Notes
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 07/04/01. The protocol was agreed in July 2007. The assessment report began editorial review in November 2008 and was accepted for publication in March 2009. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Declared competing interests of authors
None
Permissions
Copyright statement
© 2009 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. This monograph may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NETSCC, Health Technology Assessment, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
2009 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO
Chapter 1 Background
Introduction
Description of the health problem
Hypertension (also known as high blood pressure) is defined as persistently high blood pressure, with currently accepted thresholds in the UK at 140/90 mmHg. 1 Hypertension is one of the most prevalent and powerful risk factors contributing to the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 2 Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the major determinant of risk for CVD, particularly for adults over the age of 32 years. 3,4
The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified hypertension as one of the most important preventable causes of premature morbidity and mortality in developed and developing countries. 4 People with hypertension have an increased incidence of stroke, transient ischaemic attack, left ventricular hypertrophy, heart failure, myocardial infarction, angina, peripheral vascular disease, fundal haemorrhages or exudates, papilloedema, and proteinuria and renal impairment. 4
The UK government predicts that the treatment of hypertension would produce large benefits at the population level in terms of avoided CVD. A White Paper5 published in 1999 identified action to improve the detection of hypertension and increase the number of persons receiving adequate treatment for high blood pressure as a priority. Currently, within the new National Service Frameworks6 for general practitioners, there are five quality indicators for hypertension and 158 out of 550 clinical points relate directly to hypertension, demonstrating the commitment of the Department of Health to action on this condition.
Causes of hypertension
Biological
Although several factors contribute to the pathogenesis of hypertension, renal mechanisms probably play a primary role while other mechanisms amplify (e.g. sympathetic nervous system activity and vascular remodelling) or buffer (e.g. increased natriuretic peptide or kallikrein–kinin expression) the pressor effects of renal salt and water retention.
Baroreceptors located in several organs detect changes in blood pressure and adjust mean arterial pressure by altering the force and speed of the heart’s contractions as well as the total peripheral resistance (resistance to blood flow). The renin–angiotensin system allows the kidney to activate angiotensin II (a natural vasoconstrictor). Aldosterone (a steroid hormone) is released from the adrenal cortex in response to angiotensin II or high serum potassium levels. It stimulates sodium retention and potassium excretion by the kidneys. As sodium is the main ion that determines the amount of fluid in the blood vessels by the process of osmosis, aldosterone increases fluid retention and, indirectly, blood pressure. The three systems are not necessarily independent of each other. 3
Drugs and diseases
Some medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, oral contraceptives, steroids and various cold cures may bring about an increase in blood pressure. Other diseases and syndromes may also cause hypertension: renal disease, renovascular disease, phaeochromocytoma, Conn syndrome, coarctation and Cushing syndrome. 4 Hypertension is twice as common in those with diabetes. 3
Genetics
Family history may contribute to the risk of developing hypertension with the risk dependent on the age of the family member and number of close relatives with hypertension. 3 Within families of both natural and adopted children, the association for blood pressure levels is higher between biological siblings and biological parent–child pairs than between an adopted child and non-adopted siblings or parents. 3 The exact nature of this genetic predisposition is not yet clear.
Lifestyle
Lifestyle factors documented as significantly impacting on blood pressure include being overweight and obese, lack of physical activity, high alcohol consumption, underconsumption of fruit and vegetables, high dietary intake of saturated fat, high intake of dietary sodium and low intake of dietary potassium. 4,7 Changes in lifestyle may lower blood pressure by as much as a single blood pressure-lowering drug, and combinations of two or more lifestyle modifications can achieve even better results. 4
Epidemiology
The lifetime risk of hypertension is high, with longitudinal data from the Framingham study8 indicating a lifetime risk of 80–90% in middle-aged men and women. The Health Survey for England (HSE) 20032 gives estimates of the overall prevalence of hypertension of 30.6%. This survey also reports a steep increase in prevalence with age for both men and women.
Prevalence is higher among men than women up to age 64 years, but women show a steeper increase with age compared with men so that men and women show the same prevalence of hypertension between the ages of 65 and 74 years. Beyond 75 years there are a greater proportion of women than men with hypertension.
There are limitations associated with the findings reported in the HSE, primarily related to the definition of hypertension. In the survey, three blood pressure measurements were taken per respondent, each at 1-minute intervals, and the mean of the second and third measurements was calculated. All participants with blood pressure greater than or equal to 140/90 mmHg, whether treated or untreated, were classified as hypertensive.
In clinical practice, hypertension is diagnosed after two measures are taken at two different time points and it has been argued that the HSE statistics may be an overestimate of true prevalence because they were based on recordings taken on the same day. 6 The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care (ICHSC) makes available data from GP practices in England; the reported level of hypertension for 2005/6 was 12%. Although the ICHSC figures do not include the number of people with undiagnosed hypertension and definitions of hypertension vary, these data do highlight hypertension as a condition that affects a high proportion of patients in GP practices. 9
Diagnosis and assessment of hypertension
The majority of people are unaware that they have hypertension because it frequently does not present with specific symptoms. Current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) British Hypertension Society (BHS)1 guidance recommends that hypertension be identified by taking at least two measures of blood pressure on two separate occasions ‘under the best conditions available’. Table 1 presents the blood pressure classifications as published by the BHS.
Category | Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
---|---|---|
Blood pressure | ||
Optimal | < 120 | < 80 |
Normal | < 130 | < 85 |
High normal | 130–139 | 85–89 |
Hypertension | ||
Grade 1 (mild) | 140–159 | 90–99 |
Grade 2 (moderate) | 160–179 | 100–109 |
Grade 3 (severe) | 180 | ≥ 110 |
Isolated systolic hypertension | ||
Grade 1 | 140–159 | < 90 |
Grade 2 | ≥ 160 | < 90 |
According to these classifications, hypertension is diagnosed when systolic or diastolic pressure or both is above 140/90 mmHg. It may then be classified as either essential (most common) or secondary. Essential hypertension has no specific medical cause whereas in secondary hypertension the elevated blood pressure is a result of another condition, such as kidney disease or particular tumours.
Other relatively uncommon types of hypertension include malignant, isolated systolic, white coat, resistant and pulmonary artery. In addition, other forms of hypertension exist in pregnancy: chronic, pre-eclampsia and transient.
Current treatment options
In the UK, current BHS and NICE1 guidance recommends that drug therapy should be offered to patients with:
-
persistent high blood pressure of 160/100 mmHg or more
-
persistent blood pressure of more than 140/90 mmHg when there is raised cardiovascular risk (10-year risk of CVD of 20% or more or existing CVD or target organ damage)
-
isolated systolic hypertension of more than 160 mmHg.
