Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry

BackgroundRisk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry.MethodsA search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses of RCTs published in periodontology and implant dentistry fields, was performed in the Cochrane Library in September 2014. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed by grouping RCTs with different levels of ROBs in three domains (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment). To increase power and precision, only SRs with meta-analyses including at least 10 RCTs were included. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the association between ROB characteristics and the magnitudes of intervention effects in the meta-analyses.ResultsOf the 24 initially screened SRs, 21 SRs were excluded because they did not include at least 10 RCTs in the meta-analyses. Three SRs (two from periodontology field) generated information for conducting 27 meta-analyses. Meta-regression did not reveal significant differences in the relationship of the ROB level with the size of treatment effect estimates, although a trend for inflated estimates was observed in domains with unclear ROBs.ConclusionIn this sample of RCTs, high and (mainly) unclear risks of selection and detection biases did not seem to influence the size of treatment effect estimates, although several confounders might have influenced the strength of the association.     

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

Objective To summarise comparisons of randomised clinical trials and non-randomised clinical trials, trials with adequately concealed random allocation versus inadequately concealed random allocation, and high quality trials versus low quality trials where the effect of randomisation could not be separated from the effects of other methodological manoeuvres.Design Systematic review.Selection criteria Cohorts or meta-analyses of clinical trials that included an empirical assessment of the relation between randomisation and estimates of effect.Data sources Cochrane Review Methodology Database, Medline, SciSearch, bibliographies, hand searching of journals, personal communication with methodologists, and the reference lists of relevant articles.Main outcome measures Relation between randomisation and estimates of effect.Results Eleven studies that compared randomised controlled trials with non-randomised controlled trials (eight for evaluations of the same intervention and three across different interventions), two studies that compared trials with adequately concealed random allocation and inadequately concealed random allocation, and five studies that assessed the relation between quality scores and estimates of treatment effects, were identified. Failure to use random allocation and concealment of allocation were associated with relative increases in estimates of effects of 150% or more, relative decreases of up to 90%, inversion of the estimated effect and, in some cases, no difference. On average, failure to use randomisation or adequate concealment of allocation resulted in larger estimates of effect due to a poorer prognosis in non-randomly selected control groups compared with randomly selected control groups.Conclusions Failure to use adequately concealed random allocation can distort the apparent effects of care in either direction, causing the effects to seem either larger or smaller than they really are. The size of these distortions can be as large as or larger than the size of the effects that are to be detected.

Key messages

• Empirical studies support using random allocation in clinical trials and ensuring that the allocation process is concealed—that is, that assignment is impervious to any influence by the people making the allocation
• The effect of not using concealed random allocation can be as large or larger than the effects of worthwhile interventions
• On average, failure to use concealed random allocation results in overestimates of effect due to a poorer prognosis in non-randomly selected control groups compared with randomly selected control groups, but it can result in underestimates of effect, reverse the direction of effect, mask an effect, or give similar estimates of effect
• The adequacy of allocation concealment may be a more sensitive measure of bias in clinical trials than scales used to assess the quality of clinical trials
• It is a paradox that the unpredictability of randomisation is the best protection against the unpredictability of the extent and direction of bias in clinical trials that are not properly randomised

     

The Effectiveness of Mobile-Health Technology-Based Health Behaviour Change or Disease Management Interventions for Health Care Consumers: A Systematic Review

Background

Mobile technologies could be a powerful media for providing individual level support to health care consumers. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of mobile technology interventions delivered to health care consumers.

Methods and Findings

We searched for all controlled trials of mobile technology-based health interventions delivered to health care consumers using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, UK NHS HTA (Jan 1990–Sept 2010). Two authors extracted data on allocation concealment, allocation sequence, blinding, completeness of follow-up, and measures of effect. We calculated effect estimates and used random effects meta-analysis. We identified 75 trials. Fifty-nine trials investigated the use of mobile technologies to improve disease management and 26 trials investigated their use to change health behaviours. Nearly all trials were conducted in high-income countries. Four trials had a low risk of bias. Two trials of disease management had low risk of bias; in one, antiretroviral (ART) adherence, use of text messages reduced high viral load (>400 copies), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72–0.99), but no statistically significant benefit on mortality (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.47–1.32]). In a second, a PDA based intervention increased scores for perceived self care agency in lung transplant patients. Two trials of health behaviour management had low risk of bias. The pooled effect of text messaging smoking cessation support on biochemically verified smoking cessation was (RR 2.16 [95% CI 1.77–2.62]). Interventions for other conditions showed suggestive benefits in some cases, but the results were not consistent. No evidence of publication bias was demonstrated on visual or statistical examination of the funnel plots for either disease management or health behaviours. To address the limitation of the older search, we also reviewed more recent literature.

