Advanced Search

Completed Systematic Reviews




Diet-Related Fibers and Human Health Outcomes, Version 4.0 (Retired)


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 1044 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Mar 21, 2019 09:12AM
Description: The objectives of this database are to: 1. Systematically compile and provide access to primary, English-language, peer-reviewed science linking dietary fiber intake in humans to one or more of 10 potential health benefits 2. Provide researchers with a tool to understand how different fibers are characterized in studies 3. Facilitate researchers in identifying gaps in the current research 4. Create a database to serve as a starting foundation of primary human literature for conducting evidence-based reviews and meta-analyses 5. Efficiently assist researchers in identifying fibers of interest. This database should serve as a foundation for future work. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailed in the user manual, were applied in determining database eligibility; thus, this database is not intended to serve as a sole source for identifying all possible fiber literature for the purposes of conducting a meta-analysis or systematic review. This database contains Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) data to help users formulate and narrow the focus of their research question. It is expected that secondary searches will be conducted to augment this database.
Contributor(s): Nicola McKeown (PI), Mei Chung (Co-I), Kara Livingston (Project & Data Manager), Caleigh Sawicki, Danielle Haslam, Deena Wang, Caitlin Blakeley, Yinan Jia, Nicole Baruch, Micaela Karlsen, Carrie Brown, Chenyueyi Ding
Funding Source: International Life Sciences Institute – North America branch (ILSI-NA)
Methodology Description: Please see user manual.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Treatment for Bipolar Disorder [entered retrospectively]


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 191 Studies, 4 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Mar 21, 2019 09:12AM
Description: Objective. Assess the effect of drug and nondrug interventions for treating acute symptoms associated with bipolar disorder (BD) and preventing relapse. Data sources. Ovid MEDLINE® and PsychInfo, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid Embase® bibliographic databases; hand searches of references of relevant systematic reviews through May, 2017. Review methods. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohorts with comparator arms enrolling adults with BD of any type with 3 weeks followup for acute mania, 3 months for depression, and 6 months for maintenance treatments. We excluded acute mania and depression studies with greater than 50 percent attrition. Results. We synthesized evidence from 181 unique studies, 117 studies for 28 drugs, 64 studies for nondrug interventions. All drug findings with at least low-strength evidence were based on studies almost exclusively enrolling adults with BD-I. Asenapine, cariprazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine improved acute mania symptoms compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). However, improvements were of modest clinical significance, with values that were less than the minimally important difference, but still large enough that a reasonable proportion of participants likely received a benefit. Unpooled evidence indicated an overall beneficial effect of risperidone and ziprasidone on acute mania symptoms compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). Participants using antipsychotics, except quetiapine, reported more extrapyramidal symptoms compared to placebo, and those using olanzapine reported more clinically significant weight gain. Lithium improved acute mania in the short-term and prolonged time to relapse in the long-term compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). No difference was found between olanzapine and divalproex/valproate (low-strength evidence). For drugs not approved for BD, paliperidone also improved acute mania compared to placebo (low-strength evidence), while topiramate and allopurinol showed no benefit (low-strength evidence). Further, lithium improved acute mania better than topiramate, although withdrawals for adverse events were lower for topiramate. Only lithium reached a minimally important difference. All other drug comparisons to placebo or active controls for acute mania, depression, and maintenance had insufficient evidence. For psychosocial interventions, cognitive behavioral training (CBT) was no better for depression or mania symptoms than psychoeducation or other active psychosocial comparators (low-strength evidence). Systematic/collaborative care had no effect on relapse compared to inactive comparators (low-strength evidence). Evidence was insufficient for all other nondrug interventions. Conclusions. We found no high- or moderate-strength evidence for any intervention to effectively treat any phase of any type of BD compared with placebo or an active comparator. Low-strength evidence showed improved mania symptoms for all FDA-approved antipsychotics, except aripiprazole, when compared with placebo for adults with BD-I. Low-strength evidence also showed benefit from lithium for acute mania in the short-term and resulted in longer periods of maintenance versus placebo in adults with BD-I. Participants using atypical antipsychotics, except quetiapine, reported more extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo, and those using olanzapine reported more clinically significant weight gain. Evidence was insufficient for most nondrug interventions. Low-strength evidence showed no benefit for CBT on mood symptoms compared with active controls or systematic/collaborative care compared with inactive controls on relapse. Information on harms was limited across all drug and nondrug studies. Future studies of BD treatments will require innovative ways to increase study completion rates.
Contributor(s): Mary Butler, Ph.D., M.B.A. Snezana Urosevic, Ph.D., L.P. Priyanka Desai, M.H.P. Scott R. Sponheim, Ph.D. Jonah Popp, M.S., M.A. Victoria A. Nelson, M.Sc. Viengneesee Thao, M.S. Benjamin Sunderlin, M.P.H.
Funding Source: AHRQ
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Retinal Prostheses in the Medicare Population[Entered Retrospectively].


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 40 Studies, 8 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Mar 21, 2019 09:12AM
Description: To determine the safety, efficacy, and evidence for halting disease progression for retinal prosthesis systems (RPSs) and the outcomes that are and could be assessed in future studies of these devices.
Contributor(s): Fontanarosa J, Treadwell J, Samson DJ, VanderBeek BL, Schoelles, K.
Funding Source: AHRQ
Methodology Description: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, PubMed (unprocessed records only), and gray literature sources, including conference proceedings from specialty societies, for studies of RPS devices published from January 1, 2000, through April 25, 2016.We performed redundant title and abstract screening with one reviewer’s selection required for full-text article retrieval. Dual independent review was performed on all full-text articles, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data extraction was performed by a single reviewer and was fully verified by a second reviewer. Extracted data included study design, psychometric properties assessment methods based on the COSMIN checklist, patient blinding to experimental condition, outcome assessor blinding to experimental condition, experimental condition randomly presented, number of outcome assessors, country/site, number of patients enrolled, patient inclusion criteria, patient exclusion criteria, RPS treatment details, prior treatment, concurrent treatment, study duration, diagnosis, age at diagnosis, age at implantation, eye implanted, time from implantation to study participation, sex, race, visual acuity at time of implantation, outcomes, and outcome definitions. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies for the outcomes of interest, and graded the overall strength of evidence using Evidence-based Practice Centers guidance.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Device-modified trabeculectomy for glaucoma (2015)


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 33 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Mar 21, 2019 09:12AM
Description: OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effectiveness, primarily with respect to IOP control and safety, of the use of different devices as adjuncts to trabeculectomy compared with standard trabeculectomy in eyes with glaucoma.
Contributor(s): Wang X, Khan R, Coleman A.
Funding Source: None Provided
Methodology Description: SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2014), PubMed (1948 to December 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing devices used during trabeculectomy with trabeculectomy alone. We also included studies where antimetabolites were used in either or both treatment groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for treatment of patients with onchocerciasis (2016)


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 3 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Mar 21, 2019 09:12AM
Description: OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocerciasis. The secondary aim was to assess the effectiveness of doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for prevention and treatment of onchocercal ocular lesions in communities co-endemic for onchocerciasis and Loa loa (loiasis) infection.
Contributor(s): Abegunde AT, Ahuja RM, Okafor NJ. Doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone for treatment of patients with onchocerciasis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD011146. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011146.pub2.
Funding Source: Grant 1 U01 EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA
Methodology Description: SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 7, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2015), PubMed (1948 to July 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 1 July 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared doxycycline plus ivermectin versus ivermectin alone. Participants with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis resided in communities where onchocerciasis was endemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content