Although natural hazards (e.g., tropical cyclones, earthquakes) disproportionately affect developing countries, most research on their mental health impact has been conducted in high-income countries. We aimed to summarize prevalences of mental disorders in Global South populations (classified according to the United Nations Human Development Index) affected by natural hazards.

To identify eligible studies for this meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to February 13, 2024, for observational studies with a cross-sectional or longitudinal design that reported on at least 100 adult survivors of natural hazards in a Global South population and assessed mental disorders with a validated instrument at least 1 month after onset of the hazard. Main outcomes were the short- and long-term prevalence estimates of mental disorders. The project was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023396622).

We included 77 reports of 75 cross-sectional studies (six included a non-exposed control group) comprising 82,400 individuals. We found high prevalence estimates for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the general population (26.0% [95% CI 18.5–36.3]; I2 = 99.0%) and depression (21.7% [95% CI 10.5–39.6]; I2 = 99.2%) during the first year following the event, with similar prevalences observed thereafter (i.e., 26.0% and 23.4%, respectively). Results were similar for regions with vs. without recent armed conflict. In displaced samples, the estimated prevalence for PTSD was 46.5% (95% CI 39.0–54.2; k = 6; I2 = 93.3). We furthermore found higher symptom severity in exposed, versus unexposed, individuals. Data on other disorders were scarce, apart from short-term prevalence estimates of generalised anxiety disorder (15.9% [95% CI 4.7–42.0]; I2 = 99.4).

Global South populations exposed to natural hazards report a substantial burden of mental disease. These findings require further attention and action in terms of implementation of mental health policies and low-threshold interventions in the Global South in the aftermath of natural hazards. However, to accurately quantify the true extent of this public health challenge, we need more rigorous, well-designed epidemiological studies across diverse regions. This will enable informed decision making and resource allocation for those in need.

There is considerable evidence that waiting list (WL) control groups overestimate the effect sizes of psychotherapies for depression. It is not clear, however, what are the exact causes for this overestimation. We decided to conduct a meta-analytic study to compare trials on psychotherapy for depression with a WL control group against trials with a care-as-usual (CAU) control group.

We used an existing meta-analytic database of randomized trials comparing psychological treatments of adult depression with control groups and selected trials using a WL or a CAU control group. We used subgroup and meta-regression analyses to examine differences in effect sizes between WL and CAU controlled trials.

We included 333 randomized controlled trials (472 comparisons; total number participants: 41,480), 141 with a WL and 195 with a CAU control group (3 included both). We found several significant differences between WL and CAU controlled trials (in type of therapy examined, treatment format, recency, target group, recruitment strategy, number of treatment arms and number of depression outcome measures). The overall effect size indicating the difference between treatment and control at post-test for all comparisons was g = 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71; 0.84) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 84; 95% CI: 82; 85). A highly significant difference was observed between studies with a CAU control group (g = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.55; 0.71; I2 = 85; 95% CI: 83; 86) and studies with a WL (g = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.85; 1.04; I2 = 80; 95% CI: 78; 82; p for difference < 0.001). This difference remained significant in all sensitivity analyses, including a meta-regression analysis in which we adjusted for all differences in characteristics of studies with a WL versus CAU control group. We also found that pre-post effect sizes in WL control conditions (g = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.28; 0.46) were significantly smaller than change within CAU conditions (g = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50; 0.78). We found few indications that pre-post effect sizes within therapy conditions differed between WL and CAU controlled trials.

WL control conditions considerably overestimate the effect sizes of psychological treatments, compared to trials using CAU control conditions. This overestimation is probably caused by a smaller improvement within the WL condition compared to the improvement in the CAU condition. WL control conditions should be avoided in randomized trials examining psychological treatments of adult depression.

Venlafaxine is used to treat depression worldwide. Previous reviews have demonstrated that venlafaxine lowers scores on depression rating scales, producing statistically significant results but the relevance to patients remains uncertain. Knowledge of the incidence of the adverse effects associated with venlafaxine has previously been based on the results of non-randomised studies. Our primary objective was to assess the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine in the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in randomised trials.

We searched relevant databases and other sources from inception to 7 March 2024 for randomised clinical trials comparing venlafaxine versus placebo or no intervention in adults with major depressive disorder. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The primary outcomes were suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events and non-serious adverse events.

We included 28 trials randomising 6,253 participants to venlafaxine versus placebo. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. All trials assessed outcomes at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed insufficient information to assess the effects of venlafaxine on the risks of suicides or suicide attempts. Meta-analysis showed evidence of harm of venlafaxine versus placebo on serious adverse events (risk ratio: 2.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.67–4.25; p < 0.01; 22 trials), mainly due to a higher risk of sexual dysfunction and anorexia. Meta-analysis showed that venlafaxine also increased the risk of several non-serious adverse events: nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, sweating, somnolence, constipation, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, tremor and decreased appetite.

Short-term results show that venlafaxine has uncertain effects on the risks of suicides but increases the risks of serious adverse events (especially sexual dysfunction and anorexia) and many non-serious adverse events. The long-term effects of venlafaxine for major depressive disorder are unknown. It is a particular cause for concern that there are no data on the long-term adverse effects of venlafaxine given that so many people use these drugs for several years.

There are now hundreds of systematic reviews on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of variable quality. To help navigate this literature, we have reviewed systematic reviews on any topic on ADHD.

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science and performed quality assessment according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A total of 231 systematic reviews and meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria.

