A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

How Many Patients With Schizophrenia Do Not Respond to Antipsychotic Drugs in the Short Term? An Analysis Based on Individual Patient Data From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objective An important clinical question is how many patients with acute schizophrenia do not respond to antipsychotics despite being treated for adequate time and with an effective dose. However, up to date, the exact extent of the phenomenon remains unclear. Methods We calculated the nonresponse and nonremission percentages using individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six thousand two hundred twenty-one patients were assigned to one antipsychotic (amisulpride, flupenthixol, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) at an adequate dose; the response was assessed at 4-6 weeks. As various definitions of nonresponse have been used in the literature, we applied 4 different cut-offs covering the whole range of percent Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) reduction (≤0%, <25%, <50%, <75%).For symptomatic remission, we used the definition proposed by Andreasen without employing the time criterion. Results The overall nonresponse for the cut-off of ≤0% PANSS/BPRS reduction was 19.8% (18.8%-20.8%); for the cut-off of <25% reduction it was 43% (41.7%-44.3%); for the cut-off of <50% reduction it was 66.5% (65.3%-67.8%); and for the cut-off of <75% reduction it was 87% (86%-87.9%). The overall percentage of no symptomatic remission was 66.9% (65.7%-68.1%). Earlier onset of illness, lower baseline severity and the antipsychotic used were significantly associated with higher nonresponse percentages. Conclusions Nonresponse and nonremission percentages were notably high. Nevertheless, the patients in our analysis could represent a negative selection since they came from short-term RCTs and could have been treated before study inclusion; thus, further response may not have been observed. Observational studies on this important question are needed

Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of all available treatments for insomnia in the elderly: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES Symptoms of insomnia are highly prevalent in the elderly. A significant number of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions exists, but, up-to-date, their comparative efficacy and safety has not been sufficiently assessed. METHODS We integrated the randomized evidence from every available treatment for insomnia in the elderly (>65 years) by performing a network meta-analysis. Several electronic databases were searched up to May 25, 2019. The two primary outcomes were total sleep time and sleep quality. Data for other 6 efficacy and 8 safety outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS 53 RCTs with 6832 participants (75 years old on average) were included, 43 of which examined the efficacy of one or more drugs. Ten RCTs examined the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions and were evaluated only with pairwise meta-analyses because they were disconnected from the network. The overall confidence in the evidence was very low primarily due to the small amount of data per comparison and their sparse connectedness. Several benzodiazepines, antidepressants and z-drugs performed better in both primary outcomes, but few comparisons had data from more than one trial. The limited evidence on non-pharmacological interventions suggested that acupressure, auricular acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction program, and tart cherry juice were better than their control interventions. Regarding safety, no clear differences were detected among interventions due to large uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS Insufficient evidence exists on which intervention is more efficacious for elderly patients with insomnia. More RCTs, with longer duration, making more direct interventions among active treatments and presenting more outcomes are urgently needed

Antimanic Efficacy, Tolerability, and Acceptability of Clonazepam: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of acute mania remains prevalent. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an updated assessment of Clonazepam’s antimanic efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability. (2) Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases and clinical trial registries was conducted, aiming to identify any controlled studies of Clonazepam vs. placebo or any other pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute mania. Pairwise meta-analytic evaluations were performed. (3) Results: Six studies were included with a total number of 192 participants, all of which were randomized controlled trials. Clonazepam may be superior to a placebo in the acute phase of treatment and no different to Lithium and Haloperidol in terms of efficacy, both acutely and in the medium to long term. Clonazepam may be an acceptable and well-tolerated treatment for acute mania, especially when used as an augmentation strategy. Comparisons were underpowered, with minimal sample sizes and only one study per comparison in many cases, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings and hindering firm clinical conclusions. (4) Conclusions: Given the prevalence of benzodiazepine use in current practice, more and larger studies are urgently needed

60 years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia:Meta-regression of predictors of placebo response

Objective: A recent meta-regression had shown that the degree of placebo response, which has increased over the decades, is the major predictor of drug-placebo differences in antipsychotic drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Drug response, however, had remained stable. In the current meta-regression we explored the factors that are associated with placebo-response. Method: We searched multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the FDA website for randomized, placebo-controlled, antipsychotic drug trials in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. The outcome was the degree of placebo response measured by the BPRS or PANSS change from baseline to endpoint. 26 patient-, design-, and drug-related potential predictors of placebo response were analyzed by univariable and multivariable meta-regressions. Results: 167 double-blind randomized controlled trials with 28,102 participants were included. The mean PANSS change from baseline was 6.25 (95% CI 4.64,7.85). More recent publication year, larger study sample size, more study sites, use of the PANSS rather than the BPRS scale to measure response, shorter wash-out phases, shorter study duration, lower mean age and shorter duration of illness were associated with larger placebo response in univariable analyses. In a multivariable analysis only the number of study participants and mean participant age had an impact on placebo response. Conclusions: The degree of placebo response is moderated by a number of design and patient-related factors. These explanatory variables of placebo response are only in part identical with those that moderated drug-placebo differences

Dose equivalents for second-generation antipsychotics:the minimum effective dose method

Background: Clinicians need to know the right antipsychotic dose for optimized treatment, and the concept of dose equivalence is important for many clinical and scientific purposes. Methods: We refined a method presented in 2003, which was based on the minimum effective doses found in fixed-dose studies. We operationalized the selection process, updated the original findings, and expanded them by systematically searching more recent literature and by including 13 second-generation antipsychotics. To qualify for the minimum effective dose, a dose had to be significantly more efficacious than placebo in the primary outcome of at least one randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose trial. In a sensitivity analysis, 2 positive trials were required. The minimum effective doses identified were subsequently used to derive olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, and chlorpromazine equivalents. Results: We reviewed 73 included studies. The minimum effective daily doses/olanzapine equivalents based on our primary approach were: aripiprazole 10 mg/1.33, asenapine 10 mg/1.33, clozapine 300 mg/40, haloperidol 4 mg/0.53, iloperidone 8 mg/1.07, lurasidone 40 mg/5.33, olanzapine 7.5 mg/1, paliperidone 3 mg/0.4, quetiapine 150 mg/20, risperidone 2 mg/0.27, sertindole 12 mg/1.60, and ziprasidone 40 mg/5.33. For amisulpride and zotepine, reliable estimates could not be derived. Conclusions: This method for determining antipsychotic dose equivalence entails an operationalized and evidence-based approach that can be applied to the various antipsychotic drugs. As a limitation, the results are not applicable to specific populations such as first-episode or refractory patients. We recommend that alternative methods also be updated in order to minimize further differences between the methods and risk of subsequent bias