1
|
Ongeri L, Wanga V, Otieno P, Mbui J, Juma E, Stoep AV, Mathai M. Demographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with postpartum depression in Kenyan women. BMC Psychiatry 2018; 18:318. [PMID: 30285745 PMCID: PMC6167779 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-018-1904-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2017] [Accepted: 09/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few longitudinal studies have examined associations between risk factors during pregnancy and mental health outcomes during the postpartum period. We used a cohort study design to estimate the prevalence, incidence and correlates of significant postpartum depressive symptoms in Kenyan women. METHODS We recruited adult women residing in an urban, resource-poor setting and attending maternal and child health clinics in two public hospitals in Nairobi, Kenya. A translated Kiswahili Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale was used to screen for depressive symptoms at baseline assessment in the 3rd trimester and follow up assessment at 6-10 weeks postpartum. Information was collected on potential demographic, psychosocial and clinical risk variables. Potential risk factors for postpartum depression were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Out of the 171 women who were followed up at 6-10 weeks postpartum, 18.7% (95% CI: 13.3-25.5) were found to have postpartum depression using an EPDS cut off of 10. In multivariate analyses, the odds of having postpartum depression was increased more than seven-fold in the presence of conflict with partner (OR = 7.52, 95% CI: 2.65-23.13). The association between antepartum and postpartum depression was quite strong but did not reach statistical significance (OR = 3.37, 95% CI: 0.98-11.64). CONCLUSIONS The high prevalence of significant postnatal depressive symptoms among Kenyan women underscores the need for addressing this public health burden. Depression screening and psychosocial support interventions that address partner conflict resolution should be offered as part of maternal health care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linnet Ongeri
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, P.O. Box 54840 00200, Mbagathi Road, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Valentine Wanga
- University of Washington, Jefferson St. Seattle WA 98104, Nairobi, 908 Kenya
| | - Phelgona Otieno
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, P.O. Box 54840 00200, Mbagathi Road, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Jane Mbui
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, P.O. Box 54840 00200, Mbagathi Road, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Elizabeth Juma
- Kenya Medical Research Institute, P.O. Box 54840 00200, Mbagathi Road, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Ann Vander Stoep
- University of Washington, Jefferson St. Seattle WA 98104, Nairobi, 908 Kenya
| | - Muthoni Mathai
- University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197, Off Ngong Road, Nairobi, Kenya
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Schizophrenia is frequently a chronic and disabling illness with a heterogeneous range of symptoms. The positive symptoms usually respond to antipsychotics but the cognitive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia are difficult to treat with conventional antipsychotics and significantly impact on quality of life and social outcomes. Selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NRIs) increase prefrontal dopamine and noradrenaline levels without significantly affecting subcortical dopamine levels, making them an attractive candidate for treating cognitive and negative symptoms. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effects of selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NRIs), compared with a placebo or control treatment, for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (up to 7 February 2017) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NRIs with either a control treatment or placebo for people with schizophrenia or related disorders (such as schizoaffective disorder) by any means of diagnosis. We included trials that met our selection criteria and provided useable information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our prespecified main outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS Searching identified 113 records. We obtained the full text of 48 of these records for closer inspection. Sixteen trials, randomising a total of 919 participants are included. The majority of trials included adults with schizophrenia or similar illness who were inpatients, and while they were poorly characterised, most appeared to include patients with a chronic presentation. The intervention NRI in nine of the 16 trials was reboxetine, with atomoxetine and viloxazine used in the remaining trials. 14 trials compared NRIs with placebo. Only two trials provided data to compare NRIs against an active control and both compared reboxetine to citalopram but at 4 weeks and 24 weeks respectively so they could not be combined in a meta-analysis.One trial was described as 'open' and we considered it to be at high risk of bias for randomisation and blinding, three trials were at high risk of bias for attrition, six for reporting, and two for other sources of bias. Our main outcomes of interest were significant response or improvement in positive/negative mental state, global state and cognitive functioning, average cognitive functioning scores, significant response or improvement in quality of life and incidence of nausea. All data for main outcomes were short term.NRIs versus placeboMental state results showed significantly greater rates of improvement in negative symptoms scores (1 RCT, n = 50; RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.52 to 6.58; very low quality evidence) with NRIs on the PANSS negative. No data were reported for significant response or