The BHS4 recommends a blood pressure target of < 150/90 mmHg as an audit standard, with lower targets (≤ 130/90 mmHg) for higher risk patients, whereas NICE1 guidance states that the aim of antihypertensive treatment is for blood pressure to be maintained at 140/90 mmHg or below, the optimal for reducing major cardiovascular events.
There are varying levels of treatment. For those with high-normal blood pressure, lifestyle changes and regular checks are emphasised to reduce the likelihood of the development of hypertension and the need for drug therapy. With regard to drug treatment, three types of antihypertensive medication are recommended in the guidance produced by NICE1 in agreement with the BHS: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor antagonist if ACE inhibitors are not tolerated), calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide-type diuretics. These are prescribed according to age and ethnicity as outlined in Table 2.
Patient characteristicsa | Recommendation |
---|---|
< 55 years and non-black | ACE inhibitor |
> 55 years or black | CCBs or thiazide-type diuretic |
Beta-blockers are no longer preferred as a routine initial therapy for hypertension as it has been shown that they are less effective at reducing major cardiovascular events and are associated with an increased incidence of diabetes, particularly when combined with diuretics. 1 However, beta-blockers may be considered as an option for younger people such as women of childbearing potential, patients with evidence of increased sympathetic drive or those who have an intolerance of, or contraindications to, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. If a single drug does not sufficiently control hypertension, combinations of drugs may be prescribed. In almost 50% of cases, more than one drug is required. 10
The majority of adults in England with hypertension have blood pressure levels above recommended targets. 10 Reasons for this inability to maintain the recommended blood pressure levels are multifactorial and could include factors such as patient adherence, inadequate/ineffective treatment and lack of patient monitoring. 7
Biofeedback
Biofeedback can be defined as a group of non-pharmacological therapeutic procedures that use electronic instruments to measure, process and provide information (feedback) to patients regarding their neuromuscular and autonomic nervous system activity. This feedback may be in the form of analogue (or binary) and/or visual (or auditory) signals. 11
The notion of gaining control over biological processes that are ordinarily involuntary has been linked to ancient yogis who were able to demonstrate amazing skills such as temporarily stopping the heart from pumping blood, making the heart skip a beat at a given signal, and controlling pain and blood flow. 12 These abilities may be thought of as mystic, but psychologists have been able to demonstrate that it is possible for ‘ordinary’ people to learn to manage their own bodily functions through techniques such as biofeedback.
In relation to blood pressure, early work on biofeedback with rats demonstrated that the animals could learn to increase or decrease their systolic blood pressure when reinforced for doing so. 13 Further work with human adult males showed that they were also able to increase, but to a much greater extent decrease, systolic blood pressure when given feedback (light and tone) and rewards. 14
In simple biofeedback training for hypertension, a patient is connected to an instrument that provides continuous information about their blood pressure. Whenever blood pressure falls to a specified level, a signal (aural or visual) is given. The patient then reflects on what they were thinking or doing when the blood pressure was low and tries to repeat the activity in order to keep it low. In this way, the patient learns to identify sensations that accompany reductions in blood pressure and, after several training sessions, the patient may be able to develop skills to maintain control of blood pressure. The type of information given to patients may differ; as well as direct blood pressure biofeedback measures,15 other indirect indicators may be used including thermal (TBF),16 galvanic skin response (GSR),17 heart rate (HR)18 and electromyographic (EMG) activity. 19
In TBF the patient is given information regarding the temperature of their finger or toe and instructed to warm their hands or feet in relation to this feedback. The physiological rationale is that increased sympathetic activity commonly observed during stress constricts the blood vessels in the skin and the decreased blood flow results in a cooler temperature. In contrast, decreased sympathetic activity results in less vasoconstriction, thereby increasing blood flow. As individuals warm their hands, they are actually learning to decrease neurally-mediated vasoconstriction and subsequently to decrease total peripheral resistance.
In EMG feedback the patient is given information regarding muscle tension. EMG is thought to mediate relaxation, and changes in muscle contraction affect blood flow; the muscle receives more blood flow during a weak contraction than during a strong contraction. GSR gives a measure of sweat gland activity by measuring skin conductance. Sweating is a sympathetically mediated response to stressful conditions; the less active the sweat glands are, the less aroused the patient is. 20 Biofeedback training may include other techniques in addition to the biofeedback, for example relaxation,21 meditation22 or yoga. 23
The website of the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback24 affirms (based on the evidence of two systematic reviews11,25 and meta-analyses reviewed below) that numerous high-quality studies have demonstrated that people having high blood pressure – especially if stress related – can benefit extensively from biofeedback as long as they learn and practice the skills needed to control their blood pressure, and that many hypertensives no longer need any medication after successful biofeedback training. The Association rate biofeedback therapy for hypertension as efficacious (level 4 on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the best).
Outcome measures
The majority of published trials of biofeedback report data taken in the laboratory or clinic. 26 However, it has been suggested that office- or clinic-based measures used in the biofeedback trials may be somewhat unreliable as they cannot detect ‘white coat’ hypertension, wherein the patient exhibits elevated blood pressure but only in the clinical setting. This phenomenon may affect between 20% and 30% of patients diagnosed with hypertension. 27 In trials, habituation to the setting can also occur, resulting in declines in blood pressure that may be mistaken for treatment effects. 28,29 Short baselines can exacerbate this problem.
Both ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home monitoring offer the opportunity to screen out white coat hypertension, and drug treatment research is increasingly using ambulatory measures as clinical end points. 26 With regard to clinical practice, current NICE guidance recommends the use of measures taken in a GP clinic to diagnose hypertension and does not recommend the routine use of ABPM or home measurement devices as their value has not been adequately established. 1 However, the BHS4 acknowledges that ABPM provides more information than home or GP clinic measurements (mean day- and night-time measurements and blood pressure variability) and may be a better predictor than office measures of CVD risk and target organ damage as well as a better method of assessing treatment effects. With regard to home blood pressure monitoring (given advances in equipment design) such measures can also provide more information than those taken in a GP clinic and have the advantage of involving the patient more closely in their own care and treatment. It should be noted, however, that home monitoring (rather than ABPM) is not thought to predict cardiovascular risk or outcomes more effectively than clinic readings. 4
A further issue with regard to outcomes is the effect of initial baseline measures of blood pressure. It is now well documented that high pretreatment values can result in greater treatment effects than lower values. 11,25,28 Lower values may be subject to the so-called ‘floor effect’,28,30 whereby only small reductions are possible. Most biofeedback trials only include patients considered to be ‘mildly hypertensive’, at the lower end of the hypertensive threshold; thus, the effects of any treatment are likely to be small. It has also been argued that other critical outcomes such as the ability of a treatment to prevent the development or worsening of heart disease and the ultimate reduction in cardiovascular mortality be assessed in addition to the usual immediate changes in blood pressure. 29
Systematic reviews of biofeedback
Two systematic reviews have previously reported on the efficacy of biofeedback treatment for hypertension. 11,25 We quality assessed these reviews31 and the results are summarised in Table 3. Neither review considered any evidence for biofeedback treatment versus antihypertensive medication.
