| 1. |
- Dragioti, Elena, et al.
(författare)
-
A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Annals of General Psychiatry. - : BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. - 1744-859X. ; 14:25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Experimenters allegiance (EA) refers to a personal confidence of the superiority of a specific psychotherapy treatment. This factor has been linked with larger treatment effects in favor of the preferred treatment. However, various studies have displayed contradictory results between EA and the pattern of treatment effects. Aims: Using a systematic approach followed by meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the impact of an allegiance effect on the results of psychotherapeutic studies. Method: We considered the meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different types of psychotherapies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible articles included meta-analyses of RCTs with at least one study showing evidence of EA (i.e., allegiant study). Effect sizes in allegiant RCTs were compared with non-allegiant using random and fixed models and a summary relative odds ratio (ROR) were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified with the I-2 metric. Results: A total of 30 meta-analyses including 240 RCTs were analyzed. The summary ROR was 1.31 [(95 % confidence interval (CI: 1.03-1.66) P = 0.30, I-2 = 53 %] indicating larger effects when allegiance exists. The impact of allegiance did not differ significantly (P greater than 0.05) when we compared psychiatric versus medical outcomes. Allegiance effect was significant for all forms of psychotherapy except for cognitive behavioral therapy. Moreover, the impact of allegiance was significant only when the treatment integrity of delivered psychotherapy was not assessed. Allegiance effect was even stronger where the experimenter was also both the developer of the preferred treatment and supervised or trained the therapists. No significant differences were found between allegiant and non-allegiant studies in terms of overall quality of studies. Conclusions: Experimenters allegiance influences the effect sizes of psychotherapy RCTs and can be considered non-financial conflict of interest introducing a form of optimism bias, especially since blinding is problematic in this kind of research. A clear reporting of EA in every single study should be given an opportunity to investigators of minimizing its overestimation effects.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dragioti, Elena, Ph.D., et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Antidepressant Use With Adverse Health Outcomes A Systematic Umbrella Review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA psychiatry. - Chicago, IL, United States : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6238 .- 2168-622X. ; 76:12, s. 1241-1255
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This umbrella review searches PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO to summarize and grade the strength of evidence of the associations between antidepressants and adverse outcomes reported in multiple meta-analyses. Importance Antidepressant use is increasing worldwide. Yet, contrasting evidence on the safety of antidepressants is available from meta-analyses, and the credibility of these findings has not been quantified. Objective To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed the association between antidepressant use or exposure and adverse health outcomes. Data Sources PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to April 5, 2019. Evidence Review Only meta-analyses of observational studies with a cohort or case-control study design were eligible. Two independent reviewers recorded the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Evidence of association was ranked according to established criteria as follows: convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant. Results Forty-five meta-analyses (17.9%) from 4471 studies identified and 252 full-text articles scrutinized were selected that described 120 associations, including data from 1012 individual effect size estimates. Seventy-four (61.7%) of the 120 associations were nominally statistically significant at P <= .05 using random-effects models. Fifty-two associations (43.4%) had large heterogeneity (I-2 > 50%), whereas small-study effects were found for 17 associations (14.2%) and excess significance bias was found for 9 associations (7.5%). Convincing evidence emerged from both main and sensitivity analyses for the association between antidepressant use and risk of suicide attempt or completion among children and adolescents, autism spectrum disorders with antidepressant exposure before and during pregnancy, preterm birth, and low Apgar scores. None of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analysis, which adjusted for confounding by indication. Conclusions and Relevance This studys findings suggest that most putative adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressant use may not be supported by convincing evidence, and confounding by indication may alter the few associations with convincing evidence. Antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, but more studies matching for underlying disease are needed to clarify the degree of confounding by indication and other biases. No absolute contraindication to antidepressants emerged from this umbrella review. Question Is antidepressant use associated with adverse health outcomes, and how credible is the evidence behind this association in published meta-analyses of real-world data? Findings In this systematic umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses of observational studies, convincing evidence was found for the associations between antidepressant use and suicide attempt or completion among individuals younger than 19 years and between antidepressant use and autism risk among the offspring. However, none of these associations remained at the convincing evidence level after a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for confounding by indication. Meaning This studys findings suggest that claimed adverse health outcomes associated with antidepressants may not be supported by strong evidence and may be exaggerated by confounding by indication; no absolute contraindication to the use of antidepressants was found to be currently supported by convincing evidence.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dragioti, Elena, Ph.D., et al.