improvement in positive symptoms, but average endpoint PANSS positive scores were available and showed no difference between NRIs and placebo (5 RCTs, n = 294; MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.63; low-quality evidence). Improvement in clinical global status was similar between groups (1 RCT, n = 28; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.20; very low quality evidence). Significant response or improvement in cognitive functioning data were not reported. Average composite cognitive scores showed no difference between NRIs and placebo (4 RCTs, n = 180; SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.36; low-quality evidence). Significant response or improvement in quality of life data were not reported, however average endpoint scores from the GQOLI-74 were reported. Those receiving NRIs had better quality of life scores compared to placebo (1 RCT, n = 114; MD 9.36, 95% CI 7.89 to 10.83; very low quality evidence). All-cause withdrawals did not differ between the treatment groups (8 RCTs, n = 401, RR 0.94 95% CI 0.63 to 1.39; moderate-quality evidence). Rates of nausea were not greater with NRIs (3 RCTs, n = 176; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.41; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our results provide tentative very low quality evidence that compared to placebo, NRIs (specifically reboxetine) may have a benefit on the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Limited evidence also suggests that NRIs have no effect on the positive symptoms of schizophrenia or cognitive functioning. NRIs appear generally well tolerated with no real differences in adverse effects such as nausea noted between NRIs and placebo. However, these results are based on short-term follow-up and are poor quality - there is need for more good-quality evidence. A large RCT of reboxetine over a longer period of time, focusing specifically on negative and cognitive symptoms as well as more detailed and comprehensive reporting of outcomes, including adverse events, is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul R L Matthews
- Kildare West Wicklow MHSNorth Kildare Mental Health ServiceCelbridge Community Health CentreShackleton RoadCelbridgeCo. KildareIreland
| | - Jamie Horder
- King's College LondonDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental SciencesInstitute of PsychiatryDe Crespigny ParkLondonUKSE5 8AF
| | - Michael Pearce
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of General and Older Adult PsychiatryWarneford Hospital, Warneford Lane,OxfordUKOX3 7JX
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lodovighi MA, Palomba A, Belzeaux R, Adida M, Azorin JM. Symptômes négatifs de la schizophrénie : nouvelles approches pharmacologiques. Encephale 2015; 41:6S41-9. [DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7006(16)30010-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
4
|
Essali N, Isstaif J, Al-Baghdadi R, Al Ahmad Al Yousef B, Mheish AMZ. Amphetamines versus placebo for schizophrenia. Hippokratia 2015. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Norah Essali
- Texila American University; 309 Waterford Place NE Atlanta Georgia USA
| | - Juman Isstaif
- Damascus University; Faculty of Medicine; Damascus Syrian Arab Republic
| | - Ramez Al-Baghdadi
- Damascus University; Faculty of Medicine; Damascus Syrian Arab Republic
| | | | - Ammar MZ Mheish
- Damascus University; Faculty of Medicine; Damascus Syrian Arab Republic
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Galderisi S, Merlotti E, Mucci A. Neurobiological background of negative symptoms. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2015; 265:543-58. [PMID: 25797499 DOI: 10.1007/s00406-015-0590-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2015] [Accepted: 03/15/2015] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Studies investigating neurobiological bases of negative symptoms of schizophrenia failed to provide consistent findings, possibly due to the heterogeneity of this psychopathological construct. We tried to review the findings published to date investigating neurobiological abnormalities after reducing the heterogeneity of the negative symptoms construct. The literature in electronic databases as well as citations and major articles are reviewed with respect to the phenomenology, pathology, genetics and neurobiology of schizophrenia. We searched PubMed with the keywords "negative symptoms," "deficit schizophrenia," "persistent negative symptoms," "neurotransmissions," "neuroimaging" and "genetic." Additional articles were identified by manually checking the reference lists of the relevant publications. Publications in English were considered, and unpublished studies, conference abstracts and poster presentations were not included. Structural and functional imaging studies addressed the issue of neurobiological background of negative symptoms from several perspectives (considering them as a unitary construct, focusing on primary and/or persistent negative symptoms and, more recently, clustering them into factors), but produced discrepant findings. The examined studies provided evidence suggesting that even primary and persistent negative symptoms include different psychopathological constructs, probably reflecting the dysfunction of different neurobiological substrates. Furthermore, they suggest that complex alterations in multiple neurotransmitter systems and genetic variants might influence the expression of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. On the whole, the reviewed findings, representing the distillation of a large body of disparate data, suggest that further deconstruction of negative symptomatology into more elementary components is needed to gain insight into underlying neurobiological mechanisms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvana Galderisi
- Department of Psychiatry, Second University of Naples (SUN), L.go Madonna delle Grazie, 1, 80138, Naples, Italy.
