Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Reimagining How We Synthesize Information to Impact Clinical Care, Policy, and Research Priorities in Real Time: Examples and Lessons Learned from COVID-19

Real-time clinical care, policy, and research decisions need real-time evidence synthesis. However, as we found during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is challenging to rapidly address key clinical and policy questions through rigorous, relevant, and usable evidence. Our objective is to present three exemplar cases of rapid evidence synthesis products from the Veterans Healthcare Administration Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) and, in the context of these examples, outline ESP products, challenges, and lessons learned. We faced challenges in (1) balancing scientific rigor with the speed in which evidence synthesis was needed, (2) sorting through rapidly evolving large bodies of evidence, and (3) assessing the impact of evidence synthesis products on clinical care, policy, and research. We found solutions in (1) engaging stakeholders early, (2) utilizing artificial intelligence capabilities, (3) building infrastructure to establish living reviews, and (4) planning for dissemination to maximize impact.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics.

Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study

Objective

To identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.

Design

Cross sectional audit study.

Setting

EUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.

Population

Random sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).

Main outcome measures

Proportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.

Results

In the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).

Conclusions

EUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more.

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia in adults with acute schizophrenia: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia is severely distressing. We aimed to investigate relationships between antipsychotic doses and akathisia risk. We searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated monotherapy of 17 antipsychotics in adults with acute schizophrenia until 06 March 2022. The primary outcome was the number of participants with akathisia, which was analysed with odds ratios (ORs). We applied one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analyses using restricted cubic splines to model the dose-response relationships. We included 98 studies (343 dose arms, 34,225 participants), most of which were short-term and had low-to-moderate risk of bias. We obtained data on all antipsychotics except clozapine and zotepine. In patients with acute exacerbations of chronic schizophrenia, from moderate to high certainty of evidence, our analysis showed that sertindole and quetiapine carried negligible risks for akathisia across examined doses (flat curves), while most of the other antipsychotics had their risks increase initially with increasing doses and then either plateaued (hyperbolic curves) or continued to rise (monotonic curves), with maximum ORs ranging from 1.76 with 95% Confidence Intervals [1.24, 2.52] for risperidone at 5.4 mg/day to OR 11.92 [5.18, 27.43] for lurasidone at 240 mg/day. We found limited or no data on akathisia risk in patients with predominant negative symptoms, first-episode schizophrenia, or elderly patients. In conclusion, liability of akathisia varies between antipsychotics and is dose-related. The dose-response curves for akathisia in most antipsychotics are either monotonic or hyperbolic, indicating that higher doses carry a greater or equal risk compared to lower doses.

Magnetic seizure therapy for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common and disabling mental disorders. About 20% of people with schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics, which are the mainstay of the treatment for schizophrenia today, and need to seek other treatment options. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is one of the novel non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being investigated in recent years.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 March 2022, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MST alone or plus standard care with ECT or any other interventions for people with schizophrenia.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed reference screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias and quality assessment in duplicate. We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the original risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment and created a Summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one four-week study with 79 adults in acute schizophrenia, comparing MST plus standard care to ECT plus standard care in this review. We rated the overall risk of bias as high due to high risk of bias in the domains of selective reporting and other biases (early termination and baseline imbalance) and unclear risk of bias in the domain of blinding of participants and personnel. We found that MST and ECT may not differ in improving the global state (n = 79, risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.70), overall (n = 79, mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -8.08 to 7.68), the positive symptoms (n = 79, MD 1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to 4.77) and the negative symptoms (n = 79, MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.85 to 1.85) in people with schizophrenia.  We found  that MST compared to ECT may cause less delayed memory deficit and less cognitive deterioration (n = 79, number of people with a delayed memory deficit, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.96; n = 79, mean change in global cognitive function, MD 5.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.80), but also may improve more cognitive function (n = 47, number of people with any cognitive improvement, RR 3.30, 95% CI 1.29 to 8.47).  We found that there may be no difference between the two groups in terms of leaving the study early due to any reason (n = 79, RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.73 to 8.59), due to adverse effects (n = 79, RR 3.35, 95% CI 0.39 to 28.64) or due to inefficacy (n = 79, RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.10).  Since all findings were based on one study with high risk of bias and the confidence in the evidence was very low, we were not sure these comparable or favourable effects of MST over ECT were its true effects.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity of data, we cannot draw any conclusion on the efficacy and tolerability of MST for people with schizophrenia. Well-designed RCTs are warranted to answer the question.

