Node-making process in network meta-analysis of nonpharmacological treatment are poorly reported

Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist

OBJECTIVE

How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain.

DATA SOURCES

This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention.

CONCLUSION

The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis.

DESIGN

A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide.

METHODS

We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments.

RESULTS

In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17.

CONCLUSION

With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

Efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy on pain intensity and disability of older people with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a protocol for a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy on pain intensity and disability of older people with chronic nonspecific low back pain, providing comprehensive evidence for an informed decision-making.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic search to identify randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for older people with chronic nonspecific low back pain. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, and PEDro will be searched without language or date restrictions. Our primary outcomes are pain intensity and disability. Risk of bias will be assessed for all studies using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool 2.0. For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, estimated mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using random effects models in STATA version 16. The competing interventions will be ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at short and long terms. The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

DISCUSSION

This NMA compares efficacy of interventions for nonspecific chronic low back pain in older people. It will provide reliable evidence for patients, clinicians, stakeholders, and researchers in this field where competing therapies, many of extraordinarily little value, are commonly used in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022312565.

Treatment classifications and interventions for neck pain: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to provide an overview of how neck pain is classified in the literature, define and group conservative interventions into 'nodes', and develop draft networks of interventions in preparation for a network meta-analysis (NMA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

We performed a scoping review. For feasibility reasons, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) via neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2014. We used standardized data extraction forms to extract data about classification of neck pain and interventions evaluated in the included RCTs. We calculated frequencies of neck pain classifications and grouped interventions into nodes based on the definitions used in Cochrane reviews. Draft network graphs comparing interventions were constructed using the online Shiny R application CINEMA.

RESULTS

We included 242 RCTs from seven CPGs, evaluating 28,581 patients. We found three different classification systems of which The Neck Pain Task Force classification was used most often. We defined and grouped all interventions into 19 discrete potential nodes.

CONCLUSION

We found a wide variation in neck pain classifications and conservative interventions. Grouping the interventions was challenging and needs further evaluation before conducting a final NMA.

Graphical tools for visualizing the results of network meta-analysis of multicomponent interventions

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an established method for assessing the comparative efficacy and safety of competing interventions. It is often the case that we deal with interventions that consist of multiple, possibly interacting, components. Examples of interventions' components include characteristics of the intervention, mode (face-to-face, remotely etc.), location (hospital, home etc.), provider (physician, nurse etc.), time of communication (synchronous, asynchronous etc.) and other context related components. Networks of multicomponent interventions are typically sparse and classical NMA inference is not straightforward and prone to confounding. Ideally, we would like to disentangle the effect of each component to find out what works (or does not work). To this aim, we propose novel ways of visualizing the NMA results, describe their use, and illustrate their application in real-life examples. We developed an R package viscomp to produce all the suggested figures.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia: Protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called "Control". The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

REGISTRATION

OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Some conservative interventions are more effective than others for people with chronic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

QUESTION

Which is the most effective conservative intervention for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNSNP)?

DESIGN

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with CNSNP of at least 3 months duration.

INTERVENTIONS

All available pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcome was adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall, 119 RCTs (12,496 patients; 32 interventions) were included. Risk of bias was low in 50.4% of trials, unclear in 22.7% and high in 26.9%. Compared with inert treatment, a combination of active and/or passive multimodal non-pharmacological inventions (eg, exercise and manual therapy) were effective for pain on a 0-to-10 scale at 1 month (MD range 0.84 to 3.74) and at 3 to 6 months (MD range 1.06 to 1.49), and effective on disability on a 0-to-100 scale at 1 month (MD range 10.26 to 14.09) and 3 to 6 months (MD range 5.60 to 16.46). These effects ranged from possible to definite clinical relevance. Compared with inert treatment, anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with another non-pharmacological treatment did not reduce pain at 1 month or 3 to 6 months. At 12 months, no superiority was found over inert treatment on both outcomes. Most mild adverse events were experienced following acupuncture/dry needling intervention. On average, the evidence varied from low to very low certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

While multimodal non-pharmacological interventions may reduce pain and disability for up to 3 to 6 months of follow-up when compared with inert treatment, the evidence was very uncertain about their effects. Better quality and larger trials are needed to improve the certainty of evidence.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019124501.