Quality assessment checklist item | Nakao 200311 | Yucha 200125 |
---|---|---|
Did the review address a clearly focused research question? | ✓ | ✓ |
Was the search strategy adequate (i.e. did the reviewers identify all relevant studies)? | ✓ | ✓ |
Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria specified? | ✓ | ✓ |
Did the review include the right type of studies? | ✓ | ✓ |
Did the reviewers assess the quality of the included studies? | ✓ | ✓ |
Was the method of data extraction reported? | ✓ | ✓ |
Were appropriate measures of outcomes used? | ✓ | ✓ |
If the results of the studies have been combined, was it reasonable to do so? | ✓/✗a | ✓/✗a |
Are appropriate subgroup analyses presented? | NA | _ |
Are the main results of the review reported (e.g. numerical results included with the confidence intervals)? | ✓ | ✓ |
Are issues of generalisability addressed? | ✓ | ✓ |
The reviews both used internationally accepted standards and were judged to be of good quality. Both reviews pooled data and reported small effect sizes with the use of biofeedback. The appropriateness of such an analysis is questioned given the variation in the methods of biofeedback, differences in comparators and variations in the timing of outcome measures. The reviews provided limited information regarding the data used in the meta-analyses (e.g. which studies were included, actual data input, time point of outcome measure, etc.).
In addition, both reviews reported a need for significant manipulation of data to allow for the pooling. Nakao et al. 11 pointed out in their analysis that ‘…standard errors of pre- and post-treatment blood pressure changes…’ were not reported in a number of studies and these had to be calculated from available data. Yucha et al. 25 also pointed out a need to calculate standard deviations within studies and to make assumptions regarding appropriate measures of correlation. In a later paper, when referring to her previous biofeedback review Yucha32 reported:
While doing this meta-analysis, I noticed that these studies were plagued with inconsistency in their methodology and reporting, making statistical combination difficult if not impossible.
Therefore the meta-analyses from these two reviews should be considered with extreme caution.
The aim of the review by Nakao et al. 11 was to examine the blood pressure-lowering effects of biofeedback treatment in patients with essential hypertension. A total of 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a patient population of 905 essential hypertensive patients were included in a meta-analysis. The analysis took account of biofeedback types (alone or combined with another therapy) and control types (no intervention and a combined category of sham biofeedback and non-specific behavioural interventions). The authors concluded that biofeedback intervention decreased SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) more than non-intervention controls but not more than sham or non-specific behavioural intervention controls. Only relaxation-assisted biofeedback significantly decreased both SBP and DBP compared with sham or non-specific behavioural controls. The authors concluded that biofeedback was more effective than no intervention, but was only superior to sham or non-specific interventions when combined with a relaxation technique.
The second review, by Yucha et al. ,25 aimed to determine the effectiveness of biofeedback in the treatment of essential hypertension. A total of 23 RCTs were included and interventions were categorised as biofeedback, active treatment control and inactive treatment control. Active treatments were relaxation training, cognitive therapy and home monitoring, and inactive treatments were waiting list, blood pressure measured in a clinic and sham biofeedback treatment controls. The biofeedback and active control treatments were found to reduce SBP and DBP, but only biofeedback significantly reduced SBP when compared with inactive control treatments.
The results of the two reviews generally support one another in that they conclude that biofeedback can lower blood pressure by small amounts. It is worth noting that, for ethical reasons, most biofeedback trials are populated with patients who have mild or borderline blood pressure or who are taking antihypertensive medication. Therefore, effects of biofeedback may be masked.
The current project
The purpose of the current project was to assess the evidence (short and long term) regarding the clinical effectiveness of biofeedback treatment for the treatment of essential hypertension. Long term was considered to be at least 6 months and preferably 12, although evidence from trials that were of a shorter duration was considered. If evidence of effectiveness had been demonstrated then these effects would have been incorporated into an economic analysis. Limited information on currently available biofeedback equipment is provided.
Chapter 2 Methods
Review of clinical effectiveness
Search strategy
A comprehensive search strategy was developed and used (YD) to examine the electronic databases listed in Table 4. Details of the electronic search strategies used and the number of references retrieved for each search are provided in Appendix 1. All references were exported to the EndNote® reference database version X.0.2 (ISI ResearchSoft, Berkeley, CA).
MEDLINE |
EMBASE |
ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science |
ISI Web of Knowledge/ISI Proceedings |
Cochrane Library 2007 |
CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) |
AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) |
PsycINFO was searched after the above were completed |
The search did not include methodological filters that would limit results to a specific research study design. The search was restricted to reports that included abstracts written in English. Searches for the first seven databases had no date restriction and were carried out from database commencement to May 2007. The search of PsycINFO was carried out at a later date and the search was extended to October 2007. To ensure comprehensiveness, an updated search of all databases was carried out in the final month before the completion of this report.
Reference lists of retrieved articles were searched to identify further studies. An advisory panel was established to guide the review process; the role of the panel was to answer specific questions as the review progressed and to comment on an early draft of the report, including identifying missed or ongoing trials, and to advise on types of biofeedback instrumentation and current usage.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The identified articles were assessed for inclusion through two stages and disagreements were resolved by discussion. In stage one, two reviewers (JG, RD) independently scanned all of the titles and abstracts and identified the potentially relevant articles to be retrieved. To ensure that the screening was comprehensive, inclusion at stage one incorporated any behavioural or complementary therapy that might be relevant to biofeedback. In stage two, full text copies of the selected papers were obtained and each was assessed independently by two reviewers (JG, RD) for inclusion. Details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 5. A quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM)33 flow diagram summarising the selection and inclusion of studies is provided in Appendix 3.
Trial design | Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) |
Patient population | Adults with essential hypertension (i.e. ≥ 140/90 mmHg), medicated or unmedicated with antihypertensive drugs |
Interventions | Biofeedback treatment alone or in combination |
Comparators | Antihypertensive medication, placebo (sham biofeedback), no treatment, other types of biofeedback treatment, other behavioural treatments |
Outcomes | Blood pressure measures |
Exclusion criteria | Patients with other types of hypertension, non-RCT, narrative reviews, editorials or opinions |
Data extraction
Data extraction was carried out by two reviewers (JG, NR). Individual trial data relating to trial design and findings were extracted and checked using a pretested data extraction form. Data were cross-checked by one reviewer (YD).
Quality assessment
The methodological quality of each trial was independently evaluated by at least two reviewers (JG, NR, YD) using criteria based on guidance issued by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). 34 Any differences in quality grading were resolved through discussion. Inter-rater reliability was not assessed.
