Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review

Background

To allow for correct evaluation of clinical trial results, readers require comprehensive, clear, and highly transparent information on the methodology used and the results obtained. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the field of HIV/AIDS.

Methods

We searched for original articles on RCTs of ART developed in the field of HIV/AIDS in PubMed database by 5 April 2016. Searched articles were divided into three groups based on the revision year in which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were published: Period 1 (1996–2001); Period 2 (2002–2010); and Period 3 (2011–2016). We evaluated the articles using the reporting rates of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist, five items in the protocol deviation, and the three items in the ethics.

Results

Fifty-two articles were extracted and included in this study. Many of the reporting rates calculated using the CONSORT 2010 checklist showed a significantly increasing trend over the successive periods (65% in Period 1, 67% in Period 2, 79% in Period 3; p?<?0.0001). The items with reporting rates?<?50% were “the presence or absence of a protocol change and the reason for such a change,” “randomization and blinding,” and “where the full trial protocol can be accessed.” Reporting rates of deviations were as low as?<?30%, while the reporting rates for patient compliance were the highest (>80% in Period 3) among the five items. The reporting rates for obtaining informed consent and approval by the ethics committee or institutional review board were high (>88%), regardless of the time period assessed.

Conclusion

In terms of representative RCT articles in the field of HIV/AIDS, the reporting rate of the items defined by CONSORT was approximately 70%, improving over the successive CONSORT statement revision periods.

     

Room for improvement in conducting and reporting non-inferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review

Background

A non-inferiority (NI) trial is intended to show that the effect of a new treatment is not worse than the comparator. We conducted a review to identify how NI trials were conducted and reported, and whether the standard requirements from the guidelines were followed.

Methodology and Principal Findings

From 300 randomly selected articles on NI trials registered in PubMed at 5 February 2009, we included 227 NI articles that referred to 232 trials. We excluded studies on bioequivalence, trials on healthy volunteers, non-drug trials, and articles of which the full-text version could not be retrieved. A large proportion of trials (34.0%) did not use blinding. The NI margin was reported in 97.8% of the trials, but only 45.7% of the trials reported the method to determine the margin. Most of the trials used either intention to treat (ITT) (34.9%) or per-protocol (PP) analysis (19.4%), while 41.8% of the trials used both methods. Less than 10% of the trials included a placebo arm to confirm the efficacy of the new drug and active comparator against placebo, and less than 5.0% were reporting the similarity of the current trial with the previous comparator''s trials. In general, no difference was seen in the quality of reporting before and after the release of the CONSORT statement extension 2006 or between the high-impact and low-impact journals.

Conclusion

The conduct and reporting of NI trials can be improved, particularly in terms of maximizing the use of blinding, the use of both ITT and PP analysis, reporting the similarity with the previous comparator''s trials to guarantee a valid constancy assumption, and most importantly reporting the method to determine the NI margin.     

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for unipolar depression: a systematic review of classic long-term randomized controlled trials

Background

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are increasingly used in the long-term treatment of depression. Much of the supporting evidence about the effects of these drugs comes from discontinuation trials, a variant of randomized controlled trials whose design is problematic to interpret. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and acceptability of long-term therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors relative to placebo in the treatment of unipolar depression.

Methods

We identified placebo-controlled randomized trials with a treatment duration of at least 6 months by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to update a recently published systematic review. Efficacy was defined in terms of response to treatment (50% improvement in depression score relative to baseline) and remission (score of 7 or below on the Hamilton rating scale for depression). Key secondary outcomes included quality of life, return to work, need for additional treatment and self-harm. Overall acceptability was defined in terms of dropouts for any reason over a course of treatment.

Results

Of the 2693 records identified initially, we included 6 randomized controlled trials that met our eligibility criteria. These studies had a moderate risk of bias, had assigned a total of 1299 participants with depression to either treatment or placebo and had followed both groups for 6–8 months. We observed statistically significant improvements in response to treatment (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–2.48), but not in remission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92–2.32) or acceptability (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67–1.14). The effects appeared greater among patients without comorbidities.

