SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Social cognition”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

319 records · Page 18Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

The Impact of Baseline Negative Emotions on Postoperative Quality of Life in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a three-dimensional spinal deformity that develops during puberty without a clear etiology. Beyond physical manifestations, AIS severely impacts adolescents' psychological and social well-being, leading to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. While advancements in surgical techniques have enhanced objective outcomes, existing studies on AIS have primarily focused on objective indices, with limited attention to the long-term impact of preoperative negative emotions on patient-reported subjective quality of life. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 112 eligible AIS patients who underwent posterior spinal correction surgery between April and August 2023 were enrolled. Inclusion criteria included confirmed AIS, completion of 2-year follow-up, and informed consent; exclusion criteria included missing imaging/questionnaire data, comorbid psychiatric/neurological diseases, or prior spinal surgery. Patients were grouped using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) administered on admission. Quality of life was assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively using the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22, evaluating self-image, mental health, pain, function, treatment satisfaction) and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36, assessing 8 physical and mental health dimensions). Statistical analysis was performed via SPSS, using independent t-tests, paired t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics (age, gender, BMI, surgical parameters, scoliosis type, preoperative/postoperative Cobb angles) between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Preoperatively, SRS-22 and SF-36 scores showed no inter-group differences (all p > 0.05). Postoperatively, the Negative Emotion Group had significantly lower scores in SRS-22 mental health (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.5 ± 0.2) and treatment satisfaction (4.0 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.7), as well as SF-36 general health (68.6 ± 6.4 vs. 79.7 ± 13.3), role-emotional (61.3 ± 9.3 vs. 70.8 ± 9.7), and mental health (61.8 ± 14.3 vs. 68.9 ± 10.7) (all p < 0.05); no inter-group differences were observed in physical function-related dimensions. Both groups showed significant improvements in physical function-related dimensions postoperatively. The Non-Negative Emotion Group also exhibited significant improvements in SRS-22 self-image/pain and SF-36 bodily pain (all p < 0.05), while the Negative Emotion Group showed no significant improvements in these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative anxiety and depression do not affect the recovery of physical function in AIS patients after spinal correction surgery but significantly impede improvements in subjective quality of life dimensions, including mental health and treatment satisfaction. These findings highlight the need to integrate psychological assessment and targeted interventions into the perioperative management of AIS. Such a patient-centered approach will help optimize both physical and psychological outcomes, ultimately achieving comprehensive rehabilitation for AIS adolescents.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A narrative systematic review of definitions and diagnostic criteria for disordered eating and eating disorders in type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 diabetes and disordered eating (T1DE) affects 8-37.1% of adults and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The absence of a standardised case definition of T1DE and its severity hinders effective screening, diagnosis and treatment. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesise existing case definitions and diagnostic criteria for T1DE in adults and (2) identify key characteristics to inform consensus for future diagnostic criteria. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies involved adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes assessing disordered eating; paediatric studies, mixed samples without disaggregated data, non-empirical designs and non-English publications were excluded. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched up to November 2025 for peer-reviewed studies involving adults with T1DE. Qualitative and quantitative data on definitions, diagnostic criteria and assessment tools were extracted. Study quality was appraised using a modified Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies (GATE) checklist. Due to heterogeneity of data, a narrative synthesis of findings was performed to describe current definitions of T1DE. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, with a pooled sample of 111,208 participants (76% women) from over 22 countries. T1DE was defined using a heterogeneous array of terms, diagnostic frameworks and assessment tools (29 distinct methods). The Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) was the most used questionnaire, but many studies relied on criteria adapted from general eating disorder classifications or generic questionnaires. Approximately three-quarters of the studies assessed insulin omission behaviours, but the operationalisation of the cognitions for insulin omission varied widely. Beyond physiological markers such as HbA1c and BMI, studies explored various diabetes-related and psychological constructs, although often considering diabetes and disordered eating separately rather than as an integrated condition. