IntroductionMany antidepressants are indicated for the treatment of major depression. Two network meta-analyses have provided the most comprehensive assessments to date, accounting for both direct and indirect comparisons; however, these reported conflicting interpretation of results. Here, we present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed at updating the evidence base and comparing all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression.Methods and analysisWe will include all randomised controlled trials reported as double-blind and comparing one active drug with another or with placebo in the acute phase treatment of major depression in adults. We are interested in comparing the following active agents: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. The main outcomes will be the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; all reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random effects network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. To rank the various treatments for each outcome, we will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks. We will employ local as well as global methods to evaluate consistency. We will fit our model in a Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS, and produce results and various checks in Stata and R. We will also assess the quality of evidence contributing to network estimates of the main outcomes with the GRADE framework.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42012002291.

No abstract

IntroductionPsychotherapy is a complex intervention, consisting of various components and being implemented flexibly in consideration of individual patient’s characteristics. It is then of utmost importance to know which of the various components or combinations thereof are more efficacious, what their specific effect sizes are and which types of patients may benefit more from different components or their combinations.Methods and analysisInternet-delivered cognitive–behavioural therapy (iCBT) offers a unique opportunity to systematically review and quantitatively disentangle the efficacy of various components because, unlike face-to-face cognitive–behavioural therapy, it allows identification of constituent components that are actually delivered to patients. We will systematically identify all randomised controlled trials that compared any form of iCBT against another form or a control intervention in the acute phase treatment of adult depression. We will apply component network meta-analysis (cNMA) to dismantle efficacy of individual components. We will use individual participant data in the cNMA to identify participant-level prognostic factors and effect modifiers for different components.Ethics and disseminationThe investigators of the primary trials will have obtained ethical approval for the data used in the present study and for sharing the data, if this was necessary, according to local requirements and was not covered from the initial ethic assessment. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018104683.

BackgroundLow participation rates are one of the most serious disadvantages of Web-based studies. It is necessary to develop effective strategies to improve participation rates to obtain sufficient data.ObjectiveThe objective of this trial was to investigate the effect of emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email and the day of the week of sending the invitation email on the participation rate in a Web-based trial.MethodsWe conducted a 2×2 factorial design randomized controlled trial. We contacted 2000 primary care physicians from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017 and randomly allocated them to 1 of 4 combinations of 2 subject lines (presence or absence of an emphasis on a lottery for an Amazon gift card worth 3000 yen or approximately US $30) and 2 delivery days (sending the invitation email on Tuesday or Friday). The primary outcome was the response rate defined as the number of participants answering the first page of the questionnaire divided by the number of invitation emails delivered. All outcomes were collected between January 17, 2017, and February 8, 2017.ResultsWe analyzed data from 1943 out of 2000 participants after excluding those whose email addresses were invalid. The overall response rate was 6.3% (123/1943). There was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding incentive in the subject line: the risk ratio was 1.12 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.58) and the risk difference was 0.7% (95% CI –1.5% to 2.9%). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the response rates between the 2 groups regarding sending the email on Tuesday or Friday: the risk ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.38) and the risk difference was –0.1% (95% CI –2.3% to 2.1%).ConclusionsNeither emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email nor varying the day of the week the invitation email was sent led to a meaningful increase in response rates in a Web-based trial with primary care physicians.Trial RegistrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000025317; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000029121 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation. org/6wOo1jl9t)

IntroductionAbstracts are the major and often the most important source of information for readers of the medical literature. However, there is mounting criticism that abstracts often exaggerate the positive findings and emphasise the beneficial effects of intervention beyond the actual findings mentioned in the corresponding full texts. In order to examine the magnitude of this problem, we will introduce a systematic approach to detect overstated abstracts and to quantify the extent of their prevalence in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of psychiatry.Methods and analysisWe will source RCTs published in 2014 from the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) that claim effectiveness of any intervention for mental disorders. The abstract conclusions will be categorised into three types: superior (only stating significant superiority of intervention to control), limited (suggesting that intervention has limited superiority to control) and equal (claiming equal effectiveness of intervention as control). The full texts will also be classified as one of the following based on the primary outcome results: significant (all primary outcomes were statistically significant in favour of the intervention), mixed (primary outcomes included both significant and non-significant results) or all non-significant results. By comparing the abstract conclusion classification and that of the corresponding full text, we will assess whether each study exhibited overstatements in its abstract conclusion.Ethics and disseminationThis trial requires no ethical approval. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000018668; Pre-results.

ObjectiveAbstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published in 2014 that explicitly claimed effectiveness of any intervention for mental disorders in their abstract conclusion, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Claims of effectiveness in abstract conclusion were categorized into three types: superiority (stating superiority of intervention to control), limited superiority (intervention has limited superiority), and equal efficactiveness (claiming equal effectiveness of intervention with standard treatment control), and full text results into three types: significant (all primary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of the intervention), mixed (primary outcomes included both significant and non-significant results), or all results non-significant. By comparing these classifications, we assessed whether each abstract was overstated. Our primary outcome was the proportion of overstated abstract conclusions.ResultsWe identified and included 60 relevant trials. 20 out of 60 studies (33.3%) showed overstatements. Nine reports reported only significant results although none of their primary outcomes were significant. Large sample size (>300) and publication in high impact factor (IF>10) journals were associated with low occurrence of overstatements.ConclusionsWe found that one in three psychiatry studies claiming effectiveness in their abstract conclusion, either superior to control or equal to standard treatment, for any mental disorders were overstated in comparison with the full text results. Readers of the psychiatry literature are advised to scrutinize the full text results regardless of the claims in the abstract.Trial registrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000018668)

ObjectivesTo investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)DesignRCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis.ParticipantsVolunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into ‘without overstatement’ (n=307) and ‘with overstatement’ (n=315) groups.InterventionsWe selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the participants’ evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the ‘without’ group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the ‘with’ group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001).ConclusionThe overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians’ evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported.Trial registration number UMIN000025317; Pre-results.

ObjectivesLittle is known about the physician characteristics associated with appraisal skills of research evidence, especially the assessment of the validity of study methodology. This study aims to explore physician characteristics associated with proper assessment of overstated conclusions in research abstracts.DesignA secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Setting and participantsWe recruited 567 volunteers from the Japan Primary Care Association.MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to read the abstract of a research paper, with or without an overstatement, and to rate its validity. Our primary outcome was proper assessment of the validity of its conclusions. We investigated the association of physician characteristics and proper assessment using logistic regression models and evaluated the interaction between the associated characteristics and overstatement.ResultsWe found significant associations between proper assessment and post-graduate year (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.91, for every 10-year increase) and research experience as a primary investigator (PI; OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.34). Post-graduate year and PI had significant interaction with overstatement (P = 0.015 and < 0.001, respectively). Among participants who read abstracts without an overstatement, post-graduate year was not associated with proper assessment (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.33), and PI experience was associated with lower scores of the validity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.96).ConclusionPhysicians who have been in practice longer should be trained in distinguishing overstatements in abstract conclusions. Physicians with research experience might be informed that they tend to rate the validity of research lower regardless of the presence or absence of overstatements.Trial registrationUMIN000026269.