Interpretation

There is a lack of classic randomized controlled trials of serotonin reuptake inhibitors lasting more than 1 year for the treatment of depression. The results of our systematic review support current recommendations for 6–8 months of antidepressant treatment following initial recovery but provide no guidance for longer treatment.Over the past decade, the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the management of depression has increased dramatically, and preliminary evidence suggests that long-term use, for more than 1 or 2 years, accounts for much of this rise.^1–3 Clinical practice guidelines generally recommend a 6- to 9-month course following initial recovery after a first episode of depression and longer, sometimes indefinite, therapy after subsequent episodes, to prevent relapse.^4–10Long-term randomized controlled trials of antidepressants have typically used 1 of 2 possible designs, each answering different questions (Figure 1).¹¹ The most widely used design is called the “discontinuation trial,” a 2-phase study in which all participants are initially treated with an open (unblinded) course of drug therapy. Participants attaining a certain response during the open-treatment phase enter the second phase, during which they are randomly assigned to continue active drug treatment or to receive placebo.^12–14 Discontinuation trials are believed to minimize the number of participants with depression who must be exposed to placebo. This advantage comes at a cost, since the results apply only to patients with a response to the medication, not to those who experience spontaneous recovery; furthermore, withdrawal symptoms may lead to an overestimate of the true effect of the medication. When this design is used to test long-term therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depression, the results are difficult to interpret with confidence because rates of spontaneous recovery in depression are potentially high and because withdrawal effects can mimic depression.^13–15Open in a separate windowFigure 1: Two designs of randomized controlled trials used to investigate long-term antidepressant therapy.The second type of randomized trial used to test long-term therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is a 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial, hereafter referred to as a classic randomized controlled trial (Figure 1).¹⁶ In this type of trial, participants with acute depression are assigned to receive either placebo or active drug, and all those achieving a certain response, either to the drug or to the placebo, are followed. The advantage of classic randomized controlled trials is that data from all participants contribute to our understanding of the drug''s real-world effectiveness. Their main drawback is that a greater number of acutely ill people may have to receive placebo than in a discontinuation trial.¹³ Most classic trials of antidepressants are short-term studies. Fergusson and colleagues,¹⁷ in a systematic review examining selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicide, identified 702 classic trials involving a total of 18 413 participants, the majority of which (93%) lasted less than 6 months.A recent systematic review based mainly on studies with discontinuation designs showed that, in a subgroup of patients who experienced recovery while taking medications, long-term therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors reduced the chances of relapse by up to 70% for up to 36 months, relative to patients whose therapy was discontinued earlier.⁶ However, there has been no systematic review of classic randomized trials of long-term therapy with this drug class to determine the potential benefits in all patients with depression, including those with spontaneous recovery.We sought to examine the efficacy and acceptability of long-term therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors relative to placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe depression, including subgroups of patients with major chronic health conditions. We also examined a number of key indicators of the quality of evidence and its clinical importance.     

Zinc for the treatment of the common cold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:

Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating zinc for the treatment of the common cold are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc for such use.

Methods:

We searched electronic databases and other sources for studies published through to Sept. 30, 2011. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing orally administered zinc with placebo or no treatment. Assessment for study inclusion, data extraction and risk-of-bias analyses were performed in duplicate. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

Results:

We included 17 trials involving a total of 2121 participants. Compared with patients given placebo, those receiving zinc had a shorter duration of cold symptoms (mean difference −1.65 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.50 to −0.81); however, heterogeneity was high (I² = 95%). Zinc shortened the duration of cold symptoms in adults (mean difference −2.63, 95% CI −3.69 to −1.58), but no significant effect was seen among children (mean difference −0.26, 95% CI −0.78 to 0.25). Heterogeneity remained high in all subgroup analyses, including by age, dose of ionized zinc and zinc formulation. The occurrence of any adverse event (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46), bad taste (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.16) and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.27) were more common in the zinc group than in the placebo group.

Interpretation:

The results of our meta-analysis showed that oral zinc formulations may shorten the duration of symptoms of the common cold. However, large high-quality trials are needed before definitive recommendations for clinical practice can be made. Adverse effects were common and should be the point of future study, because a good safety and tolerance profile is essential when treating this generally mild illness.The common cold is a frequent respiratory infection experienced 2 to 4 times a year by adults and up to 8 to 10 times a year by children.^1–3 Colds can be caused by several viruses, of which rhinoviruses are the most common.⁴ Despite their benign nature, colds can lead to substantial morbidity, absenteeism and lost productivity.^5–7Zinc, which can inhibit rhinovirus replication and has activity against other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus,⁸ is a potential treatment for the common cold. The exact mechanism of zinc’s activity on viruses remains uncertain. Zinc may also reduce the severity of cold symptoms by acting as an astringent on the trigeminal nerve.^9,10A recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concluded that zinc was effective at reducing the duration and severity of common cold symptoms.¹¹ However, there was considerable heterogeneity reported for the primary outcome (I² = 93%), and subgroup analyses to explore between-study variations were not performed. The efficacy of zinc therefore remains uncertain, because it is unknown whether the variability among studies was due to methodologic diversity (i.e., risk of bias and therefore uncertainty in zinc’s efficacy) or differences in study populations or interventions (i.e., zinc dose and formulation).We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc for the treatment of the common cold. We sought to improve upon previous systematic reviews^11–17 by exploring the heterogeneity with subgroups identified a priori, identifying new trials by instituting a broader search and obtaining additional data from authors.     

Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate supplementation in health and disease: a systematic review of randomized trials

Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB), a metabolite of the branched-chain amino acid leucine, is extensively used by athletes and bodybuilders in order to increase strength, muscle mass and exercise performance. We performed a systematic review of the clinical literature on the effectiveness of HMB supplementation in healthy and pathological conditions (i.e. training programs, aging, acute and chronic diseases, and after bariatric surgery). We reviewed all clinical trials indexed in Medline that tested HMB supplementation as well as all the experimental data regarding HMB intracellular mechanisms of action. Search terms included: randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, single- and double-blind method, HMB, proteolytic pathways, muscle atrophy, cachexia, and training. We found out 13 studies testing HMB in healthy young trained subjects, 11 in healthy young untrained subjects, 9 in patients affected by chronic diseases (i.e. cancer, HIV, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and 6 in elderly subjects. The indexed studies support that HMB is effective in preventing exercise-related muscle damage in healthy trained and untrained individuals as well as muscle loss during chronic diseases. Most of the selected studies showed the effectiveness of HMB in preventing exercise-related muscle damage in healthy trained and untrained individuals as well as muscle loss during chronic diseases. The usual dose of 3 g/day may be routinely recommended to maintain or improve muscle mass and function in health and disease. The safety profile of HMB is unequivocal. Further, well-designed clinical studies are needed to confirm effectiveness and mode of action of HMB, particularly in pathological conditions.     

Regional intra-arterial vs. systemic chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

To investigate the efficacy and safety of regional intra-arterial chemotherapy (RIAC) versus systemic chemotherapy for stage III/IV pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated by regional intra-arterial or systemic chemotherapy were identified using PubMed, ISI, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google, Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic databases, for all publications dated between 1960 and December 31, 2010. Data was independently extracted by two reviewers. Odds ratios and relative risks were pooled using either fixed- or random-effects models, depending on I² statistic and Q test assessments of heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials comprised of 298 patients met the standards for inclusion in the meta-analysis, among 492 articles that were identified. Eight patients achieved complete remission (CR) with regional intra-arterial chemotherapy (RIAC), whereas no patients achieved CR with systemic chemotherapy. Compared with systemic chemotherapy, patients receiving RIAC had superior partial remissions (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.65; 58.06% with RIAC and 29.37% with systemic treatment), clinical benefits (RR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.84, 2.97; 78.06% with RAIC and 29.37% with systemic treatment), total complication rates (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.87; 49.03% with RIAC and 71.33% with systemic treatment), and hematological side effects (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.91; 60.87% with RIAC and 85.71% with systemic treatment). The median survival time with RIAC (5–21 months) was longer than for systemic chemotherapy (2.7–14 months). Similarly, one year survival rates with RIAC (28.6%−41.2%) were higher than with systemic chemotherapy (0%−12.9%.).

Conclusion

Regional intra-arterial chemotherapy is more effective and has fewer complications than systemic chemotherapy for treating advanced pancreatic cancer.     

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

Background:

Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation.

Results:

We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size −0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.40 to −0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression.

Interpretation:

We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in randomized clinical trials may result in bias. Observer bias, sometimes called “detection bias” or “ascertainment bias,” occurs when outcome assessments are systematically influenced by the assessors’ conscious or unconscious predispositions — for example, because of hope or expectations, often favouring the experimental intervention.¹Blinded outcome assessors are used in many trials to avoid such bias. However, the use of non-blinded assessors remains common,^2–4 especially in nonpharmacological trials; for example, non-blinded outcome assessment was used in 90% of trials involving orthopedic traumatology³ and 74% of trials involving strength training for muscles.⁴Unfortunately, the empirical evidence on observer bias in randomized clinical trials has been incomplete. Meta-epidemiological studies have compared double-blind trials with similar trials that were not double-blind.^5,6 However, such studies address blinding crudely because “double-blind” is an ambiguous term.^3,7 Furthermore, the risk of confounding is considerable in indirect between-trial analyses, as “double-blind” trials may have better overall methods and larger sample sizes than trials that are not reported as “double-blind.”A more reliable approach involves analyses of trials that use both blinded and nonblinded outcome assessors, because such a within-trial design provides a direct comparison between blinded and nonblinded assessments of the same outcome in the same patients. Our previous analysis of such trials with binary outcomes found substantial observer bias.⁸Although subjective measurement scales such as illness severity scores are popular, they may be susceptible to observer bias. They are frequently used as outcomes in clinical scenarios with no naturally distinct categories, and adjacent subcategories on a scale typically involve minor and vaguely defined differences.We decided to systematically review trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of outcomes using the same measurement scales. Our primary objective was to evaluate the impact of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Our secondary objective was to examine reasons for variation in observer bias.     

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Background

Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.

Methods and Findings

A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people''s awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11–2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13–1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28–1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients'' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study''s main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.