Analysis of results
A narrative summary of the data is presented. The qualitative heterogeneity across the trials, including the poor quality of the trial reports, the diversity of biofeedback protocols and the inconsistency in reporting of outcomes, precluded a statistical synthesis of the included trial results. Biofeedback treatments were divided into those that were used alone and those that were used in combination with another therapy. These were categorised further into antihypertensive medication, placebo (sham biofeedback treatment), non-intervention control and other behavioural treatments. The type of feedback (direct or indirect) was also noted. Author conclusions regarding the efficacy or otherwise of biofeedback treatment versus the comparator were summarised and used as the basis of the analysis.
Methods for reviewing currently available biofeedback equipment
We identified biofeedback equipment by contacting organisations involved in the treatment of hypertension. These included the BHS, the American Society for Hypertension (ASH), the American Association for Applied Physiology and Biofeedback (AAPB), the National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), the Biofeedback Foundation of Europe (BFE) and the European Society for Hypertension (ESH). Equipment used in RCTs was also noted. Additionally, a panel of clinical advisers was also asked to provide opinions. The findings are presented in Appendix 2
Chapter 3 Results
Clinical effectiveness
Selection of included trials
A total of 927 non-duplicate references were identified by the search strategy and subsequently screened for inclusion in the review. From these, 100 papers were obtained in full text to facilitate the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 41 relevant publications (including three abstracts) reporting 36 RCTs met the inclusion criteria (Table 6). A further recent RCT35 was identified during a subsequent update of searches.
Biofeedback alone | Biofeedback combinations | |
---|---|---|
Combination therapy | ||
Achmon 198918 | Berglund 199152a,b | Menninger protocol |
Billion 198053a,b | Canino 199446 | + relaxation + anger management |
Blanchard 197954 | Chesney 198749 | + relaxation |
Blanchard 198658,65–69 | Cohen 198350 | + relaxation |
Blanchard 198748 | Frankel 197821 | + relaxation |
Blanchard 198836 (USA) | Friedman 19787,38c | + hypnosis |
Blanchard 198836 (USSR) | Hafner 198222 | + relaxation + meditation |
Blanchard 199362 | Irvine 199142 | + relaxation + meditation + imagery |
Blanchard 199616 | Jacob 199243 | + relaxation |
Bonso 200564a | Jurek 199251 | + relaxation |
Friedman 197837,38c | Khramelashvili 198659a | + relaxation |
Goldstein 198241 | McCraty 200344 | + inner quality management |
Hager 197855 | McGrady 198119 | + relaxation |
Hatch 198539 | McGrady 199463 | + relaxation |
Hunyor 199747 | Patel 197545 | + relaxation |
Luborsky 198260 | Patel 198840 | + relaxation |
Nakao 199715 | ||
Thananopavarn 197956a | ||
Tsai 200735 | ||
Walsh 197757 | ||
Zurawski 198761 |
Of the included trials, 34 (including three abstracts) were published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining two were abstracts from PhD theses. One report36 presented data from two studies, and another trial, reported in two papers,37,38 compared two different types of biofeedback.
The included trials reported comparisons between biofeedback treatments [either biofeedback alone (n = 21) or combined (n = 6) with an adjunctive therapy], antihypertensive medications, placebo (sham biofeedback treatment), non-intervention controls or other behavioural treatments.
Reports of trials that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria (along with reasons for exclusion) appear in Appendix 4.
Quality assessment of included trials
The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the checklist described in the CRD Report No. 4;34 a summary of the assessment is provided in Table 7.
Checklist items | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Randomisation | Baseline comparability | Eligibility criteria specified | Co-interventions identified | Blinding | Withdrawals | Intention to treata | ||||||||
Truly Random | Allocation concealment | Number stated | Presented | Achieved | Assessors | Administration | Participants | Procedure assessed | > 80% in final analysis | Reasons stated | ||||
Biofeedback alone | ||||||||||||||
Achmon 198918 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗b | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | ✗ | NS | ✗ |
Billion 198053c | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Blanchard 197954 | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✓d | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NSe | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Blanchard 198658,65–69 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗f | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | NS | NS | NS | ✓g | NS | ✗ |
Blanchard 198748 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗h | ✓ | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | NA | ✓ |
Blanchard 198836 (USA) | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✗ |
Blanchard 198836 (USSR) | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✗ |
Blanchard 199362 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✗ |
Blanchard 199616 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗i | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✗ |
Bonso 200564c | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✓ | ✓/✗ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Friedman 197837,38 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Goldstein 198241 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗j | ✓ | NA | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✓ |
Hager 197855 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | NS | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NA | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Hatch 198539 | ✓ | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✗k | ✗ | ✗ |
Hunyor 199747 | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | NS | ✓ | NA | NS | ✓ | ✓ | NS | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Luborsky 198260 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✗l | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Nakao 199715 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Thananopavarn 197956c | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✗ | ✗ |
Tsai 200735 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗m | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Walsh 197757 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | NS | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Zurawski 198761 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓n | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | NS |
Biofeedback combinations | ||||||||||||||
Berglund 199152c | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Canino 199446 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | NA | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | ✓ | NA | ✓ |
Chesney 198749 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
Cohen 198350 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | NS | NS | ✓ | NA | ✓ |
Frankel 197821 | ✓ | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | ✓ | NS | ✓ | NA | ✓ |
Hafner 198222 | NS | NS | ✓ | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | NS |
Irvine 199142 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | NS | ✗ | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Jacob 199243 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
Jurek 199251 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
Khramelashvili 198659c | NS | NS | ✓ | x | NS | ✓/✗ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✗ | NS |
McCraty 200344 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
McGrady 198119 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✗ |
McGrady 199463 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | NS | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
Patel 197545 | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Patel 198840 | ✓ | ✓o | ✓ | ✓ | ✓/✗ | NS | ✓ | ✗ | NS | NS | NS | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Overall, the methodological quality of the included trials was poor. All stated that patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups; however, only four21,35,39,40 described the method of randomisation and only two35,40 of these noted whether or how allocation was concealed. Only eight trials18,21,35,41–45 provided information regarding the blinding of assessors and, with the exception of the four trials21,35,46,47 in which blinding was inherent in the trial design, blinding of either administrators or participants was not mentioned. None of the trials reported any assessment of blinding procedures. It is worth noting that, without the use of a sham placebo treatment, blinding of treatment providers and patients is difficult to achieve; however, blinding of assessors can and should always be managed. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were not specifically reported in any trial; thus, ITT was assumed in cases in which it appeared that all patients randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups were included in the final analysis whether or not they completed or received that treatment. 15,21,41,46,48–51 Co-interventions (antihypertensive medication) were well reported. Baseline comparability was achieved or partially achieved in 25 trials. With the exception of three trials40,52,53 details of eligibility criteria were recorded. It is worth noting that the included trials were relatively old: seven from the 1970s,21,38,45,54–57 16 from the 1980s,18,19,22,36,39–41,48–50,53,58–61 10 from the 1990s11,16,42,43,46,47,51,52,62,63 and just three35,44,64 from 2000 onwards. The quality of reporting did not appear to improve over time.
