Systemic therapy in children and adolescents with mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Systemic therapy (ST) is a psychotherapeutic intervention in complex human systems (both psychological and interpersonal). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an established treatment for children and adolescents with mental disorders. As methodologically rigorous systematic reviews on ST in this population are lacking, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefit and harm of ST (and ST as an add-on to CBT) with CBT in children and adolescents with mental disorders.

Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention.

Methods: We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments.

Absolute risks rather than incidence rates should be used to estimate the number needed to treat from time-to-event data.

Background: When estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes, varying follow-up times have to be considered. Two methods have been proposed, namely (1) inverting risk differences estimated by survival time methods (RD approach) and (2) inverting incidence differences (ID approach).

Study Design And Setting: A simulation study was conducted to compare the RD and the ID approaches regarding bias and coverage probability (CP) considering various distributions, baseline risks, effect sizes, and sample sizes.

Reporting of loss to follow-up information in randomised controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes: a literature survey.

Background: To assess the reporting of loss to follow-up (LTFU) information in articles on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes, and to assess whether discrepancies affect the validity of study results.

Methods: Literature survey of all issues of the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine published between 2003 and 2005. Eligible articles were reports of RCTs including at least one Kaplan-Meier plot.