Conclusions

Text messaging interventions increased adherence to ART and smoking cessation and should be considered for inclusion in services. Although there is suggestive evidence of benefit in some other areas, high quality adequately powered trials of optimised interventions are required to evaluate effects on objective outcomes. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are biased and difficult to reproduce due to methodological flaws and poor reporting. There is increasing attention for responsible research practices and implementation of reporting guidelines, but whether these efforts have improved the methodological quality of RCTs (e.g., lower risk of bias) is unknown. We, therefore, mapped risk-of-bias trends over time in RCT publications in relation to journal and author characteristics. Meta-information of 176,620 RCTs published between 1966 and 2018 was extracted. The risk-of-bias probability (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of patients/personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment) was assessed using a risk-of-bias machine learning tool. This tool was simultaneously validated using 63,327 human risk-of-bias assessments obtained from 17,394 RCTs evaluated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Moreover, RCT registration and CONSORT Statement reporting were assessed using automated searches. Publication characteristics included the number of authors, journal impact factor (JIF), and medical discipline. The annual number of published RCTs substantially increased over 4 decades, accompanied by increases in authors (5.2 to 7.8) and institutions (2.9 to 4.8). The risk of bias remained present in most RCTs but decreased over time for allocation concealment (63% to 51%), random sequence generation (57% to 36%), and blinding of outcome assessment (58% to 52%). Trial registration (37% to 47%) and the use of the CONSORT Statement (1% to 20%) also rapidly increased. In journals with a higher impact factor (>10), the risk of bias was consistently lower with higher levels of RCT registration and the use of the CONSORT Statement. Automated risk-of-bias predictions had accuracies above 70% for allocation concealment (70.7%), random sequence generation (72.1%), and blinding of patients/personnel (79.8%), but not for blinding of outcome assessment (62.7%). In conclusion, the likelihood of bias in RCTs has generally decreased over the last decades. This optimistic trend may be driven by increased knowledge augmented by mandatory trial registration and more stringent reporting guidelines and journal requirements. Nevertheless, relatively high probabilities of bias remain, particularly in journals with lower impact factors. This emphasizes that further improvement of RCT registration, conduct, and reporting is still urgently needed.

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are biased and difficult to reproduce due to methodological flaws and poor reporting. Analysis of 176,620 RCTs published between 1966 and 2018 reveals that the risk of bias in RCTs generally decreased. Nevertheless, relatively high probabilities of bias remain, showing that further improvement of RCT registration, conduct, and reporting is still urgently needed.     

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective To evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methods Two reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity. Main outcome measures Mortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results 20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.Conclusion Antithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.     

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.     

Lower versus Higher Oxygen Concentration for Delivery Room Stabilisation of Preterm Neonates: Systematic Review

Background

Emerging evidence suggests that initiating delivery room respiratory support or resuscitation for term infants using lower rather than higher concentrations of oxygen reduces mortality and the risk of serious morbidity. Uncertainty exists with regard to applicability of this strategy for preterm infants who have different underlying reasons for respiratory distress and risks for harm at birth than term infants.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect on mortality and morbidity of using lower (21– 50%) versus higher (>50%) oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support of preterm infants.

Results

We identified six randomised controlled trials in which a total of 484 infants participated. Most participants were preterm infants born before 32 weeks’ gestation. One trial was quasi-randomised and in one trial allocation concealment was not described. Clinicians and investigators were aware of the interventions in all but one trial. Meta-analyses found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death pooled risk ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.98), but this effect disappeared when only the four trials with adequate allocation concealment were included [pooled risk ratio 1.0 (95% confidence interval 0.45, 2.24)]. None of the trials has evaluated any neuro-developmental outcomes.

Conclusions

The available trial data do not provide strong evidence that using lower versus higher oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support for preterm infants confers important benefits or harms. Lack of allocation concealment and blinding of clinicians and assessors are the major sources of bias in the existing trials. Further, large, good-quality trials are needed to resolve on-going uncertainties and inform clinical practice.     

The Effectiveness of Mobile-Health Technologies to Improve Health Care Service Delivery Processes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Mobile health interventions could have beneficial effects on health care delivery processes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of controlled trials of mobile technology interventions to improve health care delivery processes.