Trial characteristics
Trial characteristics are presented in Tables 20 and 21 in Appendix 5.
The 36 included trials incorporated a total population of approximately 1660 treated patients, with cohorts ranging in size from 1256 to 158. 49 The trial populations were generally small (less than 50); only four40,42,49,63 included more than 100 patients. All were single centred and the majority were conducted in the USA. Of the non-US trials, three were UK based;22,40,45 others were conducted in Canada,42 Australia,47 Italy,64 the USSR,36,59 Japan,15 Venezuela,46 Taiwan35 and Israel. 18 Four trials21,35,47,53 employed a placebo treatment, whereas the remainder were all comparative with two or more arms. The number of biofeedback sessions ranged across trials from 464 to 20. 36
The majority of trials included either no post-treatment follow-up or less than 6 months’ follow-up. Fifteen16,18,36,38–42,46,49,51,58,61,63 included post-treatment follow-up periods of 6 months up to a maximum of 12 months. When funding was reported, trials were frequently supported by grants from independent sources; only two trials40,42 reported some funding support from a pharmaceutical company. The commonly cited primary outcome of the trials was the effect of the interventions on direct measures of blood pressure, although the primary outcome in two trials58,62 was the reduction in medication from two antihypertensive drugs to one. Three trials52,54,55 described patients as having ‘borderline hypertension’, 11 ‘mild hypertension’16,21,22,41,42,47,49,51,56,60,64 and the remainder described patients as ‘hypertensive’. A number of biofeedback modalities were employed: blood pressure;15,21,35,38,39,41,47,54,55,60 HR;18 EMG;19,21,22,36,45,49–51,53 TBF;16,43,45,46,48–52,58,62,63,66 pulse wave velocity;57 GSR22,40,42,45,61 and heart rate variability. 44 In some cases more than one modality was employed within the same trial.
Biofeedback alone
Of the biofeedback alone trials, three41,56,60 were included in the category of biofeedback alone versus antihypertensive medication, three35,47,53 were included in the category of biofeedback alone versus placebo (sham biofeedback treatment) and eight15,16,18,38,39,41,62,64 were included in the category of biofeedback alone versus non-intervention treatment. In the last category, patients in the control arm had blood pressure checks at clinics, self-monitored their own blood pressure or had no treatment beyond baseline and end of intervention blood pressure measures taken. Fifteen trials18,36,38,39,41,53–58,60–62,68 were included in the biofeedback alone versus other behavioural treatments category. These treatments included cognitive group therapy for anger,18 relaxation,39,41,53–58,60 relaxation plus EMG biofeedback,54 TBF at home,68 autogenic training,70 EMG biofeedback,54 hypnosis,38 meditation55 and stress management. 61
Biofeedback combinations
None of these trials compared biofeedback combination treatment with antihypertensive medication. One trial21 compared biofeedback combinations with a placebo (sham biofeedback treatment), and 13 trials19,21,22,38,40,44,46,49–52,59,63 were included in the biofeedback combinations versus non-intervention control category. Eight trials22,38,42,43,45,49,50,59 compared biofeedback combinations with other behavioural treatments. These included hypnosis,38 meditation,22 non-specific support therapy,42 stress education43 and relaxation. 40,49 One49 of these trials employed three behavioural comparators.
The majority of biofeedback treatment was combined with relaxation. 19,21,40,43,46,49,50,59,63 Others combinations included the Menninger protocol,52 relaxation plus meditation,22 relaxation plus anxiety management,46 relaxation plus imagery plus meditation,42 relaxation plus diuretics,51 yoga,45 hypnosis38 and inner quality management (IQM). 44
Patient characteristics
Patient characteristics tables are presented in Appendix 6.
Sixteen16,35,36,38,41–44,46,49,51,52,57,62,68 of the included trials had a population of more than 60% males; moreover, three36,52 of these trials included only males. Seven trials19,21,36,39,49,51,63 reported the ethnic origin of patients, all predominantly white. Of the included trials, eight16,35,36,42,46,47,64 included only patients not taking antihypertensive medication, three41,56,60 compared patients not taking antihypertensive medication in the biofeedback treatment arm with those in an arm treated with drugs only, two43,51 included only patients taking antihypertensive drugs, three48,58,62 included patients on a specific two-drug regimen (with the primary outcome as a reduction in these drugs) and 1611,18,19,21,22,38–40,44,45,49,50,54,57,61,63 included a mix of patients taking or not taking antihypertensive medication. In one of these last trials49 the number of patients prescribed antihypertensive drugs changed across the course of the trial. Four trials52,53,55,59 did not state the medication status of the patients.
When mean ages of patients were given, these ranged from 30.936 to 59.945 years. When stated, patients had been diagnosed with hypertension for between 4 months22 and 14 years. 41
Clinical results and analysis
The preceding section indicates that the included trials were of poor quality and the treatments and comparators were heterogeneous. These factors mitigated against any statistical analysis of the data (in these circumstances a meta-analysis is likely to provide misleading results); thus, a narrative summary of the findings is presented. Results have been grouped first by biofeedback type (i.e. biofeedback alone or in combination with another therapy) and then by comparator [antihypertensive medication, placebo (sham biofeedback treatment), non-intervention control, other behavioural treatments]. In addition, the type of biofeedback has been used to further delineate trials. In this way blood pressure biofeedback (direct biofeedback) is marked out from other (indirect) modes of biofeedback. All measures are mean changes in mmHg with standard deviations shown whenever reported. When mean changes were not specifically reported, these were calculated by subtracting the post-treatment from the pre-treatment blood pressures (standard deviations were not calculated in these cases). When patient numbers are quoted, these represent numbers reported in results rather than numbers randomised. Table 20 in Appendix 5 documents both the number of patients randomised in each trial and the number of patients included in the final analysis.
With reference to the two meta-analyses referred to earlier in this report11,25 there were differences and similarities between the included trials. The present review included 12 trials that were not featured in the previous reviews and excluded three trials that were featured in these reviews. Table 8 documents the additions and exclusions.