Post‐incident debriefing for people with schizophrenia after coercive measures

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To investigate the effects of post‐incident debriefing after coercive measures for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia‐type psychosis.

Efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, meta-analysis of aggregate data (AD) did not demonstrate higher efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics but found substantial heterogeneity between trials and variation between participants in treatment effects. Therefore, we will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics while accounting for potentially important effect modifiers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a systematic review, two reviewers will independently search Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's trial register (without restrictions in date, language or state of publication) and related reviews. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in participants with treatment-resistant schizophrenia comparing clozapine with other second-generation antipsychotics for at least 6 weeks. We will apply no restrictions in age, gender, origin, ethnicity or setting, but exclude open-label studies, studies from China, experimental studies and phase II of cross-over trials. IPD will be requested from trial authors and cross-check against published results. AD will be extracted in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool.The primary outcome will be overall symptoms of schizophrenia.We will synthesise results using random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression methods in a 3-level Bayesian model. The model combines IPD with AD when IPD is not available for all studies, and include participant, intervention and study design characteristics as potential effect modifiers. The effect size measures will be mean difference (or standardised mean difference when different scales were used). Confidence in the evidence will be assessed using GRADE.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been approved by the ethics commission of the Technical University of Munich (#612/21 S-NP). The results will be published open-access in a peer-review journal and a plain-language version of the results will be disseminated.If we need to amend this protocol, we will describe the change and give the rationale in a specific section in the resulting publication 'Changes with respect to the protocol'.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (#CRD42021254986).