Theory and practice of Bayesian and frequentist frameworks for network meta-analysis

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an increasingly popular statistical method of synthesising evidence to assess the comparative benefits and harms of multiple treatments in a single analysis. Several automated software packages facilitate conducting NMA using either of two alternative approaches, Bayesian or frequentist frameworks. Researchers must choose a framework for conducting NMA (Bayesian or frequentist) and select appropriate model(s), and those conducting NMA need to understand the assumptions and limitations of different approaches. Bayesian models are more frequently used and can be more flexible but require checking additional assumptions and greater statistical expertise that are often ignored. The present paper describes the important theoretical aspects of Bayesian and frequentist models for NMA and the applications and considerations of contrast-synthesis and arm-synthesis NMAs. In addition, we present evidence from a limited number of simulation and empirical studies that compared different frequentist and Bayesian models and provide an overview of available automated software packages to perform NMA. We will conclude that when analysts choose appropriate models, there are seldom important differences in the results of Bayesian and frequentist approaches and that network meta-analysts should therefore focus on model features rather than the statistical framework.

Clinical interventions for adults with comorbid alcohol use and depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Modeling Multicomponent Interventions in Network Meta-Analysis

There is a rapid increase in trials assessing healthcare interventions consisting of a combination of drugs (polytherapies) or multiple components. In the latter type of interventions (also known as complex interventions), the aspect of complexity is of paramount importance. For example, nonpharmacological interventions, such as psychological interventions or self-management interventions, usually share common components that relate to the nature of intervention, who delivers it, or where and how. In a network of trials, there is often the need to identify the most effective (or safest) component and/or combination of components. Four key meta-analytical approaches have been presented in the literature to handle complex interventions. These include (a) the single-effect model, (b) the full interaction model, (c) the additive main effects model, and (d) the two-way interaction model. In this chapter, we present and discuss the advantages and limitations of these approaches. We illustrate these methods using a network that assesses the relative effects of self-management interventions on waist size in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Critical evaluation of reporting quality of network meta-analyses assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture

BACKGROUND

and purpose: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) comparing the effectiveness of multiple acupuncture have been published but the key concepts underlying NMAs have not been properly reported. This critical evaluation aims to assess the completeness of reporting for NMAs of acupuncture to enhance the validity of findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched. The characteristics and reporting quality based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension Statement for reporting of NMA (PRISMA-NMA) were evaluated. NMAs were categorized into two groups according to the publication date, reporting guideline, and intervention. The group differences and correlation coefficients were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-two NMAs of acupuncture were evaluated. The reporting quality for new items in the key concepts of NMAs was low (median 70.0 % (interquartile range 60.0-80.0)). While the issue of consistency was well reported, the assumption of transitivity and network geometry showed poor reporting. Seventeen studies that followed the PRISMA-NMA guideline showed a higher reporting rate for essential concepts of NMA. The recency of publication did not guarantee clear reporting.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of NMAs of acupuncture was low. The researchers should follow the guidelines on the reporting of NMAs.

School-based interventions to prevent anxiety, depression and conduct disorder in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Schools in the UK increasingly have to respond to anxiety, depression and conduct disorder as key causes of morbidity in children and young people.

Objective

The objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of educational setting-based interventions for the prevention of anxiety, depression and conduct disorder in children and young people.

Design

This study comprised a systematic review, a network meta-analysis and an economic evaluation.

Data sources

The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to 4 April 2018, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was searched on 22 May 2019 for economic evaluations. No language or date filters were applied.

Main outcomes

The main outcomes were post-intervention self-reported anxiety, depression or conduct disorder symptoms.

Review methods

Randomised/quasi-randomised trials of universal or targeted interventions for the prevention of anxiety, depression or conduct disorder in children and young people aged 4–18 years were included. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Intervention- and component-level network meta-analyses were conducted in OpenBUGS. A review of the economic literature and a cost–consequence analysis were conducted.