Trials extra to previous reviews | Trials included in previous reviews, but excluded in the present review |
---|---|
Blanchard 198658 | Paran 199617 |
Blanchard 198748 | Patel 197323 |
Bonso 200564 | Patel 198171 |
Chesney 198749 | |
Cohen 198350 | |
Friedman 197837,38 | |
Hager 197855 | |
Khramelashvili 198659 | |
McCraty 200344 | |
Thananopavarn 197956 | |
Tsai 200735 | |
Walsh 197757 |
Biofeedback alone versus antihypertensive medication
Three trials compared biofeedback with antihypertensive medication (Table 9). These trials were small (total n = 51) and dated, with no long-term follow-up data. With regard to data collected in the laboratory, two trials41,60 reported medication to be significantly more effective than biofeedback treatment for SBP, but not for DBP. The third trial56 did not present statistical comparisons, but stated that biofeedback may be as effective as drug treatment. The ‘home’ data from the Goldstein41 trial reported medication to be significantly better than biofeedback for both SBP and DBP (p < 0.01). Only the Goldstein41 trial presented data beyond the treatment period, but this was limited to the biofeedback arm. These data (presented in a graph) showed that, at 6 months, SBP in the biofeedback group (note reduced numbers) returned to levels above those recorded at baseline whereas DBP remained at post-treatment levels.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure biofeedback | |||||||||
Goldstein 198241 | Treatment | Laboratory | 149.1 | 97.3 | –4.1 | –4.4 | Graph shows return to baseline at 6 months (n = 5) | Graph shows maintenance of effect at 6 months (n = 5) | Laboratory data: post-treatment analysis shows drugs superior to biofeedback for SBP (p < 0.05), but not DBP |
Home (n = 9) | 147.2 | 94.6 | –4.5 | –3.9 | |||||
Control (meds) | Laboratory | 144.2 | 98.2 | –14.8 | –5.6 | NR | NR | Home data (am) post-treatment analysis shows drugs superior to biofeedback for SBP and DBP (p < 0.01) (home pm data available) | |
Home (n = 9) | 144 | 96 | –17.6 | –10.4 | |||||
Luborsky 198260 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 14): | The medicated group had significantly greater decreases for SBP standing (p < 0.01) and lying (p < 0.05). Differences for DBP were non-significant | ||||||
Standing | 138.3 | 93.2 | –6.5 | –5.5 | NR | NR | |||
Lying | 136.7 | 86.2 | –2.6 | –4.3 | |||||
Control (meds) | Laboratory (n = 10): | ||||||||
Standing | 144.7 | 101.3 | –18.8 | –10.3 | NR | NR | |||
Lying | 143.7 | 91.8 | –13.5 | –7.2 | |||||
Type of biofeedback not specified | |||||||||
Thananopavarn 197956a | Treatment | Laboratory | 155 (6) | 96 (4) | –12.0 | –7 | NR | NR | ‘Biofeedback may be as effective as drug treatment in mild hypertension…’ |
Home (n = 5) | 159 (7) | 94 (3) | –13.0 | –6 | |||||
Control (meds) | Laboratory | 142 (4) | 95 (2) | –22 | –5 | NR | NR | ||
Home (n = 4) | 146 (4) | 100 (3) | –14 | –9 |
Biofeedback alone versus placebo (sham biofeedback treatment)
Three trials compared biofeedback with placebo (sham biofeedback) treatment (Table 10). They were small, populated by a total of no more than 123 patients. Overall findings are contradictory and there are no long-term data.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure biofeedback | |||||||||
Hunyor 199747 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 28) | 153 (9) | 97 (4) | –5 (7.2) | NR | NR | NR | No difference between treatment and control |
Control (placebo) | Laboratory (n = 28) | 154 (8) | 98 (4) | –6 (7.6) | NR | NR | NR | ||
Tsai 200735 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 20) | 148.4 (8.6) | NR | NR | NR | –12.6 (8.8) (at 12 weeks) | NR | Biofeedback treatment superior to placebo (p < 0.001); 3.6–13.5 (CI) |
Control (placebo) | Laboratory (n = 18) | 142.1 (5.9) | NR | NR | NR | –4.1 (5.7) (at 12 weeks) | NR | ||
Indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Billion 198053a | Treatment | Laboratory (n = ns) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | No significant difference between groups |
Control (placebo) | Laboratory (n = ns) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
The two main trials report conflicting results. Hunyor et al. 47 reported no significant difference between active biofeedback and placebo treatment, whereas Tsai et al. 35 reported a significant difference (p < 0.001) between treatments. Both reported outcomes on SBP only and at similar time points. Neither present long-term data. There are no data presented in the Billion53 abstract, but the author notes no significant differences between groups.
Biofeedback alone versus non-intervention control
The majority of the eight small trials (n = 235 approximately) showed no significant effects of biofeedback treatment compared with non-intervention controls post treatment (Table 11). There is scant evidence regarding long-term efficacy. Only three trials15,18,64 reported significant differences between the biofeedback treatment and non-intervention control groups for SBP and DBP. One of these, Achmon et al. ,18 reported a significance level of p < 0.0005. A fourth trial41 found biofeedback to be significantly better than control for DBP only. None of the trials reporting positive effects of biofeedback provided any long-term data in comparison to the control.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure biofeedback | |||||||||
Friedman 1977, 197838 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 13) | 146.5 (range 130–175) (mean of median) | 95.8 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –4.3 (mean of median) | –7 (1 month) (mean of median) | –4 (1 month), –7.4 (6 months) (mean of median) | Post-treatment1 month and 6 months: no significant differences for SBP or DBP |
Control (clinic monitor) | Laboratory (n = 12) | 139.9 (range 120–170) | 94.7 (range 85–105) | NC | –2.9 | –1 (1 month) (n = 11) | –2.8 (1 month), –2.9 (6 months) (n = 11) | ||
Goldstein 198241 | Treatment | Laboratory | 149.1 | 97.3 | –4.1 | –4.4 | Graph shows return to baseline at 6 months (n = 5) | Graph shows maintenance of effect at 6 months (n = 5) |
Post-treatment laboratory measures showed no significant difference between biofeedback and self-monitoring for SBP Biofeedback superior to self-monitoring for DBP (p < 0.05) Home (am) data showed no difference for SBP or DBP |
Home (n = 9) | 147.2 | 94.6 | –4.6 | –3.2 | |||||
Control (self-monitor) | Laboratory | 141.2 | 96.2 | +3.5 | +2.6 | Graph shows slight increase above baseline at 6 months (n = 7) | Graph shows slight increase above baseline at 6 months (n = 7) | ||
Home (n = 9) | 137 | 93.9 | 0 | +0.6 | |||||
