multiple perspectives of data to be displayed and information to be tailored to the user’s preference from a simple interface. We set out to: (i) Develop a freely available web-based “point and click” interactive tool which allows users to input their DTA study data and conduct meta-analyses for DTA reviews, including sensitivity analyses. (ii) Illustrate the features and benefits of the interactive application using an existing DTA meta-analysis for detecting dementia. Methods To create our online freely available interactive application we used the existing R packages lme4 and Shiny to analyse the data and create an interactive user interface respectively. Results MetaDTA, an interactive online application was created for conducting meta-analysis of DTA studies. The user interface was designed to be easy to navigate having different tabs for different functions. Features include the ability for users to enter their own data, customise plots, incorporate quality assessment results and quickly conduct sensitivity analyses. All plots produced can be exported as either .png or .pdf files to be included in report documents. All tables can be exported as .csv files. Conclusions MetaDTA, is a freely available interactive online application which meta-analyses DTA studies, plots the summary ROC curve, incorporates quality assessment results and allows for sensitivity analyses to be conducted in a timely manner. Due to the rich feature-set and user-friendliness of the software it should appeal to a wide audience including those without specialist statistical knowledge. We encourage others to create similar applications for specialist analysis methods to encourage broader uptake which in-turn could improve research quality.

Identifying which individuals benefit most from particular treatments or other interventions underpins so-called personalised or stratified medicine. However, single trials are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics, such as age or disease severity, determine an individual’s response to treatment. A meta-analysis of multiple trials, particularly one where individual participant data (IPD) are available, provides greater power to investigate interactions between participant characteristics (covariates) and treatment effects. We use a published IPD meta-analysis to illustrate three broad approaches used for testing such interactions. Based on another systematic review of recently published IPD meta-analyses, we also show that all three approaches can be applied to aggregate data as well as IPD. We also summarise which methods of analysing and presenting interactions are in current use, and describe their advantages and disadvantages. We recommend that testing for interactions using within-trials information alone (the deft approach) becomes standard practice, alongside graphical presentation that directly visualises this.

Summary Background Luteinising-hormone-releasing-hormone agonists (LHRHa) to treat prostate cancer are associated with long-term toxic effects, including osteoporosis. Use of parenteral oestrogen could avoid the long-term complications associated with LHRHa and the thromboembolic complications associated with oral oestrogen. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, we enrolled men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer scheduled to start indefinite hormone therapy. Randomisation was by minimisation, in a 2:1 ratio, to four self-administered oestrogen patches (100 μg per 24 h) changed twice weekly or LHRHa given according to local practice. After castrate testosterone concentrations were reached (1·7 nmol/L or lower) men received three oestrogen patches changed twice weekly. The primary outcome, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, was analysed by modified intention to treat and by therapy at the time of the event to account for treatment crossover in cases of disease progression. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00303784. Findings 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive LHRHa and 169 to receive oestrogen patches. All 85 patients started LHRHa, and 168 started oestrogen patches. At 3 months, 70 (93%) of 75 receiving LHRHa and 111 (92%) of 121 receiving oestrogen had achieved castrate testosterone concentrations. After a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR 12–31), 24 cardiovascular events were reported, six events in six (7·1%) men in the LHRHa group (95% CI 2·7–14·9) and 18 events in 17 (10·1%) men in the oestrogen-patch group (6·0–15·6). Nine (50%) of 18 events in the oestrogen group occurred after crossover to LHRHa. Mean 12-month changes in fasting glucose concentrations were 0·33 mmol/L (5·5%) in the LHRHa group and −0·16 mmol/L (−2·4%) in the oestrogen-patch group (p=0·004), and for fasting cholesterol were 0·20 mmol/L (4·1%) and −0·23 mmol/L (−3·3%), respectively (p

Structure is proposed as a vehicle for reducing supervisee anxiety in supervision. There are five components involving roles and responsibilities, information, counseling theory, evaluation and feedback. Structure is presented as a proactive anxiety management strategy.

It is proposed that in cross-cultural counseling there can be a synthesis of two dichotomous approaches—the culturally specific and the universal. The conclusion is that within the universalistic philosophical stance there is a highly specific process available to the counselor. Client-centered therapy is a therapeutic process that most effectively engages the individual as well as the universal being.

This interview with Donald Super focuses on life stages, determinants, role of career counselors, matching vs. developmental emphasis, multicultural and women's issues, current applications of theory, and a comment on future directions.

C. H. Patterson is interviewed regarding the client-centered practice of supervision; theory, components, the question of developmental stages, the supervisory relationship, and roles are elucidated.

Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) combines direct and indirect evidence from trials to calculate treatment effect estimates and rank treatments. Modelling approaches for continuous and binary outcomes are relatively well developed, but less work has been done with time-toevent outcomes. Such outcomes have usually been analysed using Cox proportional hazard (PH) models, but in oncology with longer follow-up of trials, and timedependent effects of targeted treatments, this may no longer be appropriate. Royston-Parmar models, fitted using WinBUGS, are a flexible alternative.

Objective To determine the clinical effectiveness of real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes. Design Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Cochrane database for randomised controlled trials, Ovid Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, lists of papers supplied by manufacturers of continuous glucose monitors, and cited literature in retrieved articles. Studies reviewed Randomised controlled trials of two or more months’ duration in men and non-pregnant women with type 1 diabetes that compared real time continuous glucose monitoring with self monitoring of blood glucose and where insulin delivery was the same in both arms. Analysis Two step meta-analysis of individual patient data with the primary outcome of final glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) percentage and area under the curve of hypoglycaemia (glucose concentration

The outplacement program ended with a short written evaluation of the value of the program to participants. Their comments indicated a high level of satisfaction; and all responded “yes” to the question, “Overall, do you think the outplacement program has been beneficial to you?” It appears that one of the main factors contributing to the program's success was having program goals that recognized the needs of hourly women workers. Before the outplacement program, they had no hope of obtaining better jobs than that of telephone operator. It was an exceptional women whose eyes were focused on moving up. The vast majority were resigned to take what they could get, clearly reducing their expectations and encouraging downward rather than upward movement. The true test will be to see what these participants do with their work lives in the future, but responses following the program indicate initially that they are now aiming much higher than the most basic level of employment.

Stage I seminoma accounts for 40e45% of testicular cancers [1,2], 800e900 UK cases annually [3]. After orchidectomy, care includes one of three main options: adjuvant chemotherapy (one to two cycles of carboplatin), para-aortic radiotherapy or, as more than 80% of patients are cured by surgery [4,5], surveillance incorporating regular imaging. Relapse rates after adjuvant therapy are about 4e5% [6]. However, salvage therapy is highly effective and causespecific survival approaches 100%, irrespective of initial management [7]. Given such excellent prospects, and the young age of patients, long-term implications and risks must be considered. Avoidance of treatment side-effects through the use of surveillance may be a sensible and safe approach. Here we consider current evidence regarding the efficacy and potential risks of these management options. Based on surveys of UK oncologists treating testis cancer patients in 2005 and 2009,we assess currentmanagement practices and trends over time. We highlight the limitations of evidence relating to optimal surveillance strategies and the resultant variation in practice. Finally, we introduce an ongoing Medical Research Council (MRC) randomised controlled trial (RCT), the Trial of Imaging and Schedule in Seminoma Testis (TRISST), designed to address knowledge gaps and pave the way for a standardised approach.