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This systematic review highlights the lack of a unified, evidence-based definition of T1DE, resulting in inconsistent screening, diagnostic and reporting practices. Establishing clear, consistent, evidence-based diagnostic criteria and screening questionnaires for T1DE is critical to improving early detection and developing targeted interventions. These findings provide a foundation for refining T1DE definitions as a stepping stone to an international consensus definition. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD420250223622 FUNDING: King's College London and King's College Hospital through the KMRT KCH Joint Research Committee studentship. This work was also conducted as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; CS-2017-17-023)-funded STEADY project (Safe management of people with Type 1 diabetes and EAting Disorders studY). NZ's salary was part-funded by the NIHR via the NIHR Clinician Scientist award to MS; JT and KI are part-funded by the NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. MS was funded through her NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2017-17-023).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Patients with Exposure Therapy Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (TETRO): Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a disabling mental disorder, characterized by obsessions, compulsions, and substantial morbidity. Approximately 50% of adults with OCD fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes from first-line treatments, such as exposure therapy with response prevention (ERP), with or without medication. This leads to chronic social, educational, and occupational impairment. While invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation are available for severe, treatment-refractory cases, a need remains for less invasive alternatives. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive intervention, shows promise in reducing OCD symptoms. Unlike in depression, rTMS is not yet reimbursed for OCD in the Dutch healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low-frequency (1Hz) rTMS targeting the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA) compared to sham rTMS as an adjuvant treatment to ERP in adults with OCD with inadequate response to first-line treatment. METHODS: A total of 250 adults with OCD will be enrolled in this multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to ERP combined with either active or sham 1Hz rTMS over the pre-SMA. Treatment is administered 4 times weekly for at least 5 weeks (20 rTMS-ERP sessions), with optional extension of 1 to 2 weeks, up to 28 rTMS-ERP sessions. Clinical assessments occur at baseline, weekly during treatment, posttreatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Participants undergo pre- and posttreatment (functional) (MRI) scans, including a symptom provocation task. Blood sampling takes place pre- and posttreatment and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome is OCD severity at posttreatment, as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Secondary outcomes include functional improvement, quality of life, and societal costs. Pretreatment symptom profiles, genotype, and brain network topology will be analyzed as predictors of response and relapse risk. Pre-to-post treatment change in blood-based and magnetic resonance (MR)-based neuroplasticity markers will help explore differential mechanisms between ERP alone and combined rTMS-ERP. We expect that the verum rTMS protocol will be cost-effective compared to sham-rTMS. RESULTS: Recruitment started in April 2022, and as of February 2026, 201 participants have been enrolled. Posttreatment assessments are projected to be completed in December 2026, with final one-year follow-up evaluations anticipated by the end of 2027. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first adequately powered randomized controlled trial examining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and mechanism of action of rTMS for OCD as adjuvant therapy to ERP. In case of efficacy and/or cost-effectiveness, it will pave the way for rTMS as insured health care for adults with OCD in the Netherlands, and possibly other European countries. Furthermore, this trial will provide insight into the mechanisms of treatment response to intensive ERP, with and without adjunctive rTMS, as well as potential side effects, individual variability, and long-term outcomes in adults with OCD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Once-weekly IcoSema versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in type 2 diabetes management (COMBINE 4): an open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepwise treatment intensification is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes, including insulin initiation when non-insulin glucose-lowering medications are insufficient. Guidelines recommend combining a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin to improve glycaemic efficacy while reducing weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk. COMBINE 4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of IcoSema, a once-weekly combination therapy of basal insulin icodec and semaglutide (a GLP-1-receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications. METHODS: COMBINE 4 was a 40-week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3b trial conducted across 97 sites in nine countries. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8·0%) receiving oral glucose-lowering medications were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio without stratification to IcoSema or once-daily glargine U100. The titration target was 3·9-5·0 mmol/L (70-90 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c and the secondary confirmatory endpoint was change in bodyweight, both from baseline to week 40, evaluated in all randomly allocated participants. Adverse events were recorded during weeks 0-45. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269107) and is complete. FINDINGS: Of 653 individuals screened between Feb 15 and Aug 6, 2024, 151 did not meet screening criteria and 17 withdrew before initiating treatment; 243 were randomised to IcoSema and 242 to glargine U100. Of the 485 randomly allocated participants, 286 (59%) were male and 199 (41%) were female, and median age was 58 years (range 26-82). For HbA1c, from baseline (9·57% for IcoSema and 9·50% for glargine U100), mean change to week 40 was greater with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (-3·32 vs -2·44 percentage points; estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·88 percentage points [95% CI -1·12 to -0·63]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). From baseline to week 40, mean bodyweight decreased with IcoSema and increased with glargine U100 (-0·79 vs 3·81 kg; ETD -4·61 kg [95% CI -5·46 to -3·75]), confirming superiority of IcoSema (p<0·001). Rate of combined clinically significant (blood glucose <3·0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL], confirmed with a blood glucose meter) or severe hypoglycaemia (severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery) was statistically significantly lower with IcoSema versus glargine U100 (0·29 vs 0·59 episodes per person-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·56 [95% CI 0·32 to 0·97]; p=0·04). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events with IcoSema. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly IcoSema demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction and bodyweight change, with lower rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia, versus glargine U100, suggesting that IcoSema might be an effective once-weekly treatment option for insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering medications. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Improved quality of life and prolonged survival with add-on homeopathic treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, add-on homeopathy might help to alleviate adverse effects of conventional therapy. AIM: The aim of this study was to replicate previous studies on the effect of adjunctive homeopathy on quality of life (QoL) and survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHOD: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm multicenter phase III study with quadruple-checked data analysis, we investigated the potential effects of an add-on homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC in terms of QoL. Ninety-eight received either individualized homeopathic medicinal products (HMPs; n = 51) or placebo (n = 47) in a double-blinded fashion. Fifty-two control patients without homeopathic treatment were only observed in terms of their survival rate. The ingredients of the various HMPs were mainly prepared of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The data entry and statistical analysis were subject to an exceptional quadruple-checked data analysis process. The analysis presented in this article was inspired by our earlier report of this trial published in The Oncologist in 2020, which was retracted by that journal in November 2025 after two corrections; a majority of the co-authors disagreed with this decision. The present article is based on the same trial dataset but was deliberately designed to highlight the unique research methodology: design and preparation by a lead statistician, data entry, data clearing and independent statistical evaluation were performed in four mutually independent steps, reporting follows the CONSORT statement, and the interpretation of the findings has been reframed conservatively. RESULTS: Global health status (QoL) was higher in the homeopathy group than in the placebo group after 9 weeks and after 18 weeks (p < 0.001). With the exception of cognitive functioning at 9 weeks and of pain, diarrhea and financial difficulties at 9 weeks, all functional and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 favored the homeopathy group (p < 0.001 for the multivariate comparisons), with between-group differences exceeding the threshold of 10 points that is generally regarded as clinically meaningful. Median survival time over the 730-day observation period was 435 days in the homeopathy group, 257 days in the placebo group (p = 0.010), and 228 days in the non-randomized control group (p < 0.001); the corresponding 2-year survival rates were 45.1%, 23.4%, and 13.5% (homeopathy vs. placebo p = 0.020; homeopathy vs. control p < 0.001). The difference between the placebo group and the non-randomized control group was not statistically significant (p = 0.154). CONCLUSION: In this trial, add-on homeopathy was associated with better quality of life across most functional and symptom domains, with clinically meaningful effect sizes congruently to a previous open study. Survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group compared to both the placebo and control groups. Independent replication, ideally within contemporary immuno-oncological treatment regimens is required. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01509612; January 7, 2012.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Adjuvant alectinib versus chemotherapy in resected ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALINA): health-related quality-of-life and safety outcomes from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the global, phase 3, open-label, randomised ALINA trial. We report safety and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes from the ALINA trial. METHODS: Eligible patients aged 18 years or older with resected, ALK-positive, stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC (per the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control Cancer Staging Manual 7th edition) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (1:1) via a block-stratified randomisation method to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy for four 3-week cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and race. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was disease-free survival. Safety was a secondary endpoint and HRQoL was an exploratory endpoint. Safety was assessed by the investigator as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5·0 until 28 days after the last alectinib dose or chemotherapy cycle. HRQoL was assessed via the Short-Form 36-item health survey version 2 (SF-36v2) questionnaire at baseline, every 3 weeks to week 12, then every 12 weeks until disease recurrence, consent withdrawal, death, or week 96. Norm-based scoring was applied; clinically meaningful changes were defined using the SF-36v2 manual. Safety was assessed in the safety-evaluable population and HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03456076) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, 2018, and Dec 8, 2021, 257 patients were assigned to receive alectinib (n=130) or chemotherapy (n=127). 123 (48%) patients were male and 134 (52%) were female; 143 (56%) were Asian. The safety-evaluable population comprised 128 patients who received alectinib and 120 patients who received chemotherapy; median duration of safety follow-up was 24·8 months (IQR 22·0-24·9) in the alectinib group and 3·7 months (IQR 3·7-3·8) in the chemotherapy group. The safety of adjuvant alectinib was generally consistent with its known profile. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (eight [6%] of 128), alanine aminotransferase increased (two [2%] of 128), and blood bilirubin increased (two [2%] of 128) in the alectinib group, and neutrophil count decreased (12 [10%] of 120), neutropenia (ten [8%] of 120), and nausea (five [4%] of 120) in the chemotherapy group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (2%; one each with appendicitis and pneumonitis) of 128 patients in the alectinib group and eight (7%) of 120 patients in the chemotherapy group ( most common were gastrointestinal disorders in three [3%] patients). No deaths due to adverse events were reported in either group. There were fewer discontinuations due to adverse events with alectinib (seven [5%]) versus chemotherapy (15 [13%]). A clinically meaningful difference in improvement from baseline was seen at week 12 for bodily pain, role physical, mental health, social functioning, and vitality SF-36v2 domains with alectinib; improvements in physical and mental HRQoL were maintained over 2 years of active treatment (at week 96, mean Mental Component Summary score: 49·9 [SD 10·4]; mean Physical Component Summary score: 48·8 [SD 7·2]) and reached levels similar to the general population (population norm: 50). INTERPRETATION: For patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC, adjuvant alectinib had a manageable safety profile; HRQoL improved and was maintained over 2 years of active treatment. Together with the disease-free survival benefit seen in ALINA, these data support adjuvant alectinib as an important new standard-of-care for patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Caregiver-Mediated Spoken Language Interventions for Children Under Five at Risk of Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Caregiver-mediated interventions are commonly used by Speech and Language Therapists to support early language development. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is associated with reduced quality of life throughout the lifespan. Understanding factors that predict intervention success is essential for developing appropriate, cost-effective therapy provision for the approximately 12% of preschool children who present with early markers for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions for under-fives at risk of DLD, and factors influencing intervention effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Five electronic databases were searched to identify experimental studies comparing caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions to control conditions in under-fives presenting with risk factors for DLD. Risk factors included prematurity, socioeconomic factors, caregiver language development concerns, and formal or informal language screening or assessment scores. Twenty-six experimental studies with 1407 child participants were included in qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis was performed on nine Randomised Controlled Trials involving 947 children. RESULTS: Effectiveness was examined for outcomes including child language gains, child wellbeing, inclusion and attainment. Meta-analysis indicated a significant effect of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions on language outcomes compared to treatment-as-usual, non-language intervention or waitlist control conditions. Non-language outcomes were evaluated via qualitative synthesis. Interventions significantly improved language development trajectories for under-fives presenting with risk factors or early markers for DLD. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This review contributes to the growing evidence base demonstrating that caregiver-mediated interventions can positively impact language development and wellbeing outcomes for children under five at risk of DLD. These findings support the implementation of caregiver-mediated environmental language interventions in clinical practice to maximise accessibility and cost-effectiveness while delivering optimal outcomes for vulnerable populations. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Previous research on caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions has highlighted gaps in the evidence regarding the impact of risk factors, demographic characteristics, dosage and intervention components on child language outcomes. Developmental Language Disorder has relatively high population prevalence, estimated at 7%. Prevalence is associated with risk factors including low household socioeconomic status (SES), prematurity and late language emergence. In contrast to its prevalence, there is low public and professional awareness of DLD and a low diagnostic rate. Therefore, a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions is important in order to increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this underserved population. Timely and effective intervention with young children presenting with early markers for DLD has the potential to offer lifelong improvement to their wellbeing, inclusion and attainment outcomes. Recent systematic reviews of the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated language interventions had differences in population age range and diagnostic inclusion criteria. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Our review examines the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated early spoken language interventions on child language, attainment and wellbeing, and on caregiver self-efficacy and adherence to language support strategies. Our population was children under five presenting with risk factors for Developmental Language Disorder, in the absence of other neurodevelopmental or genetic conditions such as intellectual disability or autism. This review adds depth and detail to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions in improving outcomes for this population of young children, and factors that influence their success. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The high prevalence of Developmental Language Disorder, estimated at around 7% of the population, and the strong association with risk factors including low SES, prematurity and late language emergence, coupled with the low awareness of DLD and low diagnostic rate, mean that a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions can increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this population. Timely and effective intervention in this group of young children has the potential to improve wellbeing and attainment outcomes across the lifespan. This review contributes to our understanding of how to implement cost-effective, socially valid and maximally engaging partnership working with families of young children at risk for DLD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (HARMONi): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ivonescimab has shown clinical efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC whose disease progressed after third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. METHODS: HARMONi is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 114 cancer centres and hospitals across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (upper limit: 75 years in Asia) with stage IIIB/IIIC or IV non-squamous EGFR-mutated NSCLC, disease progression after treatment with a third-generation EGFR-TKI, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive voice response system or interactive web response system to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or placebo plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and carboplatin (target area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by brain metastases status at enrolment and geographical region. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent radiology review committee and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06396065), has completed enrolment, and is ongoing for treatment and follow-up. FINDINGS: From Jan 25, 2022, to Oct 1, 2024, 660 individuals were screened for eligibility; of these, 438 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ivonescimab plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy (219 per group). Of enrolled patients, 257 (59%) were female and 181 (41%) were male; 306 (70%) reported race as Asian, and 105 (24%) as White. At a median follow-up of 22·3 months (95% CI 21·5-23·0), 275 progression or death events had occurred in 345 patients (129 events among 172 patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 146 events among 173 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·7-7·1) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·52; 95% CI 0·41-0·66; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 29·7 months (95% CI 27·7-31·0), 262 deaths occurred in 438 patients (122 in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 140 in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). Median overall survival was 16·8 months (14·3-19·0) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·0 months (12·8-15·7) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (HR 0·79; 0·62-1·01). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy versus the placebo plus chemotherapy group were decreased neutrophil count (42 [19%] of 218 vs 36 [17%] of 218), decreased white blood cell count (28 [13%] vs 24 [11%]), decreased platelet count (27 [12%] vs 14 [6%]), and anaemia (22 [10%] vs 27 [12%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61 (28%) patients in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and 33 (15%) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four patients (disease progression, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and hepatic failure, each in one patient; gastrointestinal haemorrhage and pulmonary embolism in one patient) in the ivonescimab plus chemotherapy group and five patients (pneumonitis, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cognitive disorder, and embolic stroke, each in one patient) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after progression on EGFR-TKI therapy. The clinical benefit and lack of new safety signals of ivonescimab with chemotherapy support the potential for the combination as a new treatment option in this patient population. FUNDING: Summit Therapeutics.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