Using meta-regression analyses in addition to conventional systematic review methods to examine the variation in cost-effectiveness results

Background: Systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses summarize results and describe study characteristics. Variability in the study results is often explained qualitatively or based on sensitivity analyses of individual studies. However, variability due to input parameters and study characteristics (e.g., funding or study quality) is often not statistically explained. As a case study, a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) using meta-regression analyses is performed to explore the usefulness of such methods compared with conventional review methods. Methods: We attempted to identify and review all modelling studies published until January 2012 that compared costs and consequences of DES versus BMS. We extracted general study information (e.g., funding), modelling methods, values of input parameters, and quality of the model using the Philips et al. checklist. Associations between study characteristics and the incremental costs and effectiveness of individual analyses were explored using regression analyses corrected for study ID. Results: Sixteen eligible studies were identified, with a combined total of 508 analyses. The overall quality of the models was moderate (59 % ± 15 %). This study showed associations (e.g., type of lesion) that were expected (based on individual studies), however the meta-regression analyses revealed also unpredicted associations: e.g., model quality was negatively associated with repeat revascularizations avoided. Conclusions: Meta-regressions can be of added value, identifying significant associations that could not be identified using conventional review methods or by sensitivity analyses of individual studies. Furthermore, this study underlines the need to examine input parameters and perform a quality check of studies when interpreting the results

Bibliotherapy for sexual dysfunctions:A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of bibliotherapy for sexual dysfunctions, when compared with no treatment and compared with other interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from 1970 to January 2020. Selection criteria were randomized controlled trials evaluating assisted or unassisted bibliotherapy for all types of sexual dysfunctions compared with no treatment (wait list or placebo) or with other psychological interventions. Bibliotherapy is defined as psychological treatment using printed instruction to be used by the individual or couple suffering from sexual dysfunction. Primary outcome measures were male and female sexual functioning level and continuation/remission of sexual dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were sexual satisfaction and dropout rate. Sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction were self-reported by participants using validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,113 participants (781 women; 332 men) met inclusion criteria. Compared with no treatment, unassisted bibliotherapy resulted in larger proportions of female participants reporting remission of sexual dysfunction, and sexual satisfaction was higher in treated participants, both female and male participants. Compared with no treatment, assisted bibliotherapy had significant positive effects on female sexual functioning; no effects on male sexual functioning were found. Results of unassisted and assisted bibliotherapy did not differ from those of other intervention types on any outcome. Throughout, no differences between study conditions were found regarding dropout rates. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was rated as very low. CONCLUSION: We found indications of positive effects of bibliotherapy for sexual dysfunctions. Across studies, more significant effects were found for women than for men. However, owing to limitations in the study designs and imprecision of the findings, we were unable to draw firm conclusions about the use of bibliotherapy for sexual dysfunction. More high quality and larger trials are needed. Relevant outcome measures for future studies should be defined as well as unified grading systems to measure these endpoints. In addition, future studies should report on treatment acceptability and adherence