Results

A total of 142 studies were included in the review, and 109 contributed to the network meta-analysis. Of the 109 studies, 57 were rated as having an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Heterogeneity was moderate. In universal secondary school settings, mindfulness/relaxation interventions [standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.65, 95% credible interval (CrI) –1.14 to –0.19] and cognitive–behavioural interventions (SMD –0.15, 95% CrI –0.34 to 0.04) may be effective for anxiety. Cognitive–behavioural interventions incorporating a psychoeducation component may be effective (SMD –0.30, 95% CrI –0.59 to –0.01) at preventing anxiety immediately post intervention. There was evidence that exercise was effective in preventing anxiety in targeted secondary school settings (SMD –0.47, 95% CrI –0.86 to –0.09). There was weak evidence that cognitive–behavioural interventions may prevent anxiety in universal (SMD –0.07, 95% CrI –0.23 to 0.05) and targeted (SMD –0.38, 95% CrI –0.84 to 0.07) primary school settings. There was weak evidence that cognitive–behavioural (SMD –0.04, 95% CrI –0.16 to 0.07) and cognitive–behavioural + interpersonal therapy (SMD –0.18, 95% CrI –0.46 to 0.08) may be effective in preventing depression in universal secondary school settings. Third-wave (SMD –0.35, 95% CrI –0.70 to 0.00) and cognitive–behavioural interventions (SMD –0.11, 95% CrI –0.28 to 0.05) incorporating a psychoeducation component may be effective at preventing depression immediately post intervention. There was no evidence of intervention effectiveness in targeted secondary, targeted primary or universal primary school settings post intervention. The results for university settings were unreliable because of inconsistency in the network meta-analysis. A narrative summary was reported for five conduct disorder prevention studies, all in primary school settings. None reported the primary outcome at the primary post-intervention time point. The economic evidence review reported heterogeneous findings from six studies. Taking the perspective of a single school budget and based on cognitive–behavioural therapy intervention costs in universal secondary school settings, the cost–consequence analysis estimated an intervention cost of £43 per student.

Limitations

The emphasis on disorder-specific prevention excluded broader mental health interventions and restricted the number of eligible conduct disorder prevention studies. Restricting the study to interventions delivered in the educational setting may have limited the number of eligible university-level interventions.

Conclusions

There was weak evidence of the effectiveness of school-based, disorder-specific prevention interventions, although effects were modest and the evidence not robust. Cognitive–behavioural therapy-based interventions may be more effective if they include a psychoeducation component.

Future work

Future trials for prevention of anxiety and depression should evaluate cognitive–behavioural interventions with and without a psychoeducation component, and include mindfulness/relaxation or exercise comparators, with sufficient follow-up. Cost implications must be adequately measured.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048184.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).

Results

Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.41 to –0.40), heat wrap (SMD −1.38; 95% CI −2.60 to –0.17), opioids (SMD −0.86; 95% CI −1.62 to –0.10), manual therapy (SMD −0.72; 95% CI −1.40 to –0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD −0.53; 95% CI −0.97 to –0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.

Conclusion

With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm–benefit balance.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Pediatric Migraine: A Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Migraine is a common neurologic disorder in children and adolescents. However, a comparison of multiple nonpharmacological treatments is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether nonpharmacological treatments are more effective than waiting list and whether there are differences between interventions regarding efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through August 5, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed with episodic migraine.

DATA EXTRACTION

Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the primary outcome efficacy, were assessed in a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (N = 576) were included. When interventions were classified into groups on the basis of similarity of treatment components, self-administered treatments, biofeedback, relaxation, psychological treatments, and psychological placebos were significantly more effective than waiting list with effect sizes ranging between SMD = 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 2.19) for long-term psychological placebos to SMD = 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 2.62) for short-term self-administered treatments. However, when all interventions were examined individually (ie, 1 node per intervention), none were significantly more effective compared with waiting list, mainly because of lack of statistical power.

LIMITATIONS

Because of our focus on pediatric migraine, only a small number of studies could be included.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal that components of nonpharmacological interventions are effective in treating pediatric migraine. Some effects have to be interpreted carefully because they are based on small studies. Future researchers should identify factors associated with individual responses in large, multicentered studies.

A review of methods for addressing components of interventions in meta-analysis

Many healthcare interventions are complex, consisting of multiple, possibly interacting, components. Several methodological articles addressing complex interventions in the meta-analytical context have been published. We hereby provide an overview of methods used to evaluate the effects of complex interventions with meta-analytical models. We summarized the methodology, highlighted new developments, and described the benefits, drawbacks, and potential challenges of each identified method. We expect meta-analytical methods focusing on components of several multicomponent interventions to become increasingly popular due to recently developed, easy-to-use, software tools that can be used to conduct the relevant analyses. The different meta-analytical methods are illustrated through two examples comparing psychotherapies for panic disorder.