Methods and Findings

We searched for all controlled trials of mobile technology based health interventions using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, UK NHS HTA (Jan 1990–Sept 2010). Two authors independently extracted data on allocation concealment, allocation sequence, blinding, completeness of follow-up, and measures of effect. We calculated effect estimates and we used random effects meta-analysis to give pooled estimates.We identified 42 trials. None of the trials had low risk of bias. Seven trials of health care provider support reported 25 outcomes regarding appropriate disease management, of which 11 showed statistically significant benefits. One trial reported a statistically significant improvement in nurse/surgeon communication using mobile phones. Two trials reported statistically significant reductions in correct diagnoses using mobile technology photos compared to gold standard. The pooled effect on appointment attendance using text message (short message service or SMS) reminders versus no reminder was increased, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.06 (95% CI 1.05–1.07, I ² = 6%). The pooled effects on the number of cancelled appointments was not significantly increased RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.89–1.30). There was no difference in attendance using SMS reminders versus other reminders (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94–1.02, respectively). To address the limitation of the older search, we also reviewed more recent literature.

Conclusions

The results for health care provider support interventions on diagnosis and management outcomes are generally consistent with modest benefits. Trials using mobile technology-based photos reported reductions in correct diagnoses when compared to the gold standard. SMS appointment reminders have modest benefits and may be appropriate for implementation. High quality trials measuring clinical outcomes are needed. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Impact of Including Korean Randomized Controlled Trials in Cochrane Reviews of Acupuncture

Objective

Acupuncture is commonly practiced in Korea and is regularly evaluated in clinical trials. Although many Cochrane reviews of acupuncture include searches of both English and Chinese databases, there is no information on the value of searching Korean databases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of searching Korean databasesand journals for trials eligible for inclusion in existing Cochrane acupuncture reviews.

Methods

We searched 12 Korean databases and seven Korean journals to identify randomised trials meeting the inclusion criteria for acupuncture reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared risk of bias assessments of the Korean trials with the trials included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Where possible, we added data from the Korean trials to the existing meta-analyses in the relevant Cochrane review and conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results.

Results

Sixteen Korean trials (742 participants) met the inclusion criteria for eight Cochrane acupuncture reviews (125 trials; 13,041 participants). Inclusion of the Korean trials provided data for 20% of existing meta-analyses (24 out of 120). Inclusion of the Korean trials did not change the direction of effect in any of the existing meta-analyses. The effect size and heterogeneity remained mostly unchanged. In only one meta-analysis did the significance change. Compared to the studies included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews, the risk of bias in the Korean trials was higher in terms of outcome assessor blinding and allocation concealment.

Conclusions

Many Korean studies contributed additional data to the existing meta-analyses in Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Although inclusion of these studies did not alter the results of the meta-analyses, comprehensive searches of the literature are important to avoid potential language bias. The identification and inclusion of eligible Korean trials should be considered for reviews of acupuncture.     

Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE--To quantify the effectiveness of home visiting programmes in the prevention of child injury and child abuse. DESIGN--Systematic review of 11 randomised controlled trials of home visiting programmes. Pooled odds ratios were estimated as an inverse variance weighted average of the study specific odds ratios. SETTING--Randomised trials that were available by April 1995. SUBJECTS--The trials comprised 3433 participants. RESULTS--Eight trials examined the effectiveness of home visiting in the prevention of childhood injury. The pooled odds ratio for the eight trials was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.92). Four studies examined the effect of home visiting on injury in the first year of life. The pooled odds ratio was 0.98 (0.62 to 1.53). Nine trials examined the effect of home visiting on the occurrence of suspected abuse, reported abuse, or out of home placement for child abuse. Because of the potential for bias in outcome reporting in these studies, pooled effect estimates were not calculated. CONCLUSIONS--Home visiting programmes have the potential to reduce significantly the rates of childhood injury. The problem of differential surveillance for child abuse between intervention and control groups precludes the use of reported abuse as a valid outcome measure in controlled trials of home visiting.     

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

Background

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.

Conclusions

Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.     

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review

Background

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.

Conclusions

This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.     

Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Background

The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review.

Methods

We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications.

Results

We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th–90th percentile range 5%–67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%–100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5–5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials.

