Familieorienteret alkoholbehandling versus Individuel alkoholbehandling for

Transcription

1 Familieorienteret alkoholbehandling versus Individuel alkoholbehandling for alkoholafhængighed Review information Authors Sundhedsstyrelsen 1 1 Sundhedsstyrelsen Citation example: S. Familieorienteret alkoholbehandling versus Individuel alkoholbehandling for alkoholafhængighed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Year], Issue [Issue]. Contact person [Empty name] Dates Assessed as Up-to-date: Date of Search: Next Stage Expected: Protocol First Published: Not specified Review First Published: Not specified Last Citation Issue: Not specified Review Manager 5.3 1

2 What's new Date / Event Description History Date / Event Description Characteristics of studies Characteristics of included studies Fals-Stewart 2005 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependent with a spouse, living together for one year Interventions brief relationship therapy Outcomes Dyadic adjustment scale Notes USA, funded by national institue of drug abuse Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk participants were randomized, but no further information Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk no information on allocation concealment Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk not possible due to the intervention Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk impution of missing data Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk not suspected due to the intervention tested Review Manager 5.3 2

3 Other bias Low risk not supected Fals-Stewart 2006 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependent women with a spouse, living together for one year Interventions behavioral couple therapy Outcomes Dyadic adjustment scale Notes USA, funded by national institue of drug abuse Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk randomized by a computer Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk group asignment were concealed until participant had there first session Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk impossible Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk handling of missing data described Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk not supected Other bias Low risk Kelley 2002 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependent men living with a partner for at least one year Interventions behavioral couple therapy Outcomes Dyadic adjustment scale Review Manager 5.3 3

4 Notes USA Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk just information that the participants were randomized Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk not described Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk impossible Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk handling of missing data Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk not described Other bias Low risk not described Lam 2009 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependent men living with a partner for at least one year Interventions behavioral couple therapy Outcomes Dyadic adjustment scale Notes USA Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk not described Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk not described Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk not possible Review Manager 5.3 4

5 Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk handling of missing data Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk not suspected Other bias Low risk O'Farrell 1985 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependent men living with a partner for at least one year Interventions behavioral couple therapy, couples group Outcomes Marital adjustments test Notes USA Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk paper random numbers table Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk "unaware of treatment allocation until after assessment" Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk not possible Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk not analsyed for all randomised patients, n=36 Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk not suspected Other bias Low risk Review Manager 5.3 5

6 Vedel 2008 Methods RCT Participants alcohol dependece, and alcohol abuse (minority) Interventions Behavioural couple therapy Outcomes Maudssley Marital questionaire Notes Netherlands, grant from ZonMw Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk no information provided Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk no information provided Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk not possible Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk no information provided Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk no information provided Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk no information provided Other bias Unclear risk no information provided Walitzer 2004 Methods RCT Participants alcohol abuse at least 10 drinks/week Interventions behavioural couple therapy + alcohol focused treatment Outcomes Dyadic adjustment score Notes USA, funded by the national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholics Review Manager 5.3 6

7 Risk of bias table Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk not described Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk not described Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk not possible Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk not dscribed Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk not described how missing data were handled Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk not described Other bias Unclear risk not described Footnotes Characteristics of excluded studies Footnotes Characteristics of studies awaiting classification Footnotes Characteristics of ongoing studies Footnotes Review Manager 5.3 7

8 Summary of findings tables Additional tables References to studies Included studies Fals-Stewart 2005 [Empty] Fals-Stewart 2006 [Empty] Kelley 2002 [Empty] Lam 2009 [Empty] O'Farrell 1985 [Empty] Vedel 2008 [Empty] Walitzer 2004 [Empty] Excluded studies Review Manager 5.3 8

9 Studies awaiting classification Ongoing studies Other references Additional references Other published versions of this review Data and analyses 1 family vs. individual, post treatment Outcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate 1.1 Family function (marital function), drinker Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.47 [0.11, 0.82] 1.2 Family function (marital function), non-drinker Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.32 [0.05, 0.59] 1.3 Children's pediatric symptom list 1 47 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) [-10.94, 4.94] 1.4 Children with open cases with child protective services for target child 1 20 Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.00 [0.26, 3.81] 1.5 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Male-to-Female Days Any Violence 1 20 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) [-2.18, 1.70] 1.6 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Female-to-Male Days Any Violence (FMDAV) 1 20 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) [-2.00, 1.72] Review Manager 5.3 9

10 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up Outcome or Subgroup Studies Participants Statistical Method Effect Estimate 2.1 Family function (marital function), drinker Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.37 [0.05, 0.69] 2.2 Family function (marital function), non-drinker Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.40 [0.01, 0.79] 2.3 Children's pediatric symptom list 1 47 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) [-14.66, 1.86] 2.4 Children with open cases with child protective services for target child 1 20 Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.67 [0.14, 3.17] 2.5 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Male-to-Female Days Any Violence Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) [-2.55, 0.24] 2.6 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Female-to-Male Days Any Violence (FMDAV) Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) [-2.70, -0.24] Figures Figure 1 (Analysis 1.1) Review Manager

11 Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.1 Family function (marital function), drinker. Figure 2 (Analysis 1.2) Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.2 Family function (marital function), non-drinker. Figure 3 (Analysis 1.3) Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.3 Children's pediatric symptom list. Review Manager

12 Figure 4 (Analysis 1.4) Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.4 Children with open cases with child protective services for target child. Figure 5 (Analysis 1.5) Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.5 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Male-to-Female Days Any Violence. Figure 6 (Analysis 1.6) Forest plot of comparison: 1 family vs. individual, post treatment, outcome: 1.6 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Female-to-Male Days Any Violence (FMDAV). Review Manager

13 Figure 7 (Analysis 2.1) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.1 Family function (marital function), drinker. Figure 8 (Analysis 2.2) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.2 Family function (marital function), non-drinker. Review Manager

14 Figure 9 (Analysis 2.3) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.3 Children's pediatric symptom list. Figure 10 (Analysis 2.4) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.4 Children with open cases with child protective services for target child. Figure 11 (Analysis 2.5) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.5 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Male-to-Female Days Any Violence. Review Manager

15 Figure 12 (Analysis 2.6) Forest plot of comparison: 2 family vs. individual, 6 to 12 month follow-up, outcome: 2.6 Timeline Followback Interview Spousal Violence Female-to-Male Days Any Violence (FMDAV). Review Manager