CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomised trials

Sleep and insulin sensitivity in adolescents at risk of type 2 diabetes: the Sleep Manipulation in Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes randomized crossover study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of increasing sleep duration for 1 week, compared to a week of habitual and decreased sleep, on insulin sensitivity (IS) in adolescents at risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Adolescents, 13-18 years old, at risk for T2D, with obesity and other risk factors, were recruited for a randomized (1:1), open-label, sex-stratified crossover study, that manipulated time-in-bed to modify sleep duration (measured by actigraphy). Following a week of habitual (HB) sleep, time-in-bed was increased (IN) and decreased (DE) by 1 hour 30 min/night for 1 week, counterbalanced across participants (HBINDE or HBDEIN), and separated by a week of washout sleep. The main outcome measure was IS, obtained via 2-hour oral-glucose-tolerance-test conducted after each sleep week.

RESULTS

Of the 43 participants recruited, 36 (84%) completed all sleep interventions (52.8% female, age = 15.1 years, body mass index = 99.9th percentile, order: HBINDE = 18 and HBDEIN = 18). On average, during the HB week, participants slept 7 hours 31 min/night; sleep duration was 1 hour 02 min/night higher during the IN week and 1 hour 19 min/night lower during the DE week. We found a significant effect of sleep week on IS with a large effect size. Following the IN sleep week, IS was 20% higher compared to after the HB and DE sleep weeks, but there was no significant difference in IS following HB versus DE sleep weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Whenever possible, clinicians should empower youth at risk of T2D to improve their sleep duration, since even a modest increase in sleep duration of 1 h/night for 1 week can have a positive impact on IS in this population.

CLINICAL TRIALS

Sleep Extension and IS in Adolescents, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03754036, November 23rd, 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID:NCT03754036).

Side-effects of mdma-assisted psychotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence suggests that MDMA-assisted psychotherapy (MDMA-AP) has therapeutic potential for treatment of psychiatric illness. We conducted the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the side effects of MDMA-AP across indications. We also assessed the quality of side effects-reporting in published trials of MDMA-AP. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched. Phase 2 and 3 MDMA-AP studies were included; Phase 1 studies, which assessed MDMA without psychotherapy, were not. Quality of side effects-reporting was assessed against the CONSORT Harms 2022 guidelines. We also compared numbers of adverse events reported in publications to those recorded in ClinicalTrial.gov registers. Thirteen studies were included, with eight contributing to the meta-analysis. In Phase 2 studies, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of any side effect during medication sessions (OR = 1.67, 95%CI (1.12, 2.49)) and in the 7 days following (OR = 1.59, 95%CI (1.12, 2.24)) relative to control conditions. In Phase 3 studies, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of any adverse event during the treatment period relative to placebo-assisted psychotherapy (OR = 3.51, 95%CI (2.76, 4.46)). The majority of RCTs were rated as having high risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was rated as very low to moderate according to the GRADE framework. No included RCT had adequate adherence to the CONSORT Harms 2022 recommendations and reporting rates were also low. Compared to placebo, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of side effects, which were largely transient and mild or moderate in severity. However, identified limitations in existing evidence indicate that further investigation is needed to better characterize the safety profile of MDMA-AP and guide implementation.

Efficacy of supervised immersive virtual reality-based training for the treatment of chronic fatigue in post-COVID syndrome: study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial (IFATICO Trial)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of persistent fatigue after COVID-19 infection is complex. On the one hand, it involves maintaining a sufficient level of physical and mental activity to counteract possible degenerative processes of the body and nervous system. On the other hand, physical and mental activities can also lead to worsening of symptoms. Therefore, the challenge in treating Post-COVID fatigue is to stimulate the body and central nervous system in a way that stimulates growth and improvement, but does not overtax individual physical and mental limits. Special training programs try to take these characteristics into account, but often reach their limits. A promising approach is offered by new fitness technologies based on immersive virtual realities that stimulate both body and brain while minimizing physical and psychological stress. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of supervised immersive Virtual Reality (VR)-based activity training compared to conventional activity training for patients with Post-COVID-associated fatigue.