Nakao 199715 | Treatment | Clinic | 158 (16) | 95 (9) | NR | NR | –17 (18) | –8 (7) | Significant differences between biofeedback and control on clinic measures of SBP and DBP (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) |
Home (n = 15) | 133 (11) | 85 (9) | –1 (10) (at 2 weeks) | –2 (7) (at 2 weeks) | |||||
Control (self-monitor) | Clinic | 161 (21) | 94 (6) | NR | NR | +3 (9) | –1 (4) | ||
Home (n = 15) | 141 (16) | 87 (11) | 0 (7) (at 2 weeks) | –2 (10) (at 2 weeks) | |||||
Hatch 198539 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 13) | 134.5 (12.7) | 79.5 (8.5) | –8.9 (at 1 month) | –7.2 (at 1 month) | –6.3 (3 months) (n = 13), +0.1 (12 months) (n = 5) | –6.1 (3 months) (n = 13), –1.7 (12 months) (n = 5) | No significant differences found between groups on any measure or at any time |
Home (n = 11) | 132.5 (11.5) | 85.7 (10.5) | –0.5 (3 months) (n = 11), +7.2 (12 months) (n = 3) | –0.8 (3 months) (n = 11), +2.3 (12 months) (n = 3) | |||||
Control (no treatment) | Laboratory (n = 13) | 136 (13) | 87.7 (4.8) | –6.6 (at 1 month) | –4.7 (at 1 month) | –5.1 (3 months) (n = 13), –10.8 (12 months) (n = 5) | –6.2 (3 months) (n = 13), –5.5 (12 months) (n = 5) | ||
Home (n = 11) | 135 (11) | 87 (2.9) | –0.8 (3 months) (n = 11), +7.4 (12 months) (n = 3) | +1.4 (3 months) (n = 11), +4.2 (12 months) (n = 3) | |||||
Indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Achmon 198918 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 27) | 155 (13.52) | 99.75 (7.14) | –26.55 | –15.44 | –19.77 (6 months) | –11.68 (6 months) |
Post treatment biofeedback significantly different to control for SBP and DBP (p < 0.0005) No control data for 6-month follow-up |
Control (lectures) | Laboratory (n = 20) | 155.42 (19.95) | 96.12 (6.26) | –3.05 | +0.8 | NR | NR | ||
Blanchard 199362 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 11) | NA | NA | See text | See text | See text | See text | No differences between groups |
Control (self-monitor) | Home (n = 12) | NA | NA | See text | See text | NA | NA | ||
Blanchard 199616 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 21) | 142.1 (9.1) | 93.2 (54) | –1.2 | –1.9 | NA | NA | No differences between groups |
Control (self-monitor) | Home (n = 23) | 140 (14.6) | 90.1 (6) | +1.9 | +1.1 | NA | NA | ||
Type of biofeedback not specified | |||||||||
Bonso 200564a | Treatment | Laboratory | NR | NR | –11 | –10 | NA | NA |
‘Clinic blood pressure for treatment group reduced but remained unchanged in control...’ (SBP, p < 0.018; DBP, p < 0.001) ‘Home measures decreased in biofeedback group but not in control...’ (p < 0.001) |
Home (n = ns) | NR | NR | NA | NA | |||||
Control (self-monitor) | Laboratory | NR | NR | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | ||
Home (n = ns) | NR | NR | NA | NA |
Biofeedback alone versus other behavioural treatments
Of the 16 trials (n ≥ 465 approximately) three18,41,58 found biofeedback to be superior to other behavioural interventions, two18,58 for both SBP and DBP, and one41 for DBP only (Table 12). Two trials38,61 found other treatments superior to biofeedback. Seven other trials39,53–55,57,60,62 reported no differences between biofeedback treatment and other interventions. One trial56 did not report an outcome. Comparative data were not available for four trials. 36,53,56 Change data from three trials48,58,62 were not relevant as the purpose of these trials was to reduce antihypertensive medication while maintaining optimum blood pressure. Longer-term data from Achmon et al. 18 reported that biofeedback treatment continued to be superior to cognitive therapy at 6 months, but only for SBP.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct biofeedback | |||||||||
Blanchard 197954 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 10) | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | –8.1 (4 months) | –1.9 (4 months) | No significant differences post treatment |
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 9) | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | –9.5 | –2.8 | ||
Control (EMG) | Laboratory (n = 9) | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | +1.4 | +1.2 | ||
Friedman 197838 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 13) | 146.5 (range 130–175) (mean of median) | 95.8 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –4.3 (mean of median) | –4 (1 month) (mean of median) | –4 (1 month), –7.4 (6 months) (n = 12) (mean of median) | Post treatment showed hypnosis to be significantly better than other treatments for DBP and SBP (p < 0.05) |
Control (hypnosis) | Laboratory (n = 13) | 142.5 (range 120–195) (mean of median) | 93.1 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –8.2 (mean of median) | –10.1 (1 month), –13.3 (6 months) (mean of median) | –8.0 (1 month), –8.5 (6 months) (mean of median) | At follow-up hypnosis significantly better than biofeedback for DBP; SBP not reported | |
Goldstein 198241 | Treatment | Laboratory | 149.1 | 97.3 | –4.1 | –4.4 | Graph only (6 months) (n = 5) | Graph only (6 months) (n = 5) | Laboratory measures: no significant post-treatment differences for SBP; biofeedback significantly different to relaxation for DBP (p < 0.05) |
Home (n = 9) | 147.2 | 94.6 | –4.6 | –3.2 | |||||
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory | 149.8 | 97.1 | +2.5 | +3.5 | Graph only (6 months) (n = 4) | Graph only (6 months) (n = 4) | ||
Home (n = 8) | 143 | 92.4 | +4.2 | +0.9 | Home (am): post-treatment data showed no significant differences (pm data available) | ||||
Hager 197855 | Treatment | Home (self-measure) (n = 7) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | No significant differences between groups |
Control (meditation/relaxation) | Home (self-measure) (n = 10) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
Hatch 198539 | Treatment | Clinic | 134.5 (12.7) | 79.5 (8.5) | –8.9 | –7.2 | +0.1 (1 year) | +5.5 (1 year) | No significant differences among the three groups for clinic or home |
Home (n = 13) | 132.5 (11.5) | 85.7 (10.5) | –0.5 (1-month follow-up data) | –0.8 (1-month follow-up data) | +7.2 (1 year) (n = 3) | +2.3 (1 year) (n = 3) | |||
Control (relaxation) | Clinic | 147.6 (10.6) | 83.4 (5.8) | –17.7 | –5.8 | –18.3 (1 year) | –4.4 (1 year) | ||
Home (n = 13) | 140.5 (10) | 87.5 (8.5) | NR | NR | +3.8 (1 year) (n = 7) | –1.2 (1 year) (n = 7) | |||
Control (self-relaxation) | Clinic | 136 (10.8) | 87.2 (9.7) | –4.8 | –1.5 | –2.3 (1 year) | –7.2 (1 year) | ||
Home (n = 13) | 136 (13.5) | 87.5 (7.5) | NR | NR | –15 (1 year) (n = 3) | –6.5 (1 year) | |||
Luborsky 198260 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 14): | No significant differences between groups | ||||||
Standing | 138.3 | 93.2 | –6.5 | –5.5 | NR | NR | |||
Lying | 136.7 | 86.2 | –2.6 | –4.3 | |||||