Do External Supports Improve Dynamic Balance in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability? A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To improve ankle stability in patients who have experienced an ankle sprain with residual symptoms of instability and/or objective joint laxity, external supports (such as taping, bracing, and orthotic insoles) are used sometimes. However, available randomized trials have disagreed on whether restraints improve balance in those individuals. In this situation, a network meta-analysis can help because it allows for comparing multiple treatments simultaneously, taking advantage not only of direct but also indirect evidence synthesis.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess (1) the impact of taping and orthotic devices on dynamic postural control in individuals with ankle instability and (2) the presence of a placebo effect in participants treated with sham taping and complications resulting from the administered treatments.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases up to February 13, 2019 for completed studies. Randomized trials assessing the results of real and/or sham taping, wait-and-see protocols, ankle bracing, and foot orthotics for ankle instability as determined by one or more ankle sprains followed by ongoing subjective symptoms and/or mechanical laxity were included. We evaluated dynamic postural control in terms of the Star Excursion Balance Test in the posteromedial direction (SEBT-PM), which is considered the most representative of balance deficits in patients with ankle instability. Standardized mean differences were re-expressed to percentage differences in SEBT-PM, with higher scores representing possible improvement. Subsequently, those data were checked against the established minimal detectable change of 14% for this scale to make judgements on clinical importance. We also assessed the presence of a placebo effect by comparing the results of sham taping with no treatment and complications resulting from the administered treatments. Additionally, we judged the quality of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. A total of 22 trials met our inclusion criteria, 18 of which were deemed to be at a low risk of bias. A network of treatments consisting of 13 studies was created, and the level of evidence was judged to be high. As far as participants' allocation to treatment arms, 85 patients followed a wait-and-see protocol, 29 received placebo taping, 99 were treated with taping, 16 were treated with bracing, 27 were administered insoles, and six individuals were offered a combination of insoles with bracing. Of note, with statistical power set at 80%, a minimum of 16 patients per treatment group was required to provide sufficient statistical power and detect a SEBT-PM percentage difference of 14%.

RESULTS

A network meta-analysis did not demonstrate a benefit of taping or bracing over no treatment (percentage difference in SEBT-PM between taping and bracing versus control: -2.4 [95% CI -6 to 1.1]; p = 0.18, and -7.5 [95% CI -15.9 to 1]; p = 0.08, respectively). This was also the case for sham taping because the measurement increase failed to exceed the minimal detectable change (percentage difference in SEBT-PM between sham taping and untreated control: -1.1 [95% CI -6.9 to 4.7]; p = 0.72). Importantly, there were no reported adverse events after treatment application.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate strength indicated that external supports of any type were no more effective than controls in improving dynamic postural control in patients with at least one ankle sprain and residual functional or mechanical deficits. Therefore, implementing those tools as a standalone treatment does not appear to be a viable strategy for the primary management of ankle instability. It is conceivable that combinations of rehabilitation and external supports could be more effective than external supports alone, and future trials should evaluate the potential of such combinations in enhancing not only clinician-reported but also patient-oriented outcomes using long-term follow-up measurements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Effectiveness of remineralising agents in prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced white spot lesions: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

White spot lesions (WSLs) are common adverse effects in fixed orthodontic treatment. Remineralising agents are widely used to prevent WSLs formation and are the first-line treatment for existing WSLs. Previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of remineralisation agents in the management of WSLs. However, their conclusions were contradictory. The objective of this study will be to compare the effectiveness and safety of current remineralising agents used in the management of WSLs in patients treated with fixed orthodontic appliances in any orthodontic setting.