METHODS

In a single centre, individually randomised, prospective, double-blind two-arm exploratory superiority trial with parallel group design, N = 100 patients with persistent fatigue after COVID-19 infection will be recruited. The intervention includes a supervised immersive neuromuscular training (12 sessions of 30 min over 6 weeks) based on a novel VR-exercise device. We will systematically compare the effects of this intervention on Post-COVID-associated fatigue with a supervised conventional activation program of comparable scope without an immersive environment. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in absolute change in the mean fatigue symptom severity measured on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) from baseline to posttreatment assessment. Posttreatment assessment in both groups will be conducted by blinded outcome assessors. At three and six months afterwards, patients are sent self-report questionnaires for follow up. The main analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first exploratory study on a supervised immersive neuromuscular training for the treatment of persistent fatigue after COVID-19 infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German register for clinical studies (ID: DRKS00032059) Prospectively registered on June 16th 2023. URL of trial registration.

Influence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Empirical evidence suggests that lack of blinding may be associated with biased estimates of treatment benefit in randomized controlled trials, but the influence on medication-related harms is not well-recognized. We aimed to investigate the association between blinding and clinical trial estimates of medication-related harms.

METHODS

We searched PubMed from January 1, 2015, till January 1, 2020, for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of medication-related harms. Eligible meta-analyses must have contained trials both with and without blinding. Potential covariates that may confound effect estimates were addressed by restricting trials within the comparison or by hierarchical analysis of harmonized groups of meta-analyses (therefore harmonizing drug type, control, dosage, and registration status) across eligible meta-analyses. The weighted hierarchical linear regression was then used to estimate the differences in harm estimates (odds ratio, OR) between trials that lacked blinding and those that were blinded. The results were reported as the ratio of OR (ROR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 629 meta-analyses of harms with 10,069 trials. We estimated a weighted average ROR of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.88, P < 0.01) among 82 trials in 20 meta-analyses where blinding of participants was lacking. With regard to lack of blinding of healthcare providers or outcomes assessors, the RORs were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.87, P < 0.01 from 81 trials in 22 meta-analyses) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07, P = 0.94 from 858 trials among 155 meta-analyses) respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these findings are applicable to both objective and subjective outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of blinding of participants and health care providers in randomized controlled trials may underestimate medication-related harms. Adequate blinding in randomized trials, when feasible, may help safeguard against potential bias in estimating the effects of harms.

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators

BACKGROUND

Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials.

METHODS

Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

Using music to assist language learning in autistic children with minimal verbal language: The MAP feasibility RCT

LAY ABSTRACT

Research has shown that autistic individuals often have unusually good musical skills and that combining words and music helps autistic individuals to focus on spoken words. This study tests the idea that music will help with early language learning of preschool autistic children. The results show that when caregivers sing words to autistic children, the children pay more attention to the caregiver than when the words are spoken and that they learn word combinations more easily.

An Overview of Regression Models for Adverse Events Analysis

Over the last few years, several review articles described the adverse events analysis as sub-optimal in clinical trials. Indeed, the context surrounding adverse events analyses often imply an overwhelming number of events, a lack of power to find associations, but also a lack of specific training regarding those complex data. In randomized controlled trials or in observational studies, comparing the occurrence of adverse events according to a covariable of interest (e.g., treatment) is a recurrent question in the analysis of drug safety data, and adjusting other important factors is often relevant. This article is an overview of the existing regression models that may be considered to compare adverse events and to discuss model choice regarding the characteristics of the adverse events of interest. Many dimensions may be relevant to compare the adverse events between patients, (e.g., timing, recurrence, and severity). Recent efforts have been made to cover all of them. For chronic treatments, the occurrence of intercurrent events during the patient follow-up usually needs the modeling approach to be adapted (at least with regard to their interpretation). Moreover, analysis based on regression models should not be limited to the estimation of relative effects. Indeed, absolute risks stemming from the model should be presented systematically to help the interpretation, to validate the model, and to encourage comparison of studies.

Incidence and determinants of seizures in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Seizures are reported to be more prevalent in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) compared with the general population. Existing data predominantly originate from population-based studies, which introduce variability in methodologies and are vulnerable to selection and reporting biases.

