Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesTo assess the effect of non-pharmacological self-management interventions against usual care, and to explore different components and delivery methods within those interventionsParticipantsPeople living with migraine and/or tension-type headacheInterventionsNon-pharmacological educational or psychological self-management interventions; excluding biofeedback and physical therapy.We assessed the overall effectiveness against usual care on headache frequency, pain intensity, mood, headache-related disability, quality of life and medication consumption in meta-analysis.We also provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of intervention components and delivery methods.ResultsWe found a small overall effect for the superiority of self-management interventions over usual care, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of −0.36 (−0.45 to −0.26) for pain intensity; −0.32 (−0.42 to −0.22) for headache-related disability, 0.32 (0.20 to 0.45) for quality of life and a moderate effect on mood (SMD=0.53 (−0.66 to −0.40)). We did not find an effect on headache frequency (SMD=−0.07 (−0.22 to 0.08)).Assessment of components and characteristics suggests a larger effect on pain intensity in interventions that included explicit educational components (−0.51 (−0.68 to −0.34) vs −0.28 (−0.40 to −0.16)); mindfulness components (−0.50 (−0.82 to −0.18) vs 0.34 (−0.44 to −0.24)) and in interventions delivered in groups vs one-to-one delivery (0.56 (−0.72 to −0.40) vs −0.39 (−0.52 to −0.27)) and larger effects on mood in interventions including a cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) component with an SMD of −0.72 (−0.93 to −0.51) compared with those without CBT −0.41 (−0.58 to −0.24).ConclusionOverall we found that self-management interventions for migraine and tension-type headache are more effective than usual care in reducing pain intensity, mood and headache-related disability, but have no effect on headache frequency. Preliminary findings also suggest that including CBT, mindfulness and educational components in interventions, and delivery in groups may increase effectiveness.Trial registration numberPROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041291

Background This update of the guideline on the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was commissioned by the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and prepared in collaboration with the European Reference Network for Neuromuscular Diseases (ERN EURO‐NMD) and the support of the European Network for the Cure ALS (ENCALS) and the European Organization for Professionals and Patients with ALS (EUpALS). Methods Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the effectiveness of interventions for ALS. Two systematic reviewers from Cochrane Response supported the guideline panel. The working group identified a total of 26 research questions, performed systematic reviews, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available. Results A guideline mapping effort revealed only one other ALS guideline that used GRADE methodology (a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guideline). The available evidence was scarce for many research questions. Of the 26 research questions evaluated, the NICE recommendations could be adapted for 8 questions. Other recommendations required updates of existing systematic reviews or de novo reviews. Recommendations were made on currently available disease‐modifying treatments, multidisciplinary care, nutritional and respiratory support, communication aids, psychological support, treatments for common ALS symptoms (e.g., muscle cramps, spasticity, pseudobulbar affect, thick mucus, sialorrhea, pain), and end‐of‐life management. Conclusions This update of the guideline using GRADE methodology provides a framework for the management of ALS. The treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and further updates will be prepared when additional evidence becomes available.

Human African trypanosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease that is usually fatal without treatment. WHO has revised its rhodesiense human African trypanosomiasis treatment guidelines on the basis of an independent systematic literature review and following the GRADE methodology. This Review reports on the decision-making process and summarises the new recommendations and their potential implications for health-care professionals and policy makers. Due to data scarcity, all recommendations are conditional and based on very low certainty of evidence. Fexinidazole replaces suramin and melarsoprol as the first-line therapy in individuals aged 6 years and older with a bodyweight of 20 kg or more. As fexinidazole is effective in both stages of rhodesiense human African trypanosomiasis, a lumbar puncture for staging is no longer required. In settings in which first-choice drugs are not readily available, immediate interim treatment with pentamidine is suggested. The introduction of oral fexinidazole represents an advancement in the management of rhodesiense human African trypanosomiasis considering the life-threatening adverse reactions individuals can have to melarsoprol. However, children below the age or weight limits remain ineligible for treatment with fexinidazole.

To assess the effectiveness of supported employment interventions for improving competitive employment in populations of people with conditions other than only severe mental illness. Supported employment interventions have been extensively tested in severe mental illness populations. These approaches may be beneficial outside of these populations. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PEDro, OTSeeker, and NIOSHTIC for trials including unemployed people with any condition and including severe mental illness if combined with other co-morbidities or other specific circumstances (e.g., homelessness). We excluded trials where inclusion was based on severe mental illness alone. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (RoB v2.0) and four reviewers extracted data. We assessed rates of competitive employment as compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation or waiting list/services as usual. Ten randomised controlled trials (913 participants) were included. Supported employment was more effective than control interventions for improving competitive employment in seven trials: in people with affective disorders [risk ratio (RR) 10.61 (1.49, 75.38)]; mental disorders and justice involvement [RR 4.44 (1.36,14.46)]; veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [RR 2.73 (1.64, 4.54)]; formerly incarcerated veterans [RR 2.17 (1.09, 4.33)]; people receiving methadone treatment [RR 11.5 (1.62, 81.8)]; veterans with spinal cord injury at 12 months [RR 2.46 (1.16, 5.22)] and at 24 months [RR 2.81 (1.98, 7.37)]; and young people not in employment, education, or training [RR 5.90 (1.91-18.19)]. Three trials did not show significant benefits from supported employment: populations of workers with musculoskeletal injuries [RR 1.38 (1.00, 1.89)]; substance abuse [RR 1.85 (0.65, 5.41)]; and formerly homeless people with mental illness [RR 1.55 (0.76, 3.15)]. Supported employment interventions may be beneficial to people from more diverse populations than those with severe mental illness alone. Defining competitive employment and increasing (and standardising) measurement of non-vocational outcomes may help to improve research in this area.

Background Process evaluation is increasingly common alongside complex randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This evaluation helps in understanding the mechanisms of impact and how the study processes were executed, and it includes any contextual factors which may have implications for the trial results and any future implementation. This process evaluation is for the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) RCT, which is evaluating an education and self-management group behavioural intervention for people with chronic headache. Chronic headache is defined as headaches which are present for 15 or more days per month. The most common types are chronic migraine and chronic tension type and medication overuse headaches. Methods We will use a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data will be taken from routine trial data which will help us to assess the reach of the study; i.e. did we reach those whom we expected and from where? Intervention attendance (dose received) and attrition and qualitative data will augment our understanding about reasons why people may not wish to take part in or failed to attend sessions. Interviews with intervention facilitators and trial participants will gain different perspectives on taking part in the trial. Fidelity will be assessed through listening to audio recordings for adherence to course content and competence of the facilitation of a sample of sessions. Discussion Our process evaluation will allow us to gain insight into how the trial was delivered, the obstacles and enablers encountered and the possible reasons why the interventions may or may not be effective. Trial registration ISRCTN79708100 . Registered on 16 December 2015.