Placebo versus no treatment for people with schizophrenia

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the effects of placebo versus no treatment in people with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention of weight gain in people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic-induced weight gain is an extremely common problem in people with schizophrenia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive pharmacological interventions may be necessary to help manage antipsychotic-induced weight gain. This review splits and updates a previous Cochrane Review that focused on both pharmacological and behavioural approaches to this problem.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain in people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Schizophrenia Information Specialist searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's Register of Trials on 10 February 2021. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined any adjunctive pharmacological intervention for preventing weight gain in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses who use antipsychotic medications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. For continuous outcomes, we combined mean differences (MD) in endpoint and change data in the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to judge certainty of evidence and create summary of findings tables. The primary outcomes for this review were clinically important change in weight, clinically important change in body mass index (BMI), leaving the study early, compliance with treatment, and frequency of nausea. The included studies rarely reported these outcomes, so, post hoc, we added two new outcomes, average endpoint/change in weight and average endpoint/change in BMI.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs, with a total of 1388 participants, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five studies investigated metformin, three topiramate, three H2 antagonists, three monoamine modulators, and one each investigated monoamine modulators plus betahistine, melatonin and samidorphan. The comparator in all studies was placebo or no treatment (i.e. standard care alone). We synthesised all studies in a quantitative meta-analysis. Most studies inadequately reported their methods of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel. The resulting risk of bias and often small sample sizes limited the overall certainty of the evidence. Only one reboxetine study reported the primary outcome, number of participants with clinically important change in weight. Fewer people in the treatment condition experienced weight gains of more than 5% and more than 7% of their bodyweight than those in the placebo group (> 5% weight gain RR 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.65; 1 study, 43 participants; > 7% weight gain RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the primary outcomes, 'clinically important change in BMI', or 'compliance with treatment'. However, several studies reported 'average endpoint/change in body weight' or 'average endpoint/change in BMI'. Metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.03 kg, 95% CI -5.78 to -2.28; 4 studies, 131 participants; low-certainty evidence); and BMI increase (MD -1.63 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.29; 5 studies, 227 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other agents that may be slightly effective in preventing weight gain include H2 antagonists such as nizatidine, famotidine and ranitidine (MD -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.56; 3 studies, 248 participants; low-certainty evidence) and monoamine modulators such as reboxetine and fluoxetine (weight: MD -1.89 kg, 95% CI -3.31 to -0.47; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI: MD -0.66 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26; 3 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Topiramate did not appear effective in preventing weight gain (MD -4.82 kg, 95% CI -9.99 to 0.35; 3 studies, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For all agents, there was no difference between groups in terms of individuals leaving the study or reports of nausea. However, the results of these outcomes are uncertain given the very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence to suggest that metformin may be effective in preventing weight gain. Interpretation of this result and those for other agents, is limited by the small number of studies, small sample size, and short study duration. In future, we need studies that are adequately powered and with longer treatment durations to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing weight gain.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy reduction versus polypharmacy continuation for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic.  We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201).  Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to  inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms such as affective flattening and lack of motivation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention that aims to change the way in which a person interprets and evaluates their experiences, helping them to identify and link feelings and patterns of thinking that underpin distress. CBT models targeting symptoms of psychosis (CBTp) have been developed for many mental health conditions including schizophrenia. CBTp has been suggested as a useful add-on therapy to medication for people with schizophrenia. While CBT for people with schizophrenia was mainly developed as an individual treatment, it is expensive and a group approach may be more cost-effective. Group CBTp can be defined as a group intervention targeting psychotic symptoms, based on the cognitive behavioural model. In group CBTp, people work collaboratively on coping with distressing hallucinations, analysing evidence for their delusions, and developing problem-solving and social skills. However, the evidence for effectiveness is far from conclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate efficacy and acceptability of group CBT applied to psychosis compared with standard care or other psychosocial interventions, for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials allocating adults with schizophrenia to receive either group CBT for schizophrenia, compared with standard care, or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We complied with Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 24 studies (1900 participants). All studies compared group CBTp with treatments that a person with schizophrenia would normally receive in a standard mental health service (standard care) or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual). None of the studies compared group CBTp with individual CBTp. Overall risk of bias within the trials was moderate to low. We found no studies reporting data for our primary outcome of clinically important change. With regard to numbers of participants leaving the study early, group CBTp has little or no effect compared to standard care or other psychosocial interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59; studies = 13, participants = 1267; I2 = 9%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp may have some advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions for overall mental state at the end of treatment for endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total (MD -3.73, 95% CI -4.63 to -2.83; studies = 12, participants = 1036; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp seems to have little or no effect on PANSS positive symptoms (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.40; studies =8, participants = 539; I2 = 0%) and on PANSS negative symptoms scores at the end of treatment (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.21; studies = 9, participants = 768; I2 = 65%). Group CBTp seems to have an advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions on global functioning measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; MD -3.61, 95% CI -6.37 to -0.84; studies = 5, participants = 254; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP; MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.60; studies = 1, participants = 100), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS; MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.08; studies = 1, participants = 116). Service use data were equivocal with no real differences between treatment groups for number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.60; studies = 3, participants = 235; I2 = 34%). There was no clear difference between group CBTp and standard care or other psychosocial interventions endpoint scores on depression and quality of life outcomes, except for quality of life measured by World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) Psychological domain subscale (MD -4.64, 95% CI -9.04 to -0.24; studies = 2, participants = 132; I2 = 77%). The studies did not report relapse or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group CBTp appears to be no better or worse than standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in terms of leaving the study early, service use and general quality of life. Group CBTp seems to be more effective than standard care or other psychosocial interventions on overall mental state and global functioning scores. These results may not be widely applicable as each study had a low sample size. Therefore, no firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of group CBTp for people with schizophrenia can currently be made. More high-quality research, reporting useable and relevant data is needed.