| | - Eleonora Merlotti
- Department of Psychiatry, Second University of Naples (SUN), L.go Madonna delle Grazie, 1, 80138, Naples, Italy
| | - Armida Mucci
- Department of Psychiatry, Second University of Naples (SUN), L.go Madonna delle Grazie, 1, 80138, Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tardy M, Huhn M, Engel RR, Leucht S. Fluphenazine versus low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD009230. [PMID: 25087165 PMCID: PMC10898219 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009230.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antipsychotic drugs are the core treatment for schizophrenia. Treatment guidelines state that there is no difference in efficacy between any other antipsychotic compounds, however, low-potency antipsychotic drugs are often perceived as less efficacious than high-potency compounds by clinicians, and they also seem to differ in their side effects. This review examined the effects of the high-potency antipsychotic fluphenazine compared to those of low-potency antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES To review the effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine with first-generation low-potency antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS The review currently includes seven randomised trials and 1567 participants that compared fluphenazine with low-potency antipsychotic drugs. The size of the included studies was between 40 and 438 participants. Overall, sequence generation, allocation procedures and blinding were poorly reported. Fluphenazine was not significantly different from low-potency antipsychotic drugs in terms of response to treatment (fluphenazine 55%, low-potency drug 55%, 2 RCTs, n = 105, RR 1.06 CI 0.75 to 1.50, moderate quality evidence). There was also no significant difference in acceptability of treatment with equivocal numbers of participants leaving the studies early due to any reason (fluphenazine 36%, low-potency antipsychotics 36%, 6 RCTs, n = 1532, RR 1.00 CI 0.88 to 1.14, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics for numbers experiencing at least one adverse effect (fluphenazine 70%, low-potency antipsychotics 88%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.79 CI 0.58 to 1.07, moderate quality evidence). However, at least one movement disorder occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 10%, 3 RCTs, n = 971, RR 2.11 CI 1.41 to 3.15, low quality of evidence). In contrast, low-potency antipsychotics produced significantly more sedation (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 64%, 1 RCT, n = 65, RR 0.31 CI 0.13 to 0.77, high quality evidence). No data were available for the outcomes of death and quality of life. The results of the primary outcome were robust in a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Adverse effects such as akathisia (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 5 RCTs, n = 1209, RR 2.28 CI 1.58 to 3.28); dystonia (fluphenazine 5%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 4 RCTs, n = 1309, RR 2.66 CI 1.25 to 5.64); loss of associated movement (fluphenazine 20%, low-potency antipsychotics 2%, 1 RCT, n = 338, RR 11.15 CI 3.95 to 31.47); rigor (fluphenazine 27%, low-potency antipsychotics 12%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.18 CI 1.20 to 3.97); and tremor (fluphenazine 15%, low-potency antipsychotics 6%, 2 RCTs, n = 403, RR 2.53 CI 1.37 to 4.68) occurred significantly more frequently in the fluphenazine group.For other adverse effects such as dizziness (fluphenazine 8%, low-potency antipsychotics 17%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.49 CI 0.32 to 0.73); drowsiness (fluphenazine 18%, low-potency antipsychotics 25%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.67 CI 0.53 to 0.86); dry mouth (fluphenazine 11%, low-potency antipsychotics 18%, 4 RCTs, n = 1051, RR 0.63 CI 0.45 to 0.89); nausea (fluphenazine 4%, low-potency antipsychotics 15%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.25 CI 0.14 to 0.45); and vomiting (fluphenazine 3%, low-potency antipsychotics 8%, 3 RCTs, n = 986, RR 0.36 CI 0.18 to 0.72) results favoured fluphenazine with significantly more events occurring in the low-potency antipsychotic group for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The results do not show a clear difference in efficacy between fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics. The number of included studies was low and their quality moderate. Therefore, further studies would be needed to draw firm conclusions about the relative effects of fluphenazine and low-potency antipsychotics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Magdolna Tardy
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München Klinikum rechts der Isar, Möhlstr. 26, München, Germany, 81675
