Which psychotherapy is effective in panic disorder? And which delivery formats are supported by the evidence? Study protocol for two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses

Introduction Panic disorder is among the most prevalent anxiety diseases. Although psychotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for panic disorder, little is known about the relative efficacy of different types of psychotherapies. Moreover, there is little evidence concerning the effectiveness of different formats of major psychotherapeutic types, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). In this protocol, we present an overarching project consisting of two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMA) to shed light on which psychotherapy (NMA-1), and specifically, which CBT delivery format (NMA-2) should be considered most effective for adults suffering from panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Methods and analyses Starting from a common pool of data, we will conduct two systematic reviews and NMA of randomised controlled trials examining panic disorder. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL from database inception to 1 January 2021 to identify relevant studies. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied. Titles, abstract and - whenever necessary - full texts will be examined independently by at least two reviewers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2. The primary efficacy outcome will be anxiety symptoms at study endpoint. The primary acceptability outcome will be all-cause discontinuation, as measured by the proportion of patients who had discontinued treatment for any reason at endpoint. Data will be pooled using a random-effects model. Pairwise and NMA will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is necessary for these two studies, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences and meetings

Dismantling and personalising task-sharing psychosocial interventions for common mental disorders: a study protocol for an individual participant data component network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Common mental disorders, including depression, anxiety and related somatic health symptoms, are leading causes of disability worldwide. Especially in low-resource settings, psychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialist providers through task-sharing modalities proved to be valid options to expand access to mental healthcare. However, such interventions are usually eclectic multicomponent interventions consisting of different combinations of evidence-based therapeutic strategies. Which of these various components (or combinations thereof) are more efficacious (and for whom) to reduce common mental disorder symptomatology is yet to be substantiated by evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Comprehensive search was performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL from database inception to 15 March 2023 to systematically identify all randomised controlled trials that compared any single component or multicomponent psychosocial intervention delivered through the task-sharing modality against any active or inactive control condition in the treatment of adults suffering from common mental disorders. From these trials, individual participant data (IPD) of all measured outcomes and covariates will be collected. We will dismantle psychosocial interventions creating a taxonomy of components and then apply the IPD component network meta-analysis (IPD-cNMA) methodology to assess the efficacy of individual components (or combinations thereof) according to participant-level prognostic factors and effect modifiers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval is not applicable for this study since no original data will be collected. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences

Which psychotherapy is effective in panic disorder? And which delivery formats are supported by the evidence? Study protocol for two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses

Introduction: Panic disorder is among the most prevalent anxiety diseases. Although psychotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for panic disorder, little is known about the relative efficacy of different types of psychotherapies. Moreover, there is little evidence concerning the effectiveness of different formats of major psychotherapeutic types, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). In this protocol, we present an overarching project consisting of two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMA) to shed light on which psychotherapy (NMA-1), and specifically, which CBT delivery format (NMA-2) should be considered most effective for adults suffering from panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Methods and analyses: Starting from a common pool of data, we will conduct two systematic reviews and NMA of randomised controlled trials examining panic disorder. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL from database inception to 1 January 2021 to identify relevant studies. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied. Titles, abstract and-whenever necessary-full texts will be examined independently by at least two reviewers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2. The primary efficacy outcome will be anxiety symptoms at study endpoint. The primary acceptability outcome will be all-cause discontinuation, as measured by the proportion of patients who had discontinued treatment for any reason at endpoint. Data will be pooled using a random-effects model. Pairwise and NMA will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is necessary for these two studies, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences and meetings

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: Systematic review and network meta-Analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-Analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-Analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-Analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. =-0.67, 95% CI-0.95 to-0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI-0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-Term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. =-0.61, 95% CI-1.15 to-0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-Term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-Analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines

Introducing the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS): a living database for methods guidance

IMPORTANCE: Improving methodological quality is a priority in the health research community. Finding appropriate methods guidance can be challenging due to heterogeneous terminology, poor indexing in medical databases, and variation in formats. The Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS) is a new searchable database for methods guidance articles. OBSERVATIONS: Journal articles that aim to provide guidance for performing (including planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation), reporting, and assessing the quality of health-related research involving humans or human populations (ie, excluding basic and animal research) are eligible for LIGHTS. A team of health researchers, information specialists, and methodologists continuously identifies and manually indexes eligible guidance documents. The search strategy includes focused searches of specific journals, specialized databases, and suggestions from researchers. A current limitation is that a keyword-based search of MEDLINE (and other general databases) and manual screening of records were not feasible because of the large number of hits (n = 915 523). As of September 20, 2022, LIGHTS included 1246 articles (336 reporting guidelines, 80 quality assessment tools, and 830 other methods guidance articles). The LIGHTS website provides a user-oriented search interface including filters for study type, specific methodological topic, research context, guidance type, and development process of the guidance. Automated matching of alternative methodological expressions (eg, enter loss to follow-up and find articles indexed with missing data) enhances search queries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: LIGHTS is a peer-supported initiative that is intended to increase access to and use of methods guidance relevant to health researchers, statisticians, methods consultants, methods developers, ethics boards, peer reviewers, journal editors, and funding bodies

A multistep process for the dispersal of a Y chromosomal lineage in the Mediterranean area

Tn this work we focus on a microsatellite-defined Y-chromosomal lineage (network 1.2) identified by us and reported in previous studies, whose geographic distribution and antiquity appear to be compatible with the Neolithic spread of farmers. Here, we set network 1.2 in the Y-chromosomal phylogenetic tree, date it with respect to other lineages associated with the same movements by other authors, examine its diversity by means of tri- and tetranucleotide loci and discuss the implications hi reconstructing the spread of this group of chromosomes in the Mediterranean area. Our results define a tripartite phylogeny wit-bin HG 9 (Rosser et al. 2000) with the deepest branching defined by alleles T (Haplogroup Eu 10) or G (Haplogroup Eu9) at M172 (Semino et al. 2000), and a subsequent branching within Eu9 defined by network 1.2. Population distributions of HG 9 and network 1.2 show that their occurrence in the surveyed area is not due to the spread of people from a single parental population but, rather, to a process punctuated by at least two phases. Our data identify the wide area of the Balkans, Aegean and Anatolia as the possible homeland harbouring the largest variation within network 1.2. The use of recently proposed tests based on the stepwise mutation model suggests that its spread was associated to a population expansion, xvith a high rate of male gene flow in the Turkish Greek area

Association between statistical significance and time to publication among systematic reviews: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

INTRODUCTION: Many studies have indicated the impact of bias in dissemination and publication in medical research. Existence of such bias among clinical trials has been repeatedly pointed out, but it has not been well studied in the field of systematic reviews (SRs). We therefore aim to investigate whether or not time lag bias and publication bias in SRs based on statistical significance in results exist. In addition, we will examine at what stage of paper publication process such bias, if any, creeps in. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The present study is a meta-epidemiological study. We will include all SRs of interventions registered in the international prospective register of SRs (PROSPERO) before December 2014 if the SR has completed its analysis irrespective of its publication status. All contact authors of eligible SRs will be asked to participate in a survey administered through the Internet. Our primary outcome is time from protocol registration to full publication of SR as a journal article, defined as time from the registration date to the acceptance date among all the relevant SRs. We will examine the impact of statistically significant findings on the primary outcomes through time to event analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will be obtained from the Ethical Committee of the Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine. This protocol has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and also may present them at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000028325