Background Surveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value <0.05. Results Forty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = < 0.00001) compared to voucher (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08,1.31; P = < 0.0005) and lottery (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03,1.22; P = < 0.009). Conclusion Monetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys.

No abstract

and Amer SA ( ) Cognitive, emotional, physical, and behavioral stress-related symptoms and coping strategies among university students during the third wave of COVID-pandemic. Front. Psychiatry : . doi: .

Background Pridopidine is a novel drug that helps stabilize psychomotor function in patients with Huntington's disease (HD) by activating the cortical glutamate pathway. It promises to achieve the unmet needs of current therapies of HD without worsening other symptoms. Objective To review the literature discussing the efficacy of pridopidine in alleviating motor symptoms and its safety in patients with HD. Methods We searched Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Wiley, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pridopidine on HD. Data from eligible studies were extracted and pooled as mean differences for efficacy and risk ratios (RRs) for safety using RevMan software version 5.3. Results A total of 4 relevant RCTs with 1130 patients were selected (816 in the pridopidine group and 314 in the placebo group). The pooled effect size favored pridopidine over placebo insignificantly in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale Total Motor Score (mean difference [MD], −0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.01 to 0.14; P = 0.09), whereas the effect size of 3 studies significantly favored pridopidine over placebo in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale Modified Motor Score (MD, −0.81; 95% CI, −1.48 to −0.13; P = 0.02). Pridopidine generally was well tolerated. None of the adverse effects were considerably higher in the case of pridopidine compared with placebo in overall adverse events (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94–1.13; P = 0.49) and serious adverse events (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.88–2.99; P = 0.12). Conclusion The effects of pridopidine on motor functions (especially voluntary movements) in patients with HD are encouraging and provide a good safety profile that motivates further clinical trials on patients to confirm its effectiveness and safety.

No abstract