The prevalence of ADHD was 7.2% for children and adolescents and 2.5% for adults, though with major uncertainty due to methodological variation in the existing literature. There is evidence for both biological and social risk factors for ADHD, but this evidence is mostly correlational rather than causal due to confounding and reverse causality. There is strong evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological treatment on symptom reduction in the short-term, particularly for stimulants. However, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in mitigating adverse life trajectories such as educational attainment, employment, substance abuse, injuries, suicides, crime, and comorbid mental and somatic conditions. Pharmacotherapy is linked with side effects like disturbed sleep, reduced appetite, and increased blood pressure, but less is known about potential adverse effects after long-term use. Evidence of the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments is mixed.

Despite hundreds of systematic reviews on ADHD, key questions are still unanswered. Evidence gaps remain as to a more accurate prevalence of ADHD, whether documented risk factors are causal, the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments on any outcomes, and pharmacotherapy in mitigating the adverse outcomes associated with ADHD.

Mental health-related stigma and discrimination are a complex and widespread issue with negative effects on numerous aspects of life of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Research shows that social contact is the best evidence-based intervention to reduce stigma. Within the context of a rapid development of remote technology, and COVID-19-related restrictions for face-to-face contact, the aim of this paper is to categorise, compare and define indirect social contact (ISC) interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination in mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

MEDLINE, Global Health, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched using a strategy including terms related to ‘stigma and discrimination’, ‘intervention’, ‘indirect social contact’, ‘mental health’ and ‘low- and middle-income countries’. Relevant information on ISC interventions was extracted from the included articles, and a quality assessment was conducted. Emerging themes were coded using a thematic synthesis method, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken to present the results.

Nine studies were included in the review overall. One study was ineffective; this was not considered for the categorisation of interventions, and it was considered separately for the comparison of interventions. Of the eight effective studies included in synthesis, interventions were categorised by content, combination of stigma-reducing strategies, medium of delivery, delivery agents, target condition and population, as well as by active or passive interaction and follow-up. Most of the interventions used education and ISC. Recovery and personal experience were important content components as all studies included either one or both. Cultural adaptation and local relevance were also important considerations.

ISC interventions were effective in overall terms for both the general public and healthcare providers, including medical students. A new definition of ISC interventions in LMICs is proposed. More research and better reporting of intervention details are needed to explore the effectiveness of ISC strategies in LMICs, especially in regions where little relevant research has been conducted.

Individual placement and support (IPS) is an evidence-based service model to support people with mental disorders in obtaining and sustaining competitive employment. IPS is increasingly offered to a broad variety of service users. In this meta-analysis we analysed the relative effectiveness of IPS for different subgroups of service users both based on the diagnosis and defined by a range of clinical, functional and personal characteristics.

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated IPS for service users diagnosed with any mental disorder. We examined effect sizes for the between-group differences at follow-up for three outcome measures (employment rate, job duration and wages), controlling for methodological confounders (type of control group, follow-up duration and geographic region). Using sensitivity analyses of subgroup differences, we analysed moderating effects of the following diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics: severe mental illness (SMI), common mental disorders (CMD), schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, duration of illness, the severity of symptoms, level of functioning, age, comorbid alcohol and substance use, education level and employment history.

IPS is effective in improving employment outcomes compared to the control group in all subgroups, regardless of any methodological confounder. However, IPS was relatively more effective for service users with SMIs, schizophrenia spectrum disorders and a low symptom severity. Although IPS was still effective for people with CMD and with major depressive disorder, it was relatively less effective for these subgroups. IPS was equally effective after both a short and a long follow-up period. However, we found small, but clinically not meaningful, differences in effectiveness of IPS between active and passive control groups. Finally, IPS was relatively less effective in European studies compared to non-European studies, which could be explained by a potential benefits trap in high welfare countries.

IPS is effective for all different subgroups, regardless of diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics. However, there might be a risk of false-positive subgroup outcomes and results should be handled with caution. Future research should focus on whether, and if so, how the IPS model should be adapted to better meet the vocational needs of people with CMD and higher symptom severity.

Presenting an approach to synthesize quantitative and qualitative information from systematic reviews of multiple health interventions.

Within the context of an EUnetHTA multi-health technology assessment of twenty-three surgical techniques, we developed synthetic single tables, using color gradients and abbreviations, with information on which technologies had been compared, estimates of the size of differences for available comparisons, their clinical relevance, and certainty of the related evidence.

The proposed methodology provided, through a single depiction, information normally included in multiple figures/tables such as network plots, league tables, and summary of findings tables.

Transferring information on benefits, risks, and certainty of the available evidence on health interventions may be challenging, especially when assessing multiple treatments: more pieces of information need to be integrated in order to show an overall picture for each of the chosen outcomes, and usual reporting tools may be targeted to researchers more than to different kinds of decision makers. While more in-depth layers of information can always be added to satisfy needs of different audiences, the proposed tools could favor a quick interpretation of articulated scientific data by both decision makers and researchers.

This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body interventions (MBIs) for the management of cancer-related fatigue.

A comprehensive search on multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2008 to December 2019. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included reviews using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).

Sixteen reviews published between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the 16 included systematic reviews was moderate (score 4–7) to high (score ≥ 8) on the 11-point AMSTAR scale. The most common methodological weaknesses were the lack of a list of excluded studies (n = 15, 93.8%) and a priori protocol (n = 2,87.5%). Furthermore, most of the systematic reviews did not search the gray literature for eligible studies (n = 13, 81.3%).

This study has revealed the need for high methodological quality systematic reviews on the MBIs for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further research should focus on methodologically strong systematic reviews by providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, and providing an excluded primary studies list. Additionally, the researchers should conduct systematic reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.