Odds ratios of treatment response were well approximated from continuous rating scale scores for meta-analysis

Meister, Richard; Wolff, Alessa von; Kriston, Levente

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.02.006

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We estimated the probability of a favorable event, the approximated CER, as the cumulative probability of VAS scores of patients to be below the cutoff of 3.4 assuming a normal distribution for VAS [16]. The CER was approximated by using the cumulative distribution function of the cutoff value using the pooled mean and SD of the VAS scores [6,39]. For this purpose, we pooled data from four studies that used the same outcome scale and assessment methods and for which a data approximation was not needed [2,3,32,51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticosteroid Injections Give Small and Transient Pain Relief in Rotator Cuff Tendinosis: A Meta-analysis

Mohamadi

Chan

Claessen

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticosteroid Injections Give Small and Transient Pain Relief in Rotator Cuff Tendinosis: A Meta-analysis

Mohamadi

Chan

Claessen

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Response according to the criteria laid out in the respective studies was either defined as a reduction of 50% on the depression scale from baseline to the end of treatment or as "much improved" or "very much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression Scale (see Table 1). Because response rates were not reported by two RCTs, we estimated them using the baseline mean, endpoint mean, and their standard deviations [63,64]. For self-rated response analysis, response rates for all six studies had to be estimated [63,64].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because response rates were not reported by two RCTs, we estimated them using the baseline mean, endpoint mean, and their standard deviations [63,64]. For self-rated response analysis, response rates for all six studies had to be estimated [63,64]. If more than one clinician-rating scale was used, we chose the one with the best psychometric properties as listed [65]: (1) The Children´s Depression Rating Scale Revised (CDRS-R), (2) the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), and (3) the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placebo response rates and potential modifiers in double-blind randomized controlled trials of second and newer generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Meister

Abbas

Antel

et al. 2018

Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) appear to be more responsive to placebo than adults in randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of second and newer generation antidepressants (SNG-AD). Previous metaanalyses obtained conflicting results regarding modifiers. We aimed to conduct a meta-analytical evaluation of placebo response rates based on both clinician-rating and self-rating scales. Based on the most recent and comprehensive study on adult data, we tested whether the placebo response rates in children and adolescents with MDD also increase with study duration and number of study sites. We searched systematically for published RCTs of SNG-AD in children and/or adolescents (last update: September 2017) in public domain electronic databases and additionally for documented studies in clinical trial databases. The log-transformed odds of placebo response were meta-analytically analyzed. The primary and secondary outcomes were placebo response rates at the end of treatment based on clinician-rating and self-rating scales, respectively. To examine the impact of study duration and number of study sites on placebo response rates, we performed simple meta-regression analyses. We selected other potential modifiers of placebo response based on significance in at least one previous pediatric meta-analysis and on theoretical considerations to perform explorative analyses. We applied sensitivity analyses with placebo response rates closest to week 8 to compare our data with those reported for adults. We identified 24 placebo-controlled trials (2229 patients in the placebo arms). The clinician-rated placebo response rates ranged from 22 to 62% with a pooled response rate of 45% (95% CI 41-50%). The number of study sites was a significant modifier in the simple meta-regression analysis [odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, p = 0.0003, k = 24) with more study sites linked to a higher placebo response. Study duration was not significantly associated with the placebo response rate. The explorative simple analyses revealed that publication year may be an additional modifier. However, in the explorative multivariable analysis including the number of study sites and the publication year only the number of study sites reached a p value ≤ 0.05. The self-rated placebo response rates ranged from 1 to 68% with a pooled response rate of 26% (95% CI 10-54%) (k = 6; n = 396). This meta-analysis confirms a high pooled placebo response rate in children and adolescents based on clinician ratings, which exceeds that observed in the most recent meta-analysis of placebo effects in adults (36%; 95% CI 35-37%) published in 2016. However, and similar to findings in adults, the pooled response rates based on self-ratings were substantially lower. In accordance with previous meta-analyses, we corroborated the number of study sites as significant modifier. In Ramona Meister, Mariam Abbas and Jochen Antel contributed equally to the study.

show abstract

“…We used a minimum decrease of 30% compared with the score at baseline for positive symptoms of schizophrenia (Howes et al, 2017); of 35% for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; Farris, McLean, van Meter, Simpson, & Foa, 2013;Lewin et al, 2011); and of 50% for depression (Keller et al, 2000), anxiety (Loerinc et al, 2015), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Bryant et al, 2008). If response rates were not reported, we estimated the number of responders according to Suissa's formula (Meister, von Wolff, & Kriston, 2015;Suissa, 1991).…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults—A systematic review and meta‐analysis (METACOG)

Philipp

Kriston

Lanio

et al. 2018

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random‐effects meta‐analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = −0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = −0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (SMD = −0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = −2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = −2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive–behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = −0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive–behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add‐on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.

show abstract

Odds ratios of treatment response were well approximated from continuous rating scale scores for meta-analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 49 publications

Corticosteroid Injections Give Small and Transient Pain Relief in Rotator Cuff Tendinosis: A Meta-analysis

Corticosteroid Injections Give Small and Transient Pain Relief in Rotator Cuff Tendinosis: A Meta-analysis

Placebo response rates and potential modifiers in double-blind randomized controlled trials of second and newer generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults—A systematic review and meta‐analysis (METACOG)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About