Interpretation

Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.Selective reporting of results from randomized trials can occur either at the level of end points within published studies (outcome reporting bias)¹ or at the level of entire trials that are selectively published (study publication bias).² Outcome reporting bias has previously been demonstrated in a broad cohort of published trials approved by a regional ethics committee.¹ The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — the primary federal funding agency, known before 2000 as the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) — recognized the need to address this issue and conducted an internal review process in 2002 to evaluate the reporting of results from its funded trials. The primary objectives were to determine (a) the prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting in journal publications of randomized trials; (b) the degree of association between adequate outcome reporting and statistical significance; and (c) the consistency between primary outcomes specified in trial protocols and those specified in subsequent journal publications.     

Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multifactorial assessment and intervention programmes to prevent falls and injuries among older adults recruited to trials in primary care, community, or emergency care settings.Design Systematic review of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, and meta-analysis.Data sources Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index) to 22 March 2007, reference lists of included studies, and previous reviews.Review methods Eligible studies were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated interventions to prevent falls that were based in emergency departments, primary care, or the community that assessed multiple risk factors for falling and provided or arranged for treatments to address these risk factors.Data extraction Outcomes were number of fallers, fall related injuries, fall rate, death, admission to hospital, contacts with health services, move to institutional care, physical activity, and quality of life. Methodological quality assessment included allocation concealment, blinding, losses and exclusions, intention to treat analysis, and reliability of outcome measurement. Results 19 studies, of variable methodological quality, were included. The combined risk ratio for the number of fallers during follow-up among 18 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02) and for fall related injuries (eight trials) was 0.90 (0.68 to 1.20). No differences were found in admissions to hospital, emergency department attendance, death, or move to institutional care. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of different effects between interventions in different locations, populations selected for high risk of falls or unselected, and multidisciplinary teams including a doctor, but interventions that actively provide treatments may be more effective than those that provide only knowledge and referral.Conclusions Evidence that multifactorial fall prevention programmes in primary care, community, or emergency care settings are effective in reducing the number of fallers or fall related injuries is limited. Data were insufficient to assess fall and injury rates.     

Interventions to Increase the Uptake of Mammography amongst Low Income Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Two previous reviews found that access-enhancing interventions were effective in increasing mammography uptake amongst low-income women. The purpose of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the effect of interventions used to increase uptake of mammography amongst low-income women.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE (2002–April 2012) using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. Randomised controlled trials which aimed to increase mammography use in an asymptomatic low-income population and which had as an outcome receipt of a mammogram, were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the post-intervention difference in the proportion of women who had a mammogram in the intervention and control groups. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated summary estimates using random effects meta-analyses. Possible reasons for heterogeneity were investigated using sub-group analyses and meta-regression. Publication bias was assessed using Egger''s test.

Results

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, including 33 comparisons. Interventions increased the uptake of mammography in low income women by an additional 8.9% (95% CI 7.3 to 10.4%) compared to the control group. There was some evidence that interventions with multiple strategies were more effective than those with single strategies (p  = 0.03). There was some suggestion of publication bias. The quality of the included studies was often unclear. Omitting those with high risk of bias has little effect on the results.

Conclusions

Interventions can increase mammography uptake among low-income women, multiple interventions being the most effective strategy. Given the robustness of the results to sensitivity analyses, the results are likely to be reliable. The generalisability of the results beyond the US is unclear.     

Concordance of sleep and pain outcomes of diverse interventions: an umbrella review

Background/Objective

Pain influences sleep and vice versa. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses on treatments for diverse conditions in order to examine whether diverse medical treatments for different conditions have similar or divergent effects on pain and sleep.

Methods

We searched published systematic reviews with meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until October 20, 2011. We identified randomized trials (or meta-analyses thereof, when >1 trial was available) where both pain and sleep outcomes were examined. Pain outcomes were categorized as headache, musculoskeletal, abdominal, pelvic, generic or other pain. Sleep outcomes included insomnia, sleep disruption, and sleep disturbance. We estimated odds ratios for all outcomes and evaluated the concordance in the direction of effects between sleep and various types of pain and the correlation of treatment effects between sleep and pain outcomes.

Results

151 comparisons with 385 different trials met our eligibility criteria. 96 comparisons had concordant direction of effects between each pain outcome and sleep, while in 55 the effect estimates were in opposite directions (P<0.0001). In the 20 comparisons with largest amount of evidence, the experimental drug always had worse sleep outcomes and tended to have worse pain outcomes in 17/20 cases. For headache and musculoskeletal pain, 69 comparisons showed concordant direction of effects with sleep outcomes and 36 showed discordant direction (P<0.0001). For the other 4 pain types there were overall 27 vs. 19 pairs with concordant vs. discordant direction of effects (P = 0.095). There was a weak correlation of the treatment effect sizes for sleep vs. headache/musculoskeletal pain (r = 0.17, P = 0.092).

