Explore the vast range of titles available.

COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

Background Missing outcome data can pose a serious threat to the validity of randomised clinical trial results. We aimed to study the extent of missing outcome data in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions. Methods We performed a retrospective study of randomised clinical trial reports of psychological interventions published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics from 2017 to 2022. We assessed the proportion of missing outcome data, whether missing data patterns differed between types of outcomes, participants, intervention lengths, and psychological intervention types, how missing outcome data were handled in the statistical analyses, and whether trialists discussed missing outcome data in the discussion section of the manuscript. Results We identified 182 randomised clinical trials (233 primary outcomes), of which 206 outcomes (88.4%) were assessed at high risk of bias due to missing data. The overall mean percentage of missing outcome data was 18.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 16.7–20%) for all outcomes. The percentages of missing data were 18.9% (95% CI: 17.1–20.6%; 180 outcomes) for symptom severity scales and 1.8% (95% CI: 2.3–3.3%; 6 outcomes) for ‘hard’ binary outcomes. Trials including participants with borderline personality disorder had the highest percentage of missing outcome data (33.1%; 95% CI: 22.3–43.9%) compared with other psychiatric disorders. Fisher’s exact test showed that intervention lengths and psychological intervention types were associated with the proportion of missing outcome data ( p  < 0.001), but there were no clear patterns. Conclusion Missing outcome data is a considerable problem in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions, and trialists should consider the corresponding methodological limitations in the design and analysis to reduce the risk of bias due to missing outcome data. Clinical trial registration number Not applicable.

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Background The optimal psychotherapy duration for mental health disorders is unclear. Our aim was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders. Method We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished randomised clinical trials assessing different durations of the same psychotherapy type before June 27, 2022. Our methodology was based on Cochrane and an eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events, and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide-attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning. Results We included 19 trials randomising 3,447 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Three single trials met the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 6 versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 20 weeks versus 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. It was only possible to conduct two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p  = 0.77; I 2  = 73%; four trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p  = 0.20; I 2  = 21%; two trials; very low certainty). Conclusions The evidence for shorter versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019128535.

Background Mirtazapine is used to treat depression worldwide, and the effects of mirtazapine on depression rating scales are well-known. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with mirtazapine for major depressive disorder. Methods We searched relevant sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing mirtazapine versus placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. Results We included 17 trials randomising 2,131 participants to mirtazapine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. The included trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to determine the effects of mirtazapine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts and serious adverse events. Meta-analyses showed that mirtazapine increased the risks of somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, dizziness, and increased appetite but decreased the risk of headaches. Conclusions There is a lack of evidence on the effects of mirtazapine on suicides and serious adverse events. Mirtazapine increases the risks of somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, dizziness, and increased appetite. Mirtazapine might decrease the risk of headaches. The long-term effects of mirtazapine are unknown. Prospero id CRD42022315395.

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Data sourcesCENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to 30 January 2026.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials comparing regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues (insulin aspart, lispro, glulisine) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.AnalysesData were analysed using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, V.2, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Primary outcomesSevere hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and serious adverse events.Results10 trials randomising 1107 participants were included. The certainty of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias and small sample sizes. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between regular human insulins and rapid-acting insulin analogues on severe hypoglycaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.03; I2=0.0%; p=0.2851; nine trials), ketoacidosis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.93; I2=0.0%; p=0.8593; two trials) and serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.25; I2=0.0%; p=0.9958; two trials). Trial sequential analysis showed that all meta-analyses of primary outcomes were underpowered.ConclusionsCurrent research shows no differential effects between regular human insulins and rapid-acting insulin analogues for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, but the evidence is very uncertain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42024508625.

Background Mental disorders can impact parenting negatively, thus placing their children at risk of adversity. The current service support for parents in adult mental health (AMHS) service is limited. The objective of this randomized clinical trial will be to evaluate the effects of a transdiagnostic mentalization-based parenting program (Lighthouse MBT Parenting Program) versus care as usual (CAU) for parents with mental disorders in AMHS in Denmark. Methods This trial is designed as an investigator-initiated single-center open-label randomized clinical superiority trial of the Lighthouse MBT Parenting Program compared to CAU for parents with mental disorders. Participants will be recruited from Danish outpatient mental health clinics by the local service providers and will be included if they have a child 0–17 years of age, whom they are in regular contact with. We plan to randomize 170 parents with a 1:1 allocation ratio stratified by parental gender and baseline parenting stress score. The primary outcome will be level of parenting stress (Parenting Stress Index version 4 - Short Form). Secondary outcomes will be child psychological problems and functioning (Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire – Extended version), parental quality of life (brief abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Questionnaire of Life), family functioning (McMaster Family Assessment Device – General Functioning), exposure to child adversity in offspring (Adverse Child Experiences Questionnaire), parenting competence (Parenting Sense of Competence), parental psychiatric symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory), parental health-related quality of life and functioning (European Quality of Life – 5 Dimensions – 3 Levels), and parental use of drugs and alcohol (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test – Extended). The primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed before randomization and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The primary time-point of assessment will be 6 months after randomization for all randomized participants. Exploratory outcomes include key theoretical concepts, including parental mentalizing (Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire), mind-mindedness (representational Mind-Mindedness), and epistemic trust (Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire). Exploratory outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 6 months follow-up. Adverse events will be systematically monitored throughout the trial period using the e-journal system. Discussion This trial will provide evidence of the effects of a transdiagnostic mentalization-based parenting intervention (Lighthouse MBT Parenting Program) compared to care as usual for parents with mental disorders in adult mental health services in Denmark. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06315114. Registration on 01-03-2024.

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine versus ‘active placebo’, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other relevant databases up until January 2023. We requested clinical study reports from 36 competent authorities.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine versus placebo, ‘active placebo’ or no intervention, irrespective of publication type, publication status, publication year and language for treatment of major depressive disorder in adults.Data extraction and synthesisFive authors in pairs extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. A third review author was consulted for disagreements. Intervention effects were assessed by both random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses, risk of bias assessments were performed by two independent review authors using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool V.2 and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsWe included 28 trials randomising a total of 7872 participants. All results were at high risk of bias. The trials’ assessment time points were between 6 and 16 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of duloxetine on depressive symptoms (mean difference −1.81, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) points; 95% CI −2.34 to −1.28; heterogeneity I2=0.0%; 12 trials) and quality of life (mean difference −3.79 points, 95% CI −5.11 to −2.46; I2=0.0%; three trials), but the effect sizes were below our predefined minimal clinically important differences. Trial sequential analysis showed that we did not have enough information to assess the effects of duloxetine on serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; I2=0.0%; 19 trials) or suicide or suicide attempts (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.16; six trials). Duloxetine increased the risk of non-SAEs (risk ratio 1.27, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.32; I2=73.0%; 24 trials). The adverse events with the lowest number needed to harm (NNH) were nausea (NNH 6), dry mouth (NNH 13), somnolence (NNH 17), withdrawal syndrome (NNH 19), sweating (NNH 20), dizziness (NNH 21) and constipation (NNH 21).ConclusionsDuloxetine appears to reduce depressive symptom scores and improve quality of life scores in the short term, but the effect sizes are minimal and of questionable patient importance. The short- and long-term effects of duloxetine on risks of SAEs and suicidality are uncertain. Duloxetine increases the risks of several short-term adverse events. Systematic assessments of benefits and harms over longer periods are required.Trial registration numberPROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.

IntroductionParkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.