Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Mavranezouli I.,University College London | Mayo-Wilson E.,University College London | Mayo-Wilson E.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Dias S.,University of Bristol | And 5 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015

Background: Social anxiety disorder is one of the most persistent and common anxiety disorders. Individually delivered psychological therapies are the most effective treatment options for adults with social anxiety disorder, but they are associated with high intervention costs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of a variety of psychological and pharmacological interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder. Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 28 interventions for social anxiety disorder from the perspective of the British National Health Service and personal social services. Efficacy data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published literature and national sources, supplemented by expert opinion. Results: Individual cognitive therapy was the most cost-effective intervention for adults with social anxiety disorder, followed by generic individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), phenelzine and book-based self-help without support. Other drugs, group-based psychological interventions and other individually delivered psychological interventions were less cost-effective. Results were influenced by limited evidence suggesting superiority of psychological interventions over drugs in retaining long-term effects. The analysis did not take into account side effects of drugs. Conclusion: Various forms of individually delivered CBT appear to be the most cost-effective options for the treatment of adults with social anxiety disorder. Consideration of side effects of drugs would only strengthen this conclusion, as it would improve even further the cost effectiveness of individually delivered CBT relative to phenelzine, which was the next most cost-effective option, due to the serious side effects associated with phenelzine. Further research needs to determine more accurately the long-term comparative benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder and establish their relative cost effectiveness with greater certainty. © 2015 Mavranezouli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Source


Mayo-Wilson E.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Imdad A.,SUNY Upstate Medical University | Junior J.,Harvard University | Dean S.,Albert Einstein Medical Center | And 2 more authors.
BMJ Open | Year: 2014

Objective: Zinc deficiency is widespread, and preventive supplementation may have benefits in young children. Effects for children over 5 years of age, and effects when coadministered with other micronutrients are uncertain. These are obstacles to scale-up. This review seeks to determine if preventive supplementation reduces mortality and morbidity for children aged 6 months to 12 years. Design: Systematic review conducted with the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group. Two reviewers independently assessed studies. Meta-analyses were performed for mortality, illness and side effects. Data sources: We searched multiple databases, including CENTRAL and MEDLINE in January 2013. Authors were contacted for missing information. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised trials of preventive zinc supplementation. Hospitalised children and children with chronic diseases were excluded. Results: 80 randomised trials with 205 401 participants were included. There was a small but non-significant effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.05)). Supplementation may reduce incidence of all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89)), but there was evidence of reporting bias. There was no evidence of an effect of incidence or prevalence of respiratory infections or malaria. There was moderate quality evidence of a very small effect on linear growth (standardised mean difference 0.09 (0.06 to 0.13)) and an increase in vomiting (RR 1.29 (1.14 to 1.46)). There was no evidence of an effect on iron status. Comparing zinc with and without iron cosupplementation and direct comparisons of zinc plus iron versus zinc administered alone favoured cointervention for some outcomes and zinc alone for other outcomes. Effects may be larger for children over 1 year of age, but most differences were not significant. Conclusions: Benefits of preventive zinc supplementation may outweigh any potentially adverse effects in areas where risk of zinc deficiency is high. Further research should determine optimal intervention characteristics and delivery strategies. Source


Oud M.,Trimbos institute | Mayo-Wilson E.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Braidwood R.,University College London | Schulte P.,Treatment Center for Bipolar Disorders | And 5 more authors.
British Journal of Psychiatry | Year: 2016

Background Psychological interventions may be beneficial in bipolar disorder. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder. Method A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. Outcomes were meta-analysed using RevMan and confidence assessed using the GRADE method. Results We included 55 trials with 6010 participants. Moderate-quality evidence associated individual psychological interventions with reduced relapses at post-treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.92) and follow-up (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87), and collaborative care with a reduction in hospital admissions (RR =0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94). Low-quality evidence associated group interventions with fewer depression relapses at posttreatment and follow-up, and family psychoeducation with reduced symptoms of depression and mania. Conclusions There is evidence that psychological interventions are effective for people with bipolar disorder. Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality thereby limiting our conclusions. Further research should identify the most effective (and cost-effective) interventions for each phase of this disorder. © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. Source


Rouse B.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Cipriani A.,University of Oxford | Shi Q.,International Vaccine Access Center | Coleman A.L.,University of California at Los Angeles | And 2 more authors.
Annals of Internal Medicine | Year: 2016

Background: Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines. Purpose: To compare treatment recommendations for first-line medical therapy for primary open angle-glaucoma (POAG) from major updates of American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) guidelines with the evidence available at the time, using network meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 11 March 2014 for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of glaucoma monotherapies compared with placebo, vehicle, or no treatment or other monotherapies. The AAO Web site was searched in August 2014 to identify AAO POAG guidelines. Study Selection: Eligible RCTs were selected by 2 independent reviewers, and guidelines were selected by 1 person. Data Extraction: One person abstracted recommendations from guidelines and a second person verified. Two people independently abstracted data from included RCTs. Data Synthesis: Guidelines were grouped together on the basis of literature search dates, and RCTs that existed at 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004, and 2009 were analyzed. The outcome of interest was intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months. Only the latest guideline made a specific recommendation: prostaglandins. Network meta-analyses showed that all treatments were superior to placebo in decreasing IOP at 3 months. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals [CrIs]) for the highest-ranking class compared with placebo were as follows: 1991: β-blockers, 4.01 (CrI, 0.48 to 7.43); 1995: α2-adrenergic agonists, 5.64 (CrI, 1.73 to 9.50); 1999: prostaglandins, 5.43 (CrI, 3.38 to 7.38); 2004: prostaglandins, 4.75 (CrI, 3.11 to 6.44); 2009: prostaglandins, 4.58 (CrI, 2.94 to 6.24). Limitation: When comparisons are informed by a small number of studies, the treatment effects and rankings may not be stable. Conclusion: For timely recommendations when multiple treatment options are available, guidelines developers should consider network meta-analysis. © 2016 American College of Physicians. Source


Mayo-Wilson E.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Hutfless S.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Li T.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | Gresham G.,Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis | And 9 more authors.
Systematic Reviews | Year: 2015

Background: Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial. Methods: We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. Systematic review registration: CRD42015014037, CRD42015014038 © Mayo-Wilson et al. Source

Discover hidden collaborations