(författare)
-
EFFECTIVENESS OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES FOR CLINICAL PAIN CONDITIONS: AN UMBRELLA REVIEW
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 50:9, s. 779-791
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To evaluate the strength of the evidence for multimodal/multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (MMRPs) for common pain outcomes. Data sources: PubMed, PsychInfo, PEDro and Co-chrane Library were searched from inception to August 2017. Study selection: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials and qualitative systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials were considered eligible. Data extraction: Two independent reviewers abstracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of the reviews. The strength of the evidence was graded using several criteria. Data synthesis: Twelve meta-analyses, including 134 associations, and 24 qualitative systematic reviews were selected. None of the associations in meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews were supported by either strong or highly suggestive evidence. In meta-analyses, only 8 (6%) associations that were significant at p-value amp;lt;= 0.05 were supported by suggestive evidence, whereas 44 (33%) associations were supported by weak evidence. Moderate evidence was found only in 4 (17%) qualitative systematic reviews, while 14 (58%) qualitative systematic reviews had limited evidence. Conclusion: There is no evidence that MMRPs are effective for prevalent clinical pain conditions. The majority of the evidence remains ambiguous and susceptible to biases due to the small sample size of participants and the limited number of studies included.
|
|
| 4. |
- Markozannes, Georgios, et al.
(författare)
-
An umbrella review of the literature on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for pain reduction.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Psychology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2050-7283. ; 5:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Psychological interventions are widely implemented for pain management and treatment, but their reported effectiveness shows considerable variation and there is elevated likelihood for bias.METHODS: We summarized the strength of evidence and extent of potential biases in the published literature of psychological interventions for pain treatment using a range of criteria, including the statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and of the largest study of each meta-analysis, number of participants, 95% prediction intervals, between-study heterogeneity, small-study effects and excess significance bias.RESULTS: Thirty-eight publications were identified, investigating 150 associations between several psychological interventions and 29 different types of pain. Of the 141 associations based on only randomized controlled trials, none presented strong or highly suggestive evidence by satisfying all the aforementioned criteria. The effect of psychological interventions on reducing cancer pain severity, pain in patients with arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, self-reported needle-related pain in children/adolescents or with chronic musculoskeletal pain, chronic non-headache pain and chronic pain in general were supported by suggestive evidence.CONCLUSIONS: The present findings reveal the lack of strong supporting empirical evidence for the effectiveness of psychological treatments for pain management and highlight the need to further evaluate the established approach of psychological interventions to ameliorate pain.
|
|
| 5. |
- Missiou, Aristea, et al.
(författare)
-
Health outcomes in primary care: a 20-year evidence map of randomized controlled trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Family Practice. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0263-2136 .- 1460-2229. ; 40:1, s. 128-137
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To quantify the different types of health outcomes assessed as primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary care (PC) setting during the last 20 years and identify whether potential gaps exist in specific types of health care and types of intervention. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2000 to September 2020 for published RCTs in PC. We recorded characteristics of eligible studies and mapped evidence by health outcome category (patient health outcomes, health services outcomes); and for each outcome category, by types of health care (preventive, acute, chronic, palliative), and by types of intervention (drug, behavioural, on structure, and on process). For RCTs assessing patient health outcomes as primary outcomes, we further mapped using the quality-of-care dimensions, that is, effectiveness, safety, and patient-centredness. Results Of the 518 eligible RCTs in PC, 357 (68.9%) evaluated a patient health outcome as the primary outcome, and 161 (31.1%) evaluated only health services outcomes as primary outcomes. Many focused on population with chronic illness (224 trials; 43.2%) and evaluated interventions on processes of health care (239 trials; 46.1%). Research gaps identified include preventive and palliative care, behavioural interventions, and safety and patient-centredness outcomes as primary outcomes. Conclusion Our evidence map showed research gaps in certain types of health care and interventions. It also showed research gaps in assessing safety and measures to place patient at the centre of health care delivery as primary outcomes.
|
|
| 6. |
- Missiou, Aristea, et al.
(författare)
-
Underreporting contextual factors preclude the applicability appraisal in primary care randomized controlled trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 160, s. 24-32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To assess applicability reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in primary care (PC).Study Design and Setting: We used a random sample of PC RCTs published between 2000 and 2020 to assess applicability. We ex-tracted data related to setting, population, intervention (including implementation), comparator, outcomes, and context. Based on data avail-ability, we assessed whether the five predefined applicability questions were adequately addressed by each PC RCT.Results: Adequately described elements that were reported frequently (O50%) included the responsible organization for intervention provision (97, 93.3%), study population characteristics (94, 90.4%), intervention implementation including monitoring and evaluation (92, 88.5%), intervention components (89, 85.6%), time frame (82, 78.8%), baseline prevalence (58, 55.8%), and the type of setting and location (53, 51%). Elements that were often underreported included contextual factors, that is, evidence of differential effects across sociodemo-graphic or other groupings (2, 1.9%), intervention components tailored for specific settings (7, 6.7%), health system structure (32, 30.8%), factors affecting implementation (40, 38.5%) and organization structure (50, 48.1%). The proportion of trials that adequately addressed each applicability question ranged between 1% and 20.2%, while none RCT could address all of them.Conclusion: Underreporting contextual factors jeopardize the appraisal of applicability in PC RCTs. & COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
