BackgroundThe evidence on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for major depressive disorder is unclear.MethodsOur objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of SSRIs versus placebo, ‘active’ placebo, or no intervention in adult participants with major depressive disorder. We searched for eligible randomised clinical trials in The Cochrane Library’s CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, clinical trial registers of Europe and USA, websites of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency until January 2016. All data were extracted by at least two independent investigators. We used Cochrane systematic review methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, and calculation of Bayes factor. An eight-step procedure was followed to assess if thresholds for statistical and clinical significance were crossed. Primary outcomes were reduction of depressive symptoms, remission, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were suicides, suicide attempts, suicide ideation, and quality of life.ResultsA total of 131 randomised placebo-controlled trials enrolling a total of 27,422 participants were included. None of the trials used ‘active’ placebo or no intervention as control intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. SSRIs significantly reduced the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at end of treatment (mean difference −1.94 HDRS points; 95% CI −2.50 to −1.37; P < 0.00001; 49 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI −2.70 to −1.18); Bayes factor below predefined threshold (2.01*10−23). The effect estimate, however, was below our predefined threshold for clinical significance of 3 HDRS points. SSRIs significantly decreased the risk of no remission (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91; P < 0.00001; 34 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted CI 0.83 to 0.92); Bayes factor (1426.81) did not confirm the effect). SSRIs significantly increased the risks of serious adverse events (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.75; P = 0.009; 44 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI 1.03 to 1.89). This corresponds to 31/1000 SSRI participants will experience a serious adverse event compared with 22/1000 control participants. SSRIs also significantly increased the number of non-serious adverse events. There were almost no data on suicidal behaviour, quality of life, and long-term effects.ConclusionsSSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events. The potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013004420.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1173-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Background Tranexamic acid reduces haemorrhage through its antifibrinolytic effects. In a previous version of the present review, we found that tranexamic acid may reduce mortality. This review includes updated searches and new trials.Objectives To assess the effects of tranexamic acid versus no intervention, placebo or other antiulcer drugs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Search methods We updated the review by performing electronic database searches (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index) and manual searches in July 2014.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials, irrespective of language or publication status.Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures of the The Cochrane Collaboration. All-cause mortality, bleeding and adverse events were the primary outcome measures. We performed fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used I² as a measure of between-trial heterogeneity. We analysed tranexamic acid versus placebo or no intervention and tranexamic acid versus antiulcer drugs separately. To analyse sources of heterogeneity and robustness of the overall results, we performed subgroup, sensitivity and sequential analyses.Main results We included eight randomised controlled trials on tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Additionally, we identified one large ongoing pragmatic randomised controlled trial from which data are not yet available. Control groups were randomly assigned to placebo (seven trials) or no intervention (one trial). Two trials also included a control group randomly assigned to antiulcer drugs(lansoprazole or cimetidine). The included studies were published from 1973 to 2011. The number of participants randomly assigned ranged from 47 to 216 (median 204). All trials reported mortality. In total, 42 of 851 participants randomly assigned to tranexamic acid and 71 of 850 in the control group died (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; P value 0.007; I² = 0%). The analysis was not confirmed when all participants in the intervention group with missing outcome data were included as treatment failures, or when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of attrition bias. Rebleeding was diagnosed for 117 of 826 participants in the tranexamic acid group and for 146 of 825 participants in the control group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; P value 0.07; I² = 49%).We were able to evaluate the risk of serious adverse events on the basis of only four trials. Our analyses showed 'no evidence of a difference between tranexamic acid and control interventions regarding the risk of thromboembolic events.’ Tranexamic acid appeared to reduce the risk of surgery ina fixed-effect meta-analysis (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95), but this result was no longer statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; P value 0.07). No difference was apparent between tranexamic acid and pla...

Background 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. Methods and findings 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, I 2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80–1.11; p = 0.48, I 2 = 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, I 2 = 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; I 2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and ...

Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.

The virtual field trip 2101 Conclusion, which involves addressing the original research questions and/or hypotheses; and (5) Discussion, where students communicate their findings and receive feedback as well as reflect on the entire process. Together, these inquiry phases constitute an inquiry cycle, designed to guide students in their IBL process and highlight key features of scientific thinking (Pedaste et al., 2015). In the present study, the immersive VFT was implemented within the investigation phase of an IBL climate change intervention, specifically to support exploration. Instructional design of IVR An important consideration, besides the didactic approach, when working with immersive VFTs, is their instructional design. Instructional design deals with ways of creating multimedia presentations intended to promote learning (Mayer, 2014). For IVR simulations, the focus is on how the composition and design of lessons affect the learning experience in virtual environments.

Background: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, 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 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178787

Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.