Antipsychotics for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms

BACKGROUND

Whilst antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, there have been numerous attempts to identify biomarkers that can predict treatment response. One potential marker may be psychomotor abnormalities, including catatonic symptoms. Early studies suggested that catatonic symptoms predict poor treatment response, whilst anecdotal reports of rare adverse events have been invoked against antipsychotics. The efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of this subtype of schizophrenia have rarely been studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies (e.g. transcranial magnetic stimulation), or placebo for treating positive, negative, and catatonic symptoms in people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and WHO ICTRP, on 19 September 2021. There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We also manually searched reference lists from the included studies, and contacted study authors when relevant.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing any single antipsychotic medication with another antipsychotic or with other pharmacological agents, ECT, other non-pharmacological neuromodulation therapies, or placebo for people who have schizophrenia spectrum disorders with catatonic symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences between groups and their 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies, and created a summary of findings table; however, we did not assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach because there was no quantitative evidence in the included study.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 53 identified reports, one RCT including 14 hospitalised adults with schizophrenia and catatonic symptoms met the inclusion criteria of the review. The study, which was conducted in India and lasted only three weeks, compared risperidone with ECT in people who did not respond to an initial lorazepam trial.   There were no usable data reported on the primary efficacy outcomes of clinically important changes in positive, negative, or catatonic symptoms. Whilst both study groups improved in catatonia scores on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), the ECT group showed significantly greater improvement at week 3 endpoint (mean +/- estimated standard deviation; 0.68 +/- 4.58; N = 8) than the risperidone group (6.04 +/- 4.58; N = 6; P = 0.035 of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures originally conducted in the trial). Similarly, both groups improved on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores by week 3, but ECT showed significantly greater improvement in positive symptoms scores compared with risperidone (P = 0.04). However, data on BFCRS scores in the ECT group appeared to be skewed, and mean PANSS scores were not reported, thereby precluding further analyses of both BFCRS and PANSS data according to the protocol.  Although no cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, extrapyramidal symptoms as a primary safety outcome were reported in three cases in the risperidone group. Conversely, headache (N = 6), memory loss (N = 4), and a prolonged seizure were reported in people receiving ECT. These adverse effects, which were assessed as specific for antipsychotics and ECT, respectively, were the only adverse effects reported in the study. However, the exact number of participants with adverse events was not clearly reported in both groups, precluding further analysis.  Our results were based only on a single study with a very small sample size, short duration of treatment, unclear or high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation methods, possible imbalance in baseline characteristics, skewed data, and selective reporting. Data on outcomes of general functioning, global state, quality of life, and service use, as well as data on specific phenomenology and duration of catatonic symptoms, were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only one small, short-term trial suggesting that risperidone may improve catatonic and positive symptoms scale scores amongst people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and catatonic symptoms, but that ECT may result in greater improvement in the first three weeks of treatment. Due to small sample size, methodological shortcomings and brief duration of the study, as well as risk of bias, the evidence from this review is of very low quality. We are uncertain if these are true effects, limiting any conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. No cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome were reported, but we cannot rule out the risk of this or other rare adverse events in larger population samples.  High-quality trials continue to be necessary to differentiate treatments for people with symptoms of catatonia in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The lack of consensus on the psychopathology of catatonia remains a barrier to defining treatments for people with schizophrenia. Better understanding of the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics may clarify treatment for this unique subtype of schizophrenia.

COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies

Background and Objective

The coronavirus disease 2019 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains more than 430,000 articles as of September 20, 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews.

Methods

Our sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that was available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search.

Results

We identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2,132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2,125/2,132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2,057/2,132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomized trials (82/82).

Conclusion

The COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes.

