The effects of alcohol container labels on consumption behaviour, knowledge, and support for labelling: a systematic review.

Alcohol container labels might reduce population-level alcohol-related harms, but investigations of their effectiveness have varied in approach and quality. A systematic synthesis is needed to adjust for these differences and to yield evidence to inform policy. Our objectives were to establish the effects of alcohol container labels bearing one or more health warnings, standard drink information, or low-risk drinking guidance on alcohol consumption behaviour, knowledge of label message, and support for labels. We completed a systematic review according to Cochrane and synthesis without meta-analysis standards. We included all peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from Jan 1, 1989, to March 6, 2024, in English, French, German, or Spanish that investigated the effects of alcohol container labels compared with no-label or existing label control groups in any population on alcohol consumption behaviour, knowledge of label message, or support for labels. Data were synthesised narratively as impact statements and assessed for risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. A protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42020168240). We identified 40 publications that studied 31 labels and generated 17 impact statements. 24 (60%) of 40 publications focused on consumption behaviour and we had low or very low certainty in 13 (59%) of 22 outcomes. Alcohol container labels bearing health warnings might slow the rate of alcohol consumption (low certainty), reduce alcoholic beverage selection (moderate certainty), reduce consumption during pregnancy (low certainty), and reduce consumption before driving (moderate certainty). Interventions with multiple types of rotating alcohol container labels likely substantially decrease alcohol use (moderate certainty) and reduce alcohol sales (high certainty). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on multiple types of alcohol container labels assessing their effects for certainty in the evidence. Limitations included heterogeneity in label designs and outcome measurements. Alcohol container labels probably influence some alcohol consumption behaviour, with multiple rotating messages being particularly effective, although effects might vary depending on individual health literacy or drinking behaviour. Alcohol container labels might therefore be effective components of policies designed to address population-level alcohol-related harms.

Screening for depression in children and adolescents: a protocol for a systematic review update.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is common, debilitating, and affects feelings, thoughts, mood, and behaviors. Childhood and adolescence are critical periods for the development of depression and adolescence is marked by an increased incidence of mental health disorders. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review update that will evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for depression in children and adolescents. METHODS: This review will update a previously published systematic review by Roseman and colleagues. Eligible studies are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing formal screening in primary care to identify children or adolescents not already self-reporting symptoms of, diagnosed with, or treated for depression. If no or only a single RCT is available, we will consider controlled studies without random assignment. Studies of participants with characteristics associated with an elevated risk of depression will be analyzed separately. Outcomes of interest are symptoms of depression, classification of major depressive disorder based on a validated diagnostic interview, suicidality, health-related quality of life, social function, impact on lifestyle behavior (e.g., substance use, school performance, lost time at work, or school), false-positive results, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, labeling, and other harms such as those arising from treatment. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments will be performed independently by two reviewers. Pre-planned analyses, including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, are detailed within this protocol. Two independent reviewers will assess and finalize through consensus the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and prepare GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables for each outcome of interest. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will provide a current state of the evidence of benefits and harms of depression screening in children and adolescents. These findings will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to inform the development of recommendations on depression screening. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020150373.

Screening for depression in women during pregnancy or the first year postpartum and in the general adult population: a protocol for two systematic reviews to update a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the World Health Organization reported that depression is the most common cause of disability worldwide, with over 300 million people currently living with depression. Depression affects an individual's physical health and well-being, impacts psychosocial functioning, and has specific negative short- and long-term effects on maternal health, child health, developmental trajectories, and family health. The aim of these reviews is to identify evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in the general adult population and in pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS: Search strategies were developed and tested through an iterative process by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, and a randomized controlled trial filter will be used. The general adult review will be an update of a systematic review previously used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for their 2013 guideline recommendation. The search strategy will be updated and will start from the last search date of the previous review (May 2012). The pregnant and postpartum review will be a de novo review with no date restriction. For both reviews, we will search for unpublished documents following the CADTH Grey Matters checklist and relevant websites. Titles and abstracts will be screened using the liberal accelerated method. Two reviewers will independently screen full-text articles for relevance using pre-specified eligibility criteria and assess the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Outcomes of interest for the general adult population review include symptoms of depression or diagnosis of major depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, day-to-day functionality, lost time at work/school, impact on lifestyle behaviour, suicidality, false-positive result, labelling/stigma, overdiagnosis or overtreatment, and harms of treatment. Outcomes of interest for the pregnant and postpartum review include mental health outcomes (e.g. diagnosis of major depressive disorder), parenting outcomes (e.g. mother-child interactions), and infant outcomes (e.g. infant health and development). DISCUSSION: These two systematic reviews will offer informative evaluations of depression screening. The findings will be used by the Task Force to help develop guideline recommendations on depression screening in the general adult population and in pregnant and postpartum women in Canada. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099690).

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The importance of appraising the risk of bias of studies included in systematic reviews is well-established. However, uncertainty remains surrounding the method by which risk of bias assessments should be conducted. Specifically, no summary of evidence exists as to whether blinded (i.e. the assessor is unaware of the study author's name, institution, sponsorship, journal, etc.) versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias yield systematically different assessments in a systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias yield systematically different assessments in a systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4 2009), CINAHL (1982 to May week 3 2008), All EBM Reviews (inception to 6 October 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009 week 40) and HealthStar (1966 to September week 4 2009) (all Ovid interface). We applied no restrictions regarding language of publication, publication status or study design. We examined reference lists of included studies and contacted experts for potentially relevant literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any study that examined blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias included within a systematic review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted information from each of the included studies using a pre-specified 16-item form. We summarized the level of agreement between blinded and unblinded assessments of risk of bias descriptively. We calculated the standardized mean difference whenever possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four studies had unclear risk of bias and two had high risk of bias. The results of these RCTs were not consistent; two demonstrated no differences between blinded and unblinded assessments, two found that blinded assessments had significantly lower quality scores, and another observed significantly higher quality scores for blinded assessments. The remaining study did not report the level of significance. We pooled five studies reporting sufficient information in a meta-analysis. We observed no statistically significant difference in risk of bias assessments between blinded or unblinded assessments (standardized mean difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.16). The mean difference might be slightly inaccurate, as we did not adjust for clustering in our meta-analysis. We observed inconsistency of results visually and noted statistical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights that discordance exists between studies examining blinded versus unblinded risk of bias assessments at the systematic review level. The best approach to risk of bias assessment remains unclear, however, given the increased time and resources required to conceal reports effectively, it may not be necessary for risk of bias assessments to be conducted under blinded conditions in a systematic review.