METHODS

Literature searches will be conducted in several electronic databases (from inception onwards): MEDLINE (via Ovid), Scopus, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), among others. Grey literature will be identified through searching clinical trials registries. Randomised controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of different remineralisation agents in the prevention and treatment of WSLs will be included. Two researchers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The study risk bias will be appraised using an appropriate tool. The primary outcomes will be WSLs incidence and severity of WSLs. Secondary outcomes will be subjective measures of WSLs and adverse effects. The mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) will be chosen as effect measures for continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. If feasible, fixed and random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will compare the effectiveness of remineralising agents in the prevention and treatment of orthodontically induced WSLs. By integrating the evidence from direct and indirect comparisons and ranking all evaluated interventions, our findings have the potential to help clinicians make more accurate treatment decisions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019116852, registered on March 15, 2019.

School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184.

FINDINGS

1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively.

INTERPRETATION

Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research.

Perspective: Network Meta-analysis Reaches Nutrition Research: Current Status, Scientific Concepts, and Future Directions

Traditional pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) is a very useful method that pools evidence from one study design type if appropriate; its widespread use in nutrition research is an important phenomenon. Recently, a promising method for more advanced evidence-synthesis, called network meta-analysis (NMA), was introduced. NMA is an extension of PMA that enables simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. NMA combines direct evidence (i.e., trials comparing 2 interventions directly) and indirect evidence (i.e., from a connected route via ≥1 comparators, e.g. placebo) in a network of studies. NMAs have the potential to advance knowledge in the field of nutrition as they provide insights that cannot be obtained by individual 2-arm randomized controlled trials or PMA. Thus, in this perspective paper, we aim to summarize the current (methodologic) status of published NMAs in nutrition research and emphasize advances and strengths in comparison with traditional PMA through specific examples, and highlight potential pitfalls and limitations. NMA is an emerging methodology in the field of nutrition research. A PubMed search identified only 23 nutrition research-related NMAs published since the inception of journals up to January 8, 2019 (61% of them published since 2017), compared with >5000 published PMAs. Moreover, we aim to highlight the scientific concepts and standards through the use of the following NMA example: "Which type of oils/solid fats offers the greatest impact on blood lipids?" In this regard, we discuss intervention definitions, transitivity/similarity, statistical methods, description and visualization of results, inconsistency, ranking, dissemination bias, assessing the certainty of evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, and reporting guidelines. We expect that rigorously conducted NMAs based on high-quality systematic reviews will become the new evidence synthesis benchmark in nutrition research. However, caution is warranted because abuse and misinterpretations of PMA and NMA findings could hamper the scientific field and possibly decision-making regarding public policy.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and sub-acute mechanical non-specific low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Acute LBP usually has a good prognosis, with rapid improvement within the first 6 weeks. However, the majority of patients develop chronic LBP and suffer from recurrences. For clinical management, a plethora of treatments is currently available but evidence of the most effective options is lacking. The objective of this study will be to identify the most effective interventions to relieve pain and reduce disability in acute and sub-acute non-specific LBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) from inception onwards. The eligible population will be individuals with non-specific LBP older than 18 years, both males and females, who experience pain less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). Eligible interventions and comparators will include all conservative rehabilitation or pharmacological treatments provided by any health professional; the only eligible study design will be a randomized controlled trial. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and back-specific functional status. Secondary outcomes will be any adverse events. Studies published in languages other than English will also potentially be included. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts retrieved from a literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. General characteristics, potential effect modifiers, and outcome data will be extracted from the included studies, and the risk of bias will be appraised. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussions. After describing the results of the review, if appropriate, a random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted in a frequentist setting, assuming equal heterogeneity across all treatment comparisons and accounting for correlations induced by multi-arm studies using a multivariate normal model.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review will address the uncertainties in the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments, and their relative efficacy, for acute and subacute LBP. These findings will be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102527.

Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: Protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neck Pain (NP) has been ranked as one of the top chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lived with disability in the latest Global Burden of Disease. NP has remarkable socio-economic consequences however, research efforts are limited. Discrepancies among guidelines recommendations on management of chronic neck pain exist. The purpose of this study protocol is to provide the methods for a review with network meta-analysis to identify the most effective interventions for chronic neck pain.

METHODS

The following databases will be searched from their inception to February 2019: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and PEDro.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological and not pharmacological interventions will be included and their risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes will be reduction in pain and disability. A network meta-analysis will be carried out and pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 15 software. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) will be applied to assess quality of the body of the evidence.

RESULTS

The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive review on the most effective treatments for the management of chronic neck pain providing key evidence-based information to patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders. Registration: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019124501).