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Davis MC, Horan WP, Marder SR. Psychopharmacology of the negative symptoms: current status and prospects for progress. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2014; 24:788-99. [PMID: 24252823 DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2013.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2013] [Revised: 10/12/2013] [Accepted: 10/19/2013] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the development of novel pharmacological agents to treat the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. This review provides an overview of pharmacological approaches that have been evaluated as potential treatments and describes the emergence of several promising new approaches. First, we briefly describe recent methodological developments, including consensus-based clinical trial guidelines for patient selection criteria, symptom assessment, and trial duration. Next, we overview mono- and adjunctive-therapies that have been evaluated, including first- and second-generation antipsychotics, antidepressants, psychostimulants, molecules targeting cholinergic and glutamatergic systems, and hormones. We highlight the most promising pharmacological agents on the horizon, including glycine transporter-1 inhibitors, α7-nicotinic receptor positive allosteric modulators, and oxytocin, as well as non-pharmacological electromagnetic stimulation approaches. Further investigations, using optimal clinical trial design, hold considerable promise for discovering effective treatments for these functionally disabling symptoms in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael C Davis
- Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; UCLA Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - William P Horan
- Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Stephen R Marder
- Department of Veterans Affairs, VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; UCLA Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pettersen H, Ruud T, Ravndal E, Landheim A. Walking the fine line: self-reported reasons for substance use in persons with severe mental illness. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2013; 8:21968. [PMID: 24369778 PMCID: PMC3871834 DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v8i0.21968] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/27/2013] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Many theoretical models have been proposed to explain the relationship between severe mental illness (SMI) and substance use. Because many of these are contradictory quantitative American studies, a qualitative, exploratory study of a Scandinavian sample may offer a new perspective. The aim of the study is to explore reasons for substance use through analysis of the participants' experiences. A qualitative study with semistructured interviews was used. Purposeful sampling (N=11) of patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and SMI, who were included in assertive community treatment teams, was completed. Inclusion criteria are increased quality of life or increased general functioning, and decreased substance use, after a minimum of 12 months in treatment. Reasons given for using substances were categorized as (a) controlling the symptoms of mental illness, (b) counteracting medication side effects, or (c) balancing the ambiguity. The conclusion is that the study findings mainly support secondary substance use models in explaining the comorbidity of SMI and substance use. However, there is some support for the traditional self-medication hypothesis (SMH), iatrogenic vulnerability, and the supersensitivity model. This may be because the majority of the study participants reported having a mental illness with subsequent substance use. The expressed ambivalence to substance use also lends some support to bidirectional models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henning Pettersen
- National Centre for Dual Diagnosis, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Brumunddal, Norway; SERAF - Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;
| | - Torleif Ruud
- Division Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Edle Ravndal
- SERAF - Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Anne Landheim
- National Centre for Dual Diagnosis, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Brumunddal, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Matthews
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust; Marlborough House Medium Secure Unit; Milton Keynes Hospital Site Eaglestone Milton Keynes BUCKS UK MK6 5NG
| | - Jamie Horder
- Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London; Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences; De Crespigny Park London UK SE5 8AF
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11:MR000030. [PMID: 23152285 PMCID: PMC7386818 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.mr000030.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 305] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published. OBJECTIVES To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals. SEARCH METHODS We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive. SELECTION CRITERIA In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score. MAIN RESULTS Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucy Turner
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|