Comparative effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is common in primary care, can persist after co-morbid conditions are treated, and may require long-term medication treatment. A potential alternative to medications is cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT-I to any prescription or non-prescription medication in patients with primary or comorbid insomnia. Trials had to report quantitative sleep outcomes (e.g. sleep latency) in order to be included in the analysis. Extracted results included quantitative sleep outcomes, as well as psychological outcomes and adverse effects when available. Evidence base quality was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Five studies met criteria for analysis. Low to moderate grade evidence suggests CBT-I has superior effectiveness to benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine drugs in the long term, while very low grade evidence suggests benzodiazepines are more effective in the short term. Very low grade evidence supports use of CBT-I to improve psychological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-I is effective for treating insomnia when compared with medications, and its effects may be more durable than medications. Primary care providers should consider CBT-I as a first-line treatment option for insomnia

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advanced analytic methods for synthesizing evidence about complex interventions continue to be developed. In this paper, we emphasize that the specific research question posed in the review should be used as a guide for choosing the appropriate analytic method. METHODS: We present advanced analytic approaches that address four common questions that guide reviews of complex interventions: (1) How effective is the intervention? (2) For whom does the intervention work and in what contexts? (3) What happens when the intervention is implemented? and (4) What decisions are possible given the results of the synthesis? CONCLUSION: The analytic approaches presented in this paper are particularly useful when each primary study differs in components, mechanisms of action, context, implementation, timing, and many other domains

Evidence in the learning organization

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Organizational leaders in business and medicine have been experiencing a similar dilemma: how to ensure that their organizational members are adopting work innovations in a timely fashion. Organizational leaders in healthcare have attempted to resolve this dilemma by offering specific solutions, such as evidence-based medicine (EBM), but organizations are still not systematically adopting evidence-based practice innovations as rapidly as expected by policy-makers (the knowing-doing gap problem). Some business leaders have adopted a systems-based perspective, called the learning organization (LO), to address a similar dilemma. Three years ago, the Society of General Internal Medicine's Evidence-based Medicine Task Force began an inquiry to integrate the EBM and LO concepts into one model to address the knowing-doing gap problem.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>During the model development process, the authors searched several databases for relevant LO frameworks and their related concepts by using a broad search strategy. To identify the key LO frameworks and consolidate them into one model, the authors used consensus-based decision-making and a narrative thematic synthesis guided by several qualitative criteria. The authors subjected the model to external, independent review and improved upon its design with this feedback.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The authors found seven LO frameworks particularly relevant to evidence-based practice innovations in organizations. The authors describe their interpretations of these frameworks for healthcare organizations, the process they used to integrate the LO frameworks with EBM principles, and the resulting Evidence in the Learning Organization (ELO) model. They also provide a health organization scenario to illustrate ELO concepts in application.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The authors intend, by sharing the LO frameworks and the ELO model, to help organizations identify their capacities to learn and share knowledge about evidence-based practice innovations. The ELO model will need further validation and improvement through its use in organizational settings and applied health services research.</p

A Primer on Performing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Downloaded from

The number of systematic reviews published in the peer-reviewed literature has increased dramatically in the last decade, and for good reason. They have become an essential resource for clinicians who want unbiased and current answers for their clinical questions; researchers and funders who want to identify the most critical evidence gaps for study; payers and administrators who want to make coverage, formulary, and purchasing decisions; and policymakers who want to develop quality measures and clinical guidelines. Targeted to beginners interested in conducting their own systematic reviews and users of systematic reviews looking for a brief introduction, this primer (1) highlights the differences between review types; (2) outlines the major steps in performing a systematic review; and (3) offers a set of resources to help authors perform and report valid and actionable systematic reviews. Keywords. systematic review; meta-analysis; literature searching; heterogeneity; reporting bias. The number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the peer-reviewed literature has increased dramatically in the last decade, and for good reason [1]. They have become an essential resource for clinicians who want unbiased and up-to-date answers for their clinical questions; researchers and funders who want to identify the most critical evidence gaps for study DEFINITIONS A narrative review is the current term used to describe traditional reviews authored by recognized experts in a field. It is the most common method of summarizing a field. However, because such reviews lack systematic methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize information, they have a higher risk of bias than systematic reviews, as there is potential for authors to selectively include or exclude studies to support a position. Unlike a narrative review, a systematic review is guided by key questions and a protocol for conduct, much like other scientific studies, thus mitigating bias. Having a systematic approach to answer a key question also allows systematic reviewers to identify critical evidenc

Comparative effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a systematic review

Abstract Background Insomnia is common in primary care, can persist after co-morbid conditions are treated, and may require long-term medication treatment. A potential alternative to medications is cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Methods In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT-I to any prescription or non-prescription medication in patients with primary or comorbid insomnia. Trials had to report quantitative sleep outcomes (e.g. sleep latency) in order to be included in the analysis. Extracted results included quantitative sleep outcomes, as well as psychological outcomes and adverse effects when available. Evidence base quality was assessed using GRADE. Results Five studies met criteria for analysis. Low to moderate grade evidence suggests CBT-I has superior effectiveness to benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine drugs in the long term, while very low grade evidence suggests benzodiazepines are more effective in the short term. Very low grade evidence supports use of CBT-I to improve psychological outcomes. Conclusions CBT-I is effective for treating insomnia when compared with medications, and its effects may be more durable than medications. Primary care providers should consider CBT-I as a first-line treatment option for insomnia.</p

The treatment cascade for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Identifying gaps in care for people with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is important to clinicians, public health officials, and federal agencies. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to provide estimates of the proportion of chronic HCV-infected persons in the United States (U.S.) completing each step along a proposed HCV treatment cascade: (1) infected with chronic HCV; (2) diagnosed and aware of their infection; (3) with access to outpatient care; (4) HCV RNA confirmed; (5) liver fibrosis staged by biopsy; (6) prescribed HCV treatment; and (7) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR).We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published between January 2003 and July 2013. Two reviewers independently identified articles addressing each step in the cascade. Studies were excluded if they focused on specific populations, did not present original data, involved only a single site, were conducted outside of the U.S., or only included data collected prior to 2000.9,581 articles were identified, 117 were retrieved for full text review, and 10 were included. Overall, 3.5 million people were estimated to have chronic HCV in the U.S. Fifty percent (95% CI 43-57%) were diagnosed and aware of their infection, 43% (CI 40-47%) had access to outpatient care, 27% (CI 27-28%) had HCV RNA confirmed, 17% (CI 16-17%) underwent liver fibrosis staging, 16% (CI 15-16%) were prescribed treatment, and 9% (CI 9-10%) achieved SVR.Continued efforts are needed to improve HCV care in the U.S. The proposed HCV treatment cascade provides a framework for evaluating the delivery of HCV care over time and within subgroups, and will be useful in monitoring the impact of new screening efforts and advances in antiviral therapy