A web-based tool for automatically linking clinical trials to their publications

OBJECTIVE

Evidence synthesis teams, physicians, policy makers, and patients and their families all have an interest in following the outcomes of clinical trials and would benefit from being able to evaluate both the results posted in trial registries and in the publications that arise from them. Manual searching for publications arising from a given trial is a laborious and uncertain process. We sought to create a statistical model to automatically identify PubMed articles likely to report clinical outcome results from each registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A machine learning-based model was trained on pairs (publications known to be linked to specific registered trials). Multiple features were constructed based on the degree of matching between the PubMed article metadata and specific fields of the trial registry, as well as matching with the set of publications already known to be linked to that trial.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the model using known linked articles as gold standard showed that they tend to be top ranked (median best rank = 1.0), and 91% of them are ranked in the top 10.

DISCUSSION

Based on this model, we have created a free, public web-based tool that, given any registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov, presents a ranked list of the PubMed articles in order of estimated probability that they report clinical outcome data from that trial. The tool should greatly facilitate studies of trial outcome results and their relation to the original trial designs.

Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education

Today, keeping up with the fast evolving evidence is more challenging than ever for practising physicians. A huge number of studies are published every day, and it is no longer possible to read all the relevant individual studies. Many physicians prefer attending continuing medical education (CME) to reading international scientific publications. Consequently, it is critical that CME is based on the best available evidence and presented in an unbiased manner free of conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews in particular can thus provide a valuable resource of up-to-date and high-quality information on health care questions for CME providers. Of note, systematic reviews might become outdated quickly. Furthermore, some systematic reviews are fraught with limitations such as poor methodology and conduct or incomplete and misleading reporting. This article provides a brief overview of systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, outlines how systematic reviews can be “kept alive” using today’s digital opportunities and points to several common problems of systematic reviews with suggestions for solutions.

Parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Around a third of people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness will be a parent. Both the parents and the children in this population are at increased risk of adverse outcomes due to parental mental illness. Parenting interventions are known to improve parenting skills and decrease child disruptive behaviour. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence base for parenting interventions designed specifically for parents who have schizophrenia or related serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on the following: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared parenting interventions with a control condition for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness with a child between the ages of 0 and 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. We assessed risk of bias for included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We only included one trial (n = 50), and it was not possible to extract any data because the authors did not provide any means and standard deviations for our outcomes of interest; they only reported whether outcomes were significant or not at the 0.05 level. Three domains of the trial were rated as having a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The only included trial provided inconclusive evidence. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations to people with schizophrenia (or related serious mental illness) or clinicians, or for policy changes. Although there is no RCT evidence, parenting interventions for people with schizophrenia or related serious mental illness have been developed. Future research should test these in RCTs in order to improve the evidence base for this population.

Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Humour-based interventions are defined as any intervention that promotes health and wellness by stimulating a playful discovery, expression, or appreciation of the absurdity or incongruity of life's situations. Humour-based interventions can be implemented in different settings, including hospitals, nursing homes and day care centres. They have been posed as an adjunct to usual care for people with schizophrenia, but a summary of the evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of humour-based interventions as an add-on intervention to standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 July 2019 and 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register of trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing humour-based interventions with active controls, other psychological interventions, or standard care for people with schizophrenia. We excluded studies fulfilling our prespecified selection criteria but without useable data from further quantitative synthesis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality, following the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risks of bias for included studies and created summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies in this review for qualitative synthesis, although one study did not report any relevant outcomes. We therefore include two studies (n = 96) in our quantitative synthesis. No data were available on the following prespecified primary outcomes: clinically-important change in general mental state, clinically-important change in negative symptoms, clinically-important change in overall quality of life, and adverse effects. As compared with active control, humour-based interventions may not improve the average endpoint score of a general mental state scale (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score: MD -1.70, 95% CI -17.01 to 13.61; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence); positive symptoms (PANSS positive symptom score: MD 0.00, 95% CI -2.58 to 2.58; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence), negative symptoms (PANSS negative symptom score: MD -0.70, 95% CI -4.22 to 2.82; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): MD -2.60, 95% CI -5.76 to 0.56; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Due to the small sample size, we remain uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early as compared with active control (no event, 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence). On the other hand, humour-based interventions may reduce depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): MD -6.20, 95% CI -12.08 to -0.32; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Compared with standard care, humour-based interventions may not improve  depressive symptoms (BDI second edition: MD 0.80, 95% CI -2.64 to 4.24; 1 study, 59 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early for any reason compared with standard care (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.80; 1 study, 66 participants; very low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are currently uncertain whether the evidence supports the use of humour-based interventions in people with schizophrenia. Future research with rigorous and transparent methodology investigating clinically important outcomes is warranted.

Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs in individuals with schizophrenia during medium- to long-term treatment: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs and especially the newer compounds are known to cause metabolic side effects. However, a comprehensive comparison of the different substances regarding their propensity to cause metabolic side effects in medium- to long-term treatment of schizophrenia is lacking.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants received either placebo or an antipsychotic (i.e. placebo-controlled trials and head-to-head comparisons of drugs). We will include studies in individuals with schizophrenia or related disorders (such as schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders) at any stage of the disease (acute episode; maintenance phase). We will include studies with a duration of more than 3 months (medium- to long-term treatment). The primary outcome will be the change in body weight. Secondary outcomes will be the further metabolic parameters: fastening glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. We will search for eligible studies (independent of the publication status) in Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is compiled by regular searches in trial registries and multiple electronic databases from their inception onwards including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Additionally, we will search previously published systematic reviews and websites of pharmaceutical companies for eligible studies. At least two reviewers will independently conduct the process of study selection and data extraction. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to evaluate the risk of bias in studies. We will conduct random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess the robustness of the findings and to explore heterogeneity. The confidence in the results will be evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide a synthesis of the existing evidence from RCTs how antipsychotic drugs differ in terms of metabolic side effects during medium- to long-term treatment. The findings have the potential to influence the choice of antipsychotic medication made by individuals with schizophrenia and their physicians.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020175414.

Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production

The Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register (CCSR) is a public, continually updated database of COVID‐19 study references. The aim of this study‐based register is to support rapid and living evidence synthesis, including an evidence ecosystem of COVID‐19 research (CEOsys). In November and December 2020, we conducted an evaluation of the CCSR for CEOsys, measured its performance and identified areas for improvement. For the evaluation we generated a purposive sample of 286 studies from 20 reviews to calculate the CCSR's comprehensiveness (sensitivity), accuracy (correctly classified and linked studies) and currency (time to publish and process references). Our sample showed that the CCSR had an overall comprehensiveness of 77.2%, with the highest coverage for interventional studies (94.4%). The study register had 100% coverage for trial registry records, 86.5% for journal articles and 52.4% for preprints. A total of 98.3% of references were correctly classified with regard to study type, and 93.4% with regard to study aim. A total of 89% of studies were correctly linked. A total of 81.4% of references were published to the register in under 30 days, with 0.5 day (median) for trial registry records, 2 days for journal articles and 56 days for preprints. The CCSR had high comprehensiveness, accurate study classifications and short publishing times for journal articles and trial registry records in the sample. We identified that coverage and publishing time for preprints needed improvement. Finally, the evaluation illustrated the value of a study‐based register for identifying additional study references for analysis in evidence synthesis.

Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending. 1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual When Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD -1.93, 95% CI -5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -5.97, 95% CI -10.98 to -0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different - although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning. 2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling When Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD -4.74, 95% CI -8.01 to -1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -8.39, 95% CI -14.31 to -2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI -1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from - but not under the direction of - Avatar Therapy pioneers.

Modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders

BACKGROUND

People with schizophrenia have a range of different symptoms, including positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions), negative symptoms (such as social withdrawal and lack of affect), and cognitive impairment. The standard medication for people with schizophrenia is antipsychotics. However, these medications may not be effective for all symptoms of schizophrenia, as cognitive and negative symptoms are usually hard to treat. Additional therapies or medications are available for the management of these symptoms. Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent most frequently used in narcolepsy or shift work sleep disorder, is one intervention that is theorised to have an effect of these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 April 2015, 24 May 2017, and 31 October 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for the inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials comparing modafinil with placebo or other treatments for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from the included studies. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis. We used GRADE to complete a 'Summary of findings' table and assessed risk of bias for the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies including a total of 422 participants contributed to data analyses. Most studies had a small population size (average 38 people per study) and were of short duration. We also detected a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting in just under 50% of the trials. We therefore rated the overall methodological quality of the included studies as low. We considered seven main outcomes of interest: clinically important change in overall mental state, clinically important change in cognitive functioning, incidence of a clinically important adverse effect/event, clinically important change in global state, leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in quality of life, and hospital admission. All studies assessed the effects of adding modafinil to participants' usual antipsychotic treatment compared to adding placebo to usual antipsychotic treatment. Six studies found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on overall mental state of people with schizophrenia, specifically the risk of worsening psychosis (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.98; participants = 209; studies = 6, low-quality evidence). Regarding the effect of modafinil on cognitive function, the trials did not report clinically important change data, but one study reported endpoint scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB): in this study we found no clear difference in scores between modafinil and placebo treatment groups (MD -3.10, 95% CI -10.9 to 4.7; participants = 48; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Only one study (N = 35) reported adverse effect/event data. In this study one serious adverse event occurred in each group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). One study measured change in global state using the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale. This study found that adding modafinil to antipsychotic treatment may have little or no effect on global state (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.94 to 43.07, participants = 21; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Nine studies found that modafinil has no effect on numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.52 participants = 357; studies = 9, moderate-quality evidence). None of the trials reported clinically important change in quality of life, but one study did report quality of life using endpoint scores on the Quality of Life Inventory, finding no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.78; participants = 20; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). Finally, one study reported data for number of participants needing hospitalisation: one participant in each group was hospitalised (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.42; participants = 35; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to methodological issues, low sample size, and short duration of the clinical trials as well as high risk of bias for outcome reporting, most of the evidence available for this review is of very low or low quality. For results where quality is low or very low, we are uncertain or very uncertain if the effect estimates are true effects, limiting our conclusions. Specifically, we found that modafinil is no better or worse than placebo at preventing worsening of psychosis; however, we are uncertain about this result. We have more confidence that participants receiving modafinil are no more likely to leave a trial early than participants receiving placebo. However, we are very uncertain about the remaining equivocal results between modafinil and placebo for outcomes such as improvement in global state or cognitive function, incidence of adverse events, and changes in quality of life. More high-quality data are needed before firm conclusions regarding the effects of modafinil for people with schizophrenia or related disorders can be made.

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with psychosis may access emergency services due to aggression and agitation. When the de-escalation technique fails to achieve tranquillisation, several pharmacological options are available. However, evidence on which intervention to prefer in terms of efficacy and tolerability to achieve resolution of the acute episode (ie, rapid tranquillisation) of aggression and agitation is currently fragmentary.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing drugs or drug combinations or placebo for aggression or agitation episodes in adult individuals with psychosis. We will include individuals with psychosis (eg, schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, psychotic depression) but not substance or medication-induced psychosis or psychosis due to another medical condition. Our primary outcomes are the change in aggression or agitation scores within few hours since the administration of the intervention (efficacy outcome) and the proportion of participants who dropped out due to adverse effects (tolerability outcome). We will retrieve relevant studies from the register of studies of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. Also, we will run additional searches on CENTRAL, Embase and PubMed to retrieve potentially eligible studies focusing on other psychiatric diagnoses than those in the schizophrenia spectrum. We will conduct a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) for primary and secondary outcomes. In case of rare events of dichotomous outcomes, a common-effect Mantel-Haenszel NMA will be used instead. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank all available treatments. Local and global methods of evaluation of inconsistency will be employed. Quality of evidence contributing to network estimates of the main outcomes will also be assessed with Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019137945.