Conclusion

Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants'' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Effects of cyclophosphamide on pulmonary function in patients with scleroderma and interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational prospective cohort studies

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the effect of cyclophosphamide treatment on pulmonary function in patients with systemic sclerosis and interstitial lung disease.

Methods

The primary outcomes were the mean change in forced vital capacity and in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide after 12 months of therapy in patients treated with cyclophosphamide.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials and six prospective observational studies were included for analysis. In the pooled analysis, the forced vital capacity and the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide predicted values after 12 months of therapy were essentially unchanged, with mean changes of 2.83% (95% confidence interval = 0.35 to 5.31) and 4.56% (95% confidence interval = -0.21 to 9.33), respectively.

Conclusions

Cyclophosphamide treatment in patients with systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease does not result in clinically significant improvement of pulmonary function.     

Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts.Selection of studies Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).Results 27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4) days), but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials.Conclusions Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.     

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common and life-threatening medical emergency in patients admitted to the hospital. Currently, there is a lack of large-scale evidence on the use of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) in patients with ARF. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated whether there were differences between HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for treating patients with ARF.

Methods

The EMBASE, Medline, and Wanfang databases and the Cochrane Library were searched. Two investigators independently collected the data and assessed the quality of each study. Randomized controlled trials that compared HFNC therapy with COT in patients with ARF were included. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

Results

Four studies that involved 703 patients with ARF were included, with 371 patients in the HFNC group and 332 patients in the COT group. In the overall estimates, there were no significant differences between the HFNC and COT groups in the rates of escalation of respiratory support (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.37, 1.27; z?=?1.20, P?=?0.23), intubation (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55, 1.00; z?=?1.95, P?=?0.05), mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.36, 1.88; z?=?0.47, P?=?0.64), or ICU transfer (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.57, 2.09; z?=?0.26, P?=?0.79) during ARF treatment. However, the subgroup analysis showed that HFNC therapy may decrease the rate of escalation of respiratory support (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53, 0.97; z?=?2.15, P?=?0.03) and the intubation rate (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53, 0.97; z?=?2.15, P?=?0.03) when ARF patients were treated with HFNC therapy for ≥24 h compared with COT.

Conclusions

HFNC therapy was similar to COT in ARF patients. The subgroup analysis showed that HFNC therapy may decrease the rate of escalation of respiratory support and the intubation rate when ARF patients were treated with HFNC for ≥24 h compared with COT. Further high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm our results.

     

Chinese herbal medicines for the treatment of type A H1N1 influenza: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

Chinese herbs are thought to be effective for type A H1N1 influenza. Series of Chinese herbs have been authorized recommended by the Chinese government, and until now a number of clinical trials of Chinese herbs for H1N1 influenza have been conducted. However, there is no critically appraised evidence such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses on potential benefits and harms of medicinal herbs for H1N1 influenza to justify their clinical use and their recommendation.

Methods and Findings

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, VIP, China Important Conference Papers Database, China Dissertation Database, and online clinical trial registry websites were searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbs for H1N1 influenza till 31 August, 2011. A total of 26 RCTs were identified and reviewed. Most of the RCTs were of high risk of bias with flawed study design and poor methodological quality. The combination of several Chinese herbal medicines with or without oseltamivir demonstrated positive effect on fever resolution, relief of symptoms, and global effectiveness rate compared to oseltamivir alone. However, only one herbal medicine showed positive effect on viral shedding. Most of the trials did not report adverse events, and the safety of herbal medicines is still uncertain.

Conclusions

Some Chinese herbal medicines demonstrated potential positive effect for 2009 type A H1N1 influenza; however, due to the lack of placebo controlled trial and lack of repeated test of the intervention, we could not draw confirmative conclusions on the beneficial effect of Chinese herbs for H1N1 influenza. More rigorous trials are warranted to support their clinical use.     

Corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury. Summary odds ratios were estimated as an inverse variance weighted average of the odds ratios for each study. SETTING: Randomised trials available by March 1996. SUBJECTS: The included trials with outcome data comprised 2073 randomised participants. RESULTS: The effect of corticosteroids on the risk of death was reported in 13 included trials. The pooled odds ratio for the 13 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.12). Pooled absolute risk reduction was 1.8% (-2.5% to 5.7%). For the 10 trials that reported death or disability the pooled odds ratio was 0.90 (0.72 to 1.11). For infections of any type the pooled odds ratio was 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) and for the seven trials reporting gastrointestinal bleeding it was 1.05 (0.44 to 2.52). With only those trials with the best quality of concealment of allocation, the pooled odds ratio estimates for death and death or disability became closer to unity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of randomised controlled trials of corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury shows that there remains considerable uncertainty over their effects. Neither moderate benefits nor moderate harmful effects can be excluded. The widely practicable nature of the drugs and the importance of the health problem suggest that large simple trials are feasible and worth while to establish whether there are any benefits from use of corticosteroids in this setting.