Conclusions

Medical interventions tend to have effects in the same direction for pain and sleep outcomes, but exceptions occur. Concordance is primarily seen for sleep and headache or musculoskeletal pain where many drugs may both disturb sleep and cause pain.     

Evaluating Outcomes Used in Cardiothoracic Surgery Interventional Research: A Systematic Review of Reviews to Develop a Core Outcome Set

Background

When planning clinical trials, it is a key element to choose appropriate outcomes that ensure the comparability of effects of interventions in ways that minimise bias. We hypothesise that outcome measures in cardiothoracic surgical trials are inconsistent and without standard. Therefore, comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across studies is problematic. We surmise that cardiothoracic research has focused habitually on the identification of risk factors and on the reduction of adverse outcomes with less consideration of factors that contribute to well being and positive health outcomes (salutogenesis).

Methods and Findings

We conducted a systematic review of reviews to determine both the type and number of outcomes reported in current cardiothoracic surgery interventional research, in order to identify a list of potential outcomes for a minimum core outcome set (COS). Special focus was placed on outcomes that emphasise salutogenesis. We interpreted salutogenic outcomes as those relating to optimum and/or positive health and well being. We searched Issue 7 (July 2014) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews of randomised trials on non-minimal-invasive off- or on-pump cardiothoracic surgery (elective and emergency, excluding transplants) investigating pre-, intra- or postsurgical interventions related to the outcome of the procedure were eligible for inclusion. We excluded protocols and withdrawn systematic reviews. Two review authors extracted outcome data independently. Unique lists of salutogenically and non-salutogenically focused outcomes were established. 15 systematic reviews involving 371 randomized trials and 58,253 patients were included in this review. Applied definitions of single and composite endpoints varied significantly, and patient-centred, salutogenically focused outcomes were seldom reported. One third of included reviews did not assess patient-centred outcomes at all; all other reviews were unable to perform meta-analyses due to an absence of data or heterogeneity in outcome measures. This compares to 36 non-salutogenically focused outcome domains representing 121 individual non-salutogenically focused outcomes, whereof 50% were assessed only once. Measures of mortality, cerebrovascular complications and hospitalisation were reported most frequently. Two reviews chose a composite endpoint as primary outcome. Pooled analysis of composite endpoints was not possible, as the required data was not reported per patient in all components.

Conclusion

In cardiothoracic surgical trials, choice and definition of non-salutogenically focused single and composite outcomes are inconsistent. There is an absence of patient centred, salutogenically focused outcome parameters in cardiac trials. We recommend the development of a core outcome set of salutogenically focused and non-salutogenically focused outcomes for cardiothoracic surgical research.     

Periodontal Treatment for Preventing Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Meta- and Trial Sequential Analysis

Objectives

Periodontal treatment might reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes. The efficacy of periodontal treatment to prevent preterm birth, low birth weight, and perinatal mortality was evaluated using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Methods

An existing systematic review was updated and meta-analyses performed. Risk of bias, heterogeneity, and publication bias were evaluated, and meta-regression performed. Subgroup analysis was used to compare different studies with low and high risk of bias and different populations, i.e., risk groups. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors.

Results

Thirteen randomized clinical trials evaluating 6283 pregnant women were meta-analyzed. Four and nine trials had low and high risk of bias, respectively. Overall, periodontal treatment had no significant effect on preterm birth (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.79 [0.57-1.10]) or low birth weight (0.69 [0.43-1.13]). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that futility was not reached for any of the outcomes. For populations with moderate occurrence (<20%) of preterm birth or low birth weight, periodontal treatment was not efficacious for any of the outcomes, and trial sequential analyses indicated that further trials might be futile. For populations with high occurrence (≥20%) of preterm birth and low birth weight, periodontal treatment seemed to reduce the risk of preterm birth (0.42 [0.24-0.73]) and low birth weight (0.32 [0.15-0.67]), but trial sequential analyses showed that firm evidence was not reached. Periodontal treatment did not significantly affect perinatal mortality, and firm evidence was not reached. Risk of bias, but not publication bias or patients’ age modified the effect estimates.

Conclusions

Providing periodontal treatment to pregnant women could potentially reduce the risks of perinatal outcomes, especially in mothers with high risks. Conclusive evidence could not be reached due to risks of bias, risks of random errors, and unclear effects of confounding. Further randomized clinical trials are required.