ObjectivesThis study aims to summarise the evidence on more than 140 pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) and to evaluate the confidence that patients and clinicians can have in the underlying science about their effects.DesignThis is a review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesThis study used MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Epistemonikos from 2011 up to February 2017 for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in adult patients with acute-phase MDD.MethodsWe dually reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, rated the risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews and graded the strength of evidence.ResultsNineteen systematic reviews provided data on 28 comparisons of interest. For general efficacy, only second-generation antidepressants were supported with high strength evidence, presenting small beneficial treatment effects (standardised mean difference: −0.35; 95% CI −0.31 to −0.38), and a statistically significantly higher rate of discontinuation because of adverse events than patients on placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.28).Only cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by reliable evidence (moderate strength of evidence) to produce responses to treatment similar to those of second-generation antidepressants (45.5% vs 44.2%; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). All remaining comparisons of non-pharmacological treatments with second-generation antidepressants either led to inconclusive results or had substantial methodological shortcomings (low or insufficient strength of evidence).ConclusionsIn contrast to pharmacological treatments, the majority of non-pharmacological interventions for treating patients with MDD are not evidence based. For patients with strong preferences against pharmacological treatments, clinicians should focus on therapies that have been compared directly with antidepressants.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: 42016035580.

Lifestyle intervention is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective measure to reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in people diagnosed with prediabetes. More research is necessary to compare the efficacy of various modes, frequencies, and intensities of lifestyle intervention across studies.

Objectives: To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abstracts each of a pharmacological or a public health topic. After completing a training exercise, participants screened abstracts online based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated sensitivities and specificities of single-and dual-reviewer screening using two published systematic reviews as reference standards. Results: Two hundred and eighty participants made 24,942 screening decisions on 2,000 randomly selected abstracts from the reference standard reviews. On average, each abstract was screened 12 times. Overall, single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 86.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.6%e91.2%). By comparison, dual-reviewer abstract screening missed 3% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 97.5%; 95% CI, 95.1%e98.8%). The corresponding specificities were 79.2% (95% CI, 77.4%e80.9%) and 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%e71.0%), respectively. Conclusions: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decisionmakers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated evidence synthesis products.

the aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5-64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8-64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1-99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2-73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0-94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2-79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8-98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges. Obesity is widely recognised as a pandemic public health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2016 more than 650 million adults worldwide were obese 1. These numbers have almost tripled since 1975 2. Obesity increases the risk for many chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and cancers 3 , and is possibly associated with mental health disorders 4. Associations have been shown to be strongest between obesity and the incidence of diabetes mellitus, particularly in women (risk ratio [RR] 12.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.03-17.06). Primary care is considered one of the main settings for the prevention, screening and management of obesity 5. Individual studies indicate that patients are more likely to lose weight when they receive recommendations for lifestyle changes from their primary care physicians 6. Because it can be difficult for physicians to accurately determine obesity solely through visually inspecting their patients 7 , they need a reliable, efficient screening tool in order to ensure that those who need management and treatment receive it. WHO conceptualises obesity as "abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health" 1. It is most commonly assessed using body mass index (BMI), a simple and quick anthropometric tool that has a low cost. Adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 are classified as being obese 1 (Table 1). However, several researchers and professional associations 8-14 consider the use of BMI as the primary clinical index of obesity insufficient. They have called for a new definition that fully accounts for the complexity of the disease relating to the quantity, distribution and secretory function of adipose tissue. A substantial body of evidence has shown that obesity (BMI ≥ 30) is ass...

No abstract