Systemic therapy in children and adolescents with mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) is a psychotherapeutic intervention in complex human systems (both psychological and interpersonal). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an established treatment for children and adolescents with mental disorders. As methodologically rigorous systematic reviews on ST in this population are lacking, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefit and harm of ST (and ST as an add-on to CBT) with CBT in children and adolescents with mental disorders. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other sources for randomised controlled trials in 14 mental disorder classes for the above comparisons in respect of effects on patient-relevant outcomes (search date: 7/2022). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed and results were graded into 3 different evidence categories: "proof", "indication", or "hint" (or none of these categories). PRISMA standards were followed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies in 5 mental disorder classes with usable data were identified. 2079 patients (mean age: 10 to 19 years) were analysed. 12/15 studies and 29/30 outcomes showed a high risk of bias. In 2 classes, statistically significant and clinically relevant effects in favour of ST were found, supporting the conclusion of a hint of greater benefit of ST for mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use and of ST as an add-on to CBT for obsessive-compulsive disorders. In 2 other classes (eating disorders; hyperkinetic disorders), there was no evidence of greater benefit or harm of ST. For affective disorders, a statistically significant effect to the disadvantage of ST was found for 1 outcome, supporting the conclusion of a hint of lesser benefit of ST. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a hint of greater benefit of ST (or ST as an add-on to CBT) compared with CBT for 2 mental disorder classes in children and adolescents (mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use, obsessive compulsive disorders). Given the importance of CBT as a control intervention, ST can therefore be considered a beneficial treatment option for children and adolescents with certain mental disorders. Limitations include an overall high risk of bias of studies and outcomes and a lack of data for several disorders.

Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach.

BACKGROUND: Systematic literature screening is a key component in systematic reviews. However, this approach is resource intensive as generally two persons independently of each other (double screening) screen a vast number of search results. To develop approaches for increasing efficiency, we tested the use of text mining to prioritize search results as well as the involvement of only one person (single screening) in the study selection process. METHOD: Our study is based on health technology assessments (HTAs) of drug and non-drug interventions. Using a sample size calculation, we consecutively included 11 searches resulting in 33 study selection processes. Of the three screeners for each search, two used screening tools with prioritization (Rayyan, EPPI Reviewer) and one a tool without prioritization. For each prioritization tool, we investigated the proportion of citations classified as relevant at three cut-offs or STOP criteria (after screening 25%, 50% and 75% of the citation set). For each STOP criterion, we measured sensitivity (number of correctly identified relevant studies divided by the total number of relevant studies in the study pool). In addition, we determined the number of relevant studies identified per single screening round and investigated whether missed studies were relevant to the HTA conclusion. RESULTS: Overall, EPPI Reviewer performed better than Rayyan and identified the vast majority (88%, Rayyan 66%) of relevant citations after screening half of the citation set. As long as additional information sources were screened, it was sufficient to apply a single-screening approach to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. Although many relevant publications (n = 63) and studies (n = 29) were incorrectly excluded, ultimately only 5 studies could not be identified at all in 2 of the 11 searches (1x 1 study, 1x 4 studies). However, their omission did not change the overall conclusion in any HTA. CONCLUSIONS: EPPI Reviewer helped to identify relevant citations earlier in the screening process than Rayyan. Single screening would have been sufficient to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. However, this requires screening of further information sources. It also needs to be considered that the credibility of an HTA may be questioned if studies are missing, even if they are not relevant to the HTA conclusion.

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews. METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way. RESULTS: The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.

Effective study selection using text mining or a single-screening approach: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic information retrieval generally requires a two-step selection process for studies, which is conducted by two persons independently of one another (double-screening approach). To increase efficiency, two methods seem promising, which will be tested in the planned study: the use of text mining to prioritize search results as well as the involvement of only one person in the study selection process (single-screening approach). The aim of the present study is to examine the following questions related to the process of study selection: Can the use of the Rayyan or EPPI Reviewer tools to prioritize the results of study selection increase efficiency? How accurately does a single-screening approach identify relevant studies? Which advantages or disadvantages (e.g., shortened screening time or increase in the number of full texts ordered) does a single-screening versus a double-screening approach have? METHODS: Our study is a prospective analysis of study selection processes based on benefit assessments of drug and non-drug interventions. It consists of two parts: firstly, the evaluation of a single-screening approach based on a sample size calculation (11 study selection processes, including 33 single screenings) and involving different screening tools and, secondly, the evaluation of the conventional double-screening approach based on five conventional study selection processes. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of the single-screening versus the double-screening approach with regard to the outcomes "number of full texts ordered" and "time required for study selection" are analyzed. The previous work experience of the screeners is considered as a potential effect modifier. DISCUSSION: No study comparing the features of prioritization tools is currently available. Our study can thus contribute to filling this evidence gap. This study is also the first to investigate a range of questions surrounding the screening process and to include an a priori sample size calculation, thus enabling statistical conclusions. In addition, the impact of missing studies on the conclusion of a benefit assessment is calculated. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Trial registry searches for randomized controlled trials of new drugs required registry-specific adaptation to achieve adequate sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new drugs in trial registries and to develop and test different search strategies in ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov), the EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Information from dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical companies was analyzed regarding the registration of the included RCTs in CT.gov, EU-CTR and ICTRP; different search strategies were developed and tested to determine performance. RESULTS: A total of 192 (95%) of 203 RCTs on newly approved drugs were registered in CT.gov; the 11 nonregistered trials were completed before 2005 or represented non-RCTs. Simple searches for RCTs on 18 new drugs using the generic drug name yielded a sensitivity of 94% in CT.gov (EU-CTR: 71%; ICTRP: 60%). The main reason for study nondetection was the sole use of the drug code in the registry entries. Simple searches for RCTs on 13 conditions using reasonably inferred search terms yielded a sensitivity of 100% in CT.gov. CONCLUSION: Almost all relevant RCTs on newly approved drugs will probably be identified in CT.gov alone. A sensitive search in CT.gov can be conducted using single search terms. The searches in ICTRP and EU-CTR should include several search terms (e.g., derived via text analysis).

Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: randomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information. RESULTS: Ten trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects. CONCLUSIONS: Verbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.

Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests.

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients' interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public. OBJECTIVES: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public. METHODS: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients' and consumers' information needs and interests were identified. RESULTS: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of "patient interest" were identified, such as patients' concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of "patients' interests" requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources. CONCLUSIONS: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.

[Online surveys at www.gesundheitsinformation.de: identifying the potential need for evidence-based health information]. / Online-Umfragen auf Gesundheitsinformation.de: Ermittlung potenzieller Informationsbedürfnisse für evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformationen.

There is some evidence that involving patients in the development of health information can increase the relevance and understandability of this information. The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) publishes easy-to-understand and freely accessible evidence-based health information on its bilingual website gesundheitsinformation.de / informedhealthonline.org. The aim of the Institute is to determine the information needs of the general public and patients, and to take those needs into account when producing its health information. One way in which this is done is by carrying out online surveys before the information is produced, asking the users of the website about their level of interest in various aspects of a topic. In this article we present two examples of such surveys - on the topics of "endometriosis" and "skin cancer screening and prevention" - as well as the results of these surveys and how the results influenced the contents of the health information produced. Our experience with a total of seven surveys suggests that online surveys can be a helpful additional tool to identify information gaps and determine information needs and areas of special interest. In addition, surveys provide a way to interact with the users of the website. In their current form, however, online surveys also have methodological limitations that need to be considered when developing these surveys and interpreting their results.