Randomized trials published in Chinese or Western journals: comparative empirical analysis

Effects of neurofeedback versus methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD: systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy and tolerability of methylphenidate (MPH) and neurofeedback (NF) in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remains uncertain. This study aimed to fill this gap by means of a systematic review/meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, OVID, ERIC, Web of Science, ClinialTrials.gov and a set of Chinese databases were searched until 22 August 2018. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were pooled using comprehensive meta-analysis software.

RESULTS

18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (778 individuals with ADHD in the NF arm and 757 in the MPH group, respectively; 13 studies in Chinese, five in English). At the study first endpoint, MPH was significantly more efficacious than NF on ADHD core symptoms (ADHD symptoms combined: SMD=-0.578, 95% CI (-1.063 to -0.092)) and on two neuropsychological parameters (inattention:-0.959 (-1.711 to -0.208); inhibition:-0.469 (-0.872 to -0.066)). Dropouts were significantly lower in NF versus MPH (OR=0.412, 0.186 to 0.913). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, with two important exceptions: removing Chinese studies and non-funded studies, no differences emerged between MPH and NF, although the number of studies was small. At the study follow-up, MPH was superior to NF in some outcomes, but results were inconsistent across raters.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the risk of bias of included studies, the results of the sensitivity analysis excluding Chinese and non-funded studies, and the mixed findings on at the follow-up endpoint, further high quality studies are needed to assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of NF and MPH in individuals with ADHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018090256.

Herbal Medicines for Cold Hypersensitivity in the Hands and Feet: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Cold hypersensitivity in the hands and feet (CHHF) and Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) are prevalent among Asian populations, especially among women, who exhibit a higher rate of cold hypersensitivity that may be associated with gynecological problems. In several countries, herbal medicine has effectively treated cold hypersensitivity symptoms. This systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of herbal medicine for the treatment of CHHF in adults.

Design: Through March 31, 2018, comprehensive databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Academic Journal, and Japanese National Institute of Informatics, to identify relevant studies and extract data.

Outcome measures: Primary: total effective rate (TER); secondary: skin temperature, peripheral blood flow, adverse events.

Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials (n = 974) were included. Thirteen studies with dichotomous values showed a significant reduction in CHHF and RP (risk ratio 0.31, 0.24–0.40) when comparing herbal medicine with/without Western medicine, and no treatment or Western medicine alone. Reductions in CHHF and RP were also observed between herbal medicine plus Western medicine and Western medicine alone (risk ratio 0.45, 0.24–0.86), as well as between herbal medicine and Western medicine alone (risk ratio 0.30, 0.21–0.41). In the only study using a placebo arm, herbal medicine was found to be superior to placebo in increasing skin temperature and peripheral blood flow. Six participants exhibited minor adverse drug reactions. Herbal medicine showed a superior TER, especially when combined with Western medicine, to Western medicine alone or placebo. However, there was a high risk of bias within all studies.

Conclusion: Although herbal medicine shows potential to be a safe and effective treatment for CHHF and RP, the high risk of bias in all studies prevents definitive conclusions; thus, higher quality studies must be performed.

Globalization in Urology: A Bibliographical Analysis of Cross-Continent Publication between 2002 and 2012

INTRODUCTION

Asian scientists have now increasingly begun to contribute to globalization; yet it is not clear whether publishing in the field of urology is paralleled by elevated cross-continental scientific publishing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An exemplary bibliometric analysis of urologic journals from 3 different continents was conducted between 2002 and 2012. Based on the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports, 2 urologic journals with similar impact factors (IFs) in 2013 were selected from Europe ('British Journal of Urology International', 'World Journal of Urology'), Asia ('International Journal of Urology', 'Asian Journal of Andrology') and North America ('Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations', 'Urology'). The home continent of the journal, the workplace continental affiliation of the last author, article type (clinical, experimental or review) as well as the IF were documented.

RESULTS

Most authors published their manuscripts in journals from the same continent in which they worked. However, a significant increase in cross-continental publishing was apparent from 2002 to 2012. Asians publishing in North America increased from 17% in 2002 to 35% in 2012. Europeans also increased the number of articles they published in North American journals, while publications from North American authors were shifted towards both European and Asian journals. Experimental and clinical articles showed significant increases in cross-continental publishing, while review publishing showed no significant change. The average IF for authors from all 3 continents increased from 2002 to 2012 (p < 0.001). The largest increase in the IF was found for Asian authors (0.11 per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-continental publication significantly increased during the period from 2002 to 2012. The impact that the Asian authors have experienced was found to be gradually impacting the North American and European colleagues.

A systematic review of Chinese randomized clinical trials of SSRI treatment of depression

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the most frequently used antidepressants in China in recent decades. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs in Chinese studies and the quality of Chinese randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Major Western and Chinese electronic databases were searched for double-blind, parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSRIs (fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline) with other antidepressants such as SSRI, Selective Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitor (SNRI), tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and/or placebo. Response, remission, and dropout rates due to side effects were defined as primary outcomes. Mean total Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression (HAMD) scores at endpoint, overall dropout rates and total Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) scores were defined as secondary outcomes. Data were combined with random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane evaluation tool. Quality of reports was assessed by the fulfilment of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) items.

RESULTS

A total of 71 studies were included. Only one study was listed in both Chinese and Western databases. SSRIs were found to be more effective than TCAs. No significant differences were observed regarding dropout rates due to side effects. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, adequate methods of sequence generation were described in 16 (23%) studies. All authors failed to report trial registration. Informed consent, sources of funding, email address, protocol, and limitations were also not mentioned in most studies. However, reporting quality improved steadily between 1996 and 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the low trial quality, the findings of a significant advantage of SSRI over TCA in terms of response rate and remission rate should be replicated by large high-quality Chinese studies.

Schizophrenia trials conducted in African countries: a drop of evidence in the ocean of morbidity?

Objective

To quantify schizophrenia trialling activity in African countries and to describe the main features of these trials.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register, which contains 16,000 citations to 13,000 studies relating only to people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness, to identify schizophrenia trials conducted in Africa without time limitation.

Results

A total of 38 trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Of the 54 countries of Africa, only 8 produced at least one trial: South Africa produced the majority of trials (20 out of 38 trials, 53%), followed by Nigeria (7 out of 38 trials, 18%) and Egypt (4 out of 38 trials, 11%). The majority of studies investigated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, were short in duration, and employed a double-blind design. The quality of reporting was generally poor. We found six trials comparing antipsychotics from the WHO Essential List of Medicine versus new generation antipsychotics. In terms of efficacy and acceptability, these studies failed to show any advantage of newer antipsychotics over first-generation agents.

Conclusions

We observed an impressive mismatch between the number of individuals with schizophrenia living in African countries, estimated to be around 10 million, and the overall number of patients included in African trials, which is less than 2,000. These few trials were of low quality and appeared not to reflect the real needs of the population. We argue that the concept of pragmatism should be introduced into the design of randomized trials in African countries. Pragmatic trials should investigate whether treatments, given in real-world circumstances, really have clinically meaningful effects.