METHODS

This meta-analysis aims to assess the incidence of seizures in patients participating in randomised clinical trials and to identify potential contributing factors. Data were extracted from 60 articles published from 1993 to 2022. The pooled effect size, representing the incidence rate of seizure events, was estimated using a random-effect model. Metaregression was employed to explore factors influencing the pooled effect size.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included data from 53 535 patients and 120 seizure events in a median follow-up of 2 years. The pooled incidence rate of seizures was 68.0 per 100 000 patient-years, significantly higher than the general population rate of 34.6. Generalised tonic-clonic seizures were the most common type reported, although there was a high risk of misclassification for focal seizures with secondary generalisation. Disease progression, longer disease duration, higher disability levels and lower brain volume were associated with a higher incidence of seizures. Particularly, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators exhibited a 2.45-fold increased risk of seizures compared with placebo or comparators, with a risk difference of 20.5 events per 100 000 patient-years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MS face a nearly twofold higher seizure risk compared with the general population. This risk appears to be associated not only with disease burden but also with S1PR modulators. Our findings underscore epilepsy as a significant comorbidity in MS and emphasise the necessity for further research into its triggers, preventive measures and treatment strategies.

The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

Objective: Effective and safe treatments for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are limited. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is commonly used in China to manage MCI. However, its efficacy and safety remain uncertain. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHM for MCI. Methods: Nine databases were searched from their inceptions to January 2023. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of oral CHM for MCI were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated via the GRADE approach. Results: Thirteen studies, involving 1,043 participants, were analyzed. Most of the studies (10 out of 13) were associated with "some concerns" regarding the overall risk of bias. Meta-analyses results indicated that CHM significantly improved cognitive function compared to placebo in terms of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (MD: 1.90 [1.22, 2.58], I2 = 87%, 11 studies, 823 participants) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (MD: 2.88 [1.69, 4.06], I2 = 81%, 3 studies, 241 participants). The certainty of evidence for MMSE was assessed as "moderate", while it was "low" for MoCA. One study did not report adverse events (AEs), one study reported no statistical difference between the groups in terms of AEs, and 11 studies provided detailed numbers of AE cases where gastrointestinal symptoms were the most commonly reported AEs. Two studies reported no SAEs among participants and one study found no significant difference in SAEs proportions between groups. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in AEs between the two groups (RR: 1.31 [0.92, 1.87), I2 = 0%, 11 studies, 839 participants). The cognitive-enhancing function of commonly used herbs (Panax ginseng C.A.Mey., Acorus calamus var. angustatus Besser, and Polygala tenuifolia Willd.) may be attributed to mechanisms including antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, anti-neurotoxic, anti-cytotoxic, and anti-inflammatory actions. Conclusion: Chinese herbal medicine holds potential as an effective intervention to improve cognitive function in MCI patients, supported by meta-analyses evidence of low to moderate certainty. Although current data suggests CHM is generally safe, caution is advised due to the lack of AE reporting or detailed information in some instances. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=400292, identifier [CRD42023400292].

Serenoa repens for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Enlargement: An Updated Cochrane Review

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases up to September 2022 with no language or publication status restrictions. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment. We used standard Cochrane methods, including a GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving a total of 4,656 participants. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]: mean difference [MD] -0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.74 to -0.07; I²=68%; 9 studies, 1,681 participants; high CoE). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (high CoE). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (moderate CoE). Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (IPSS: MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I²=67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low CoE). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low CoE). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events (low CoE).

CONCLUSIONS

Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with LUTS due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.

Quality of reporting and nature of harms in clinical trials on supervised exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis

To describe the quality of reporting and the nature of reported harms in clinical studies on the effectiveness of supervised exercises in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We performed a systematic review, searching eight databases up to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating supervised exercises in adults with RA or axSpA were considered eligible. Data on harms were extracted according to the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist. Among others, it was recorded if harms were prespecified or non-prespecified. Moreover, the nature of reported harms was listed. Forty RCTs were included for RA and 25 for axSpA, of which 29 (73%) and 13 (52%) reported information on harms. In 13 (33%) RCTs in RA and four (16%) in axSpA, the collection of harms outcomes was described in the methods section. Prespecified outcomes were reported by eight (RA) and two (axSpA) RCTs. Non-specified harms outcomes were reported by six (RA) and four (axSpA) RCTs. Prespecified harms outcomes included measures of pain, disease activity, inflammation, and structural joint changes. The nature of non-prespecified harms outcomes varied largely, with pain being most common. A considerable proportion of trials on supervised exercise in RA or axSpA does not or inadequately report harms outcomes. Pain was the most commonly reported prespecified or non-specified harm. For a considerate interpretation of the balance between benefits and harms of supervised exercise in RA or axSpA, use of the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist for the design, conduct and reporting of trials is advocated.

Overlooked Outcomes in Pediatric Obesity Management-Unintended Consequences

This Viewpoint describes unintended consequences of pediatric obesity treatment plans and the need for evidence balancing potential benefits vs harms of these plans.

A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health

This retrospective analysis assessed the serious adverse events and deaths reported in lifestyle clinical trials designed to enhance cognitive health in older adults living in the United States. Data was collected from studies conducted between January 1, 2000, and July 19, 2023, using the ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface. Our query revealed that 76% of these studies did not report trial results. The remaining studies with reported results were categorized under one of four intervention types: Cognitive/Behavioral, Exercise/Movement, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal. When all trial types are considered together, the results indicate that lifestyle clinical trials are safe, with no significant increase in relative risk of experiencing an SAE in an intervention group over a control group. And although the increase in relative risk of death in an intervention group over a control group was significant at 28% (X2 (1, N = 36), p < 0.00688), the probability of death was not higher than the U.S. mortality rates by age. When assessing the data using intervention type, Diet/Supplement trials and Multi-modal trials both had an increase in relative risk of experiencing an SAE in the intervention over the control group, with Diet/Supplement trials at 16% (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.0263) and Multi-modal trials at 365% (X2 (1, N = 5), p < 0.000213). The Diet/Supplement trials also had an increased risk of death at 67% (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.000197). These results should be taken with careful consideration. Due to such a low reporting rate, the 36 studies included in this analysis do not accurately represent the majority of lifestyle clinical trials conducted in the U.S. This study is valuable in that it highlights the importance of reporting clinical trial results, which will improve transparency in trial results and allow for more accurate assessments of safety in the growing field of cognitive aging and lifestyle interventions for older adults.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Serenoa repens for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a non-malignant enlargement of the prostate, which can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH is common. The extract of the berry of the American saw palmetto or dwarf palm plant, Serenoa repens (SR), which is also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum, is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with LUTS consistent with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 16 September 2022, with no restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short term, and beyond 12 months as long term. Our main outcomes included urologic symptom scores, quality of life, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we narrowed the review question to only comparisons with placebo. We included 27 studies (of which 9 were new) involving a total of 4656 participants, 19 studies comparing Serenoa repens with placebo, and 8 studies comparing Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents versus placebo. Most studies included men aged > 50 (mean age range 52 to 68) with moderate urologic symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] range 8 to 19). Ten studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry; two studies were funded by government agencies; and the remaining studies did not specify funding sources. Serenoa repens versus placebo or no intervention Results for this comparison are based on predefined sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS score range 0 to 35, higher scores indicate worse symptoms; mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.74 to -0.07; I2 = 68%; 9 studies, 1681 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS quality of life domain range 0 to 6, higher scores indicate worse quality of life; MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.00; I2 = 39%; 5 studies, 1001 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (1 to 17 months; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31; I2 = 18%; 12 studies, 2399 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 164 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 2 more (38 fewer to 51 more) per 1000 men in the Serenoa repens group. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS score, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.88; I2 = 34%; 3 studies, 898 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in quality of life at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS quality of life, MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; I2 = 65%; 3 studies, 882 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were no data on long-term adverse events for this comparison. Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapy versus placebo or no intervention Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (12 to 24 weeks, IPSS score, MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I2 = 67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events; however, the CIs included substantial benefits and harms (12 to 48 weeks, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 481 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 132 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 12 fewer (55 fewer to 54 more) per 1000 men in the combined phytotherapeutic agents with Serenoa repens group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.