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 14): | ||||||||
Standing | 142.1 | 98.8 | –6.3 | –5.4 | NR | NR | |||
Lying | 142.3 | 87.6 | –6.9 | –2.4 | |||||
Control (exercise) | Laboratory (n = 14): | ||||||||
Standing | 137.6 | 101.1 | –4.7 | –3.0 | NR | NR | |||
Lying | 136.7 | 88.9 | –0.4 | –1.4 | |||||
Indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Achmon 198918 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 27) | 155 (13.52) | 99.75 (7.14) | –26.55 | –15.44 | –19.7 (6 months) | –11.64 (6 months) |
At post treatment biofeedback was significantly better than cognitive therapy for SBP and DBP (p < 0.05) At 6 months biofeedback was significantly better than cognitive therapy for SBP only |
Control (cognitive therapy) | Laboratory (n = 30) | 153.98 (15.27) | 98.71 (9.23) | –17.05 | –11.40 | –11.48 | –8.71 | ||
Blanchard 198658,65–69 | Treatment | Clinic | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA (1 year) | NA (1 year) | Results.. ‘significantly favoured thermal biofeedback both in the short term and long term’ |
Home (n = 41) | See text | See text | See text | See text | See text | See text | |||
Control (relaxation) | Clinic | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA (1 year) | NA (1 year) | ||
Home (n = 37) | See text | See text | See text | See text | See text | See text | |||
Blanchard 198748 | Treatment (clinic based) | Office (n = 9): | Home-based treatment unsuccessful compared with clinic-based treatment | ||||||
Standing | 134 | 84 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Supine | 135 | 91 | See text | See text | See text | See text | |||
Control (home based) | Home (n = 9): | ||||||||
Standing | 124 | 78 | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Supine | 127 | 87 | See text | See text | See text | See text | |||
Blanchard 198836 (USA) | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 10) | 134.7 (11.2) | 94 (5.6) | –4.4 | –8.2 | –12.7 (6 months) (n = 5) | –10.2 (6 months) (n = 5) | No comparative analysis |
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 8) | 137.4 (6) | 95.7 (3.7) | +1.1 | –7.8 | NR | NR | ||
Control (autogenic training) | Laboratory (n = 11) | 138.4 (10.1) | 96 (3.4) | –4.8 | –2.8 | –3.8 (6 months) (n = 6) | –6.9 (6 months) | ||
Blanchard 198836 (USSR) | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 10) | 153.8 (8.6) | 100.2 (6.7) | –10.8 | –10.7 | –13.2 (6 months) (n = 9) | –12.3 (6 months) | No comparative analysis |
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 10) | 149.5 (8.8) | 96.7 (5.6) | –6.9 | –4.5 | NR | NR | ||
Control (autogenic training) | Laboratory (n = 10) | 154.3 (7.4) | 97 (5.1) | –14.7 | –7.3 | –17 (6 months) (n = 9) | –9.5 (6 months) | ||
Blanchard 199362 | Treatment | Clinic (n = 11) | 120.5 (12.5) | 79.7 (8.7) | NA, see text | NA, see text | NA, see text | NA, see text | No significant advantage of biofeedback over other treatment |
Control (EMG) | Clinic (n = 13) | 125.3 (11.7) | 81.2 (6.8) | NA, see text | NA, see text | NA, see text | NA, see text | ||
Walsh 197757 | Treatment | Laboratory: | Biofeedback and relaxation equally effective in reducing blood pressure (p < 0.05) | ||||||
Medicated (n = 5) | NR | NR | Graph only | –2.4 | NA | NA | |||
Not medicated (n = 6) | NR | NR | –4.83 | NA | NA | ||||
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory: | ||||||||
Medicated (n = 7) | NR | NR | Graph only | –1.71 | NA | NA | |||
Not medicated (n = 6) | NR | NR | +0.83 | NA | NA | ||||
Billion 198053a | Treatment | Laboratory (n = ns) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | Treatment protocols were equally efficacious |
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = ns) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | ||
Zurawski 198761 | Treatment | Laboratory (n = 11) | 137.89 (19.22) | 85.25 (17.10) | –1.62 | +4.11 | –11.08 (6 months) (n = 8) | –6.06 (6 months) (n = 8) |
At post treatment stress management training significantly better than biofeedback for DBP (p < 0.01); stress management training superiority for SBP approached significance At 6 months no significant difference between groups |
Control (stress management training) | Laboratory (n = 14) | 137.07 (16.22) | 87.14 (16.71) | –9.19 | –7.8 | –8.0 (6 months) (n = 14) | –7.8 (6 months) | ||
Type of biofeedback not stated | |||||||||
Thananopavarn 197956a | Treatment | Laboratory | 155 (6) | 96 (4) | –12.0 | –7 | NR | NR | NR |
Home (n = 5) | 159 (7) | 94 (3) | –13.0 | –6 | NR | NR | |||
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | ||
Home (n = 3) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Biofeedback combinations versus placebo (sham treatment)
One small and dated trial compared a biofeedback combination with placebo (sham biofeedback) treatment (Table 13). No differences were reported between treatment and control groups.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean(SD) | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure and indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Frankel 197821 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 7): | No differences between groups | ||||||
Supine | 148 (4.9) | 95 (1.9) | +3 | +1 | NA | NA | |||
Standing | 147 (6.0) | 102 (2.6) | +2 | –1 | |||||
Control (placebo) | Laboratory (n = 7): | ||||||||
Supine | 150 (7.6) | 95 (1.9) | –1 | –2 | NA | NA | |||
Standing | 150 (9.8) | 102 (1.9) | –1 | +1 |
Biofeedback combinations versus non-intervention control
The evidence for the effectiveness of biofeedback compared with a non-intervention control is equivocal (Table 14). Of the 13 trials (n ≥ 558), five19,40,44,46,59 reported a significant benefit for biofeedback treatment over control. The McCraty et al. 44 trial reported on SBP only. Five other trials21,22,38,49,51 reported no significant differences between groups. Two trials50,63 did not present comparisons between group outcomes. No data were reported for the Berglund52 trial although significant support for the effectiveness of the biofeedback combination was noted. Long-term efficacy was reported only by Patel and Marmot40 at 1 year for both SBP and DBP.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure biofeedback | |||||||||
Friedman 197838 | Treatment (+ hypnosis) | Laboratory (n = 10) | 139.8 (range 117–180) (mean of median) | 91.8 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –2.8 (mean of median) | NC | –2.5 (1 month), –4.0 (6 months) (n = 10) (mean of median) | No significant differences between groups at any time point |
Control (clinic monitor) | Laboratory (n = 12) | 139.9 (range 120–170) (mean of median) | 94.7 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –2.9 | –1 (1 month) | –2.8 (1 month), –2.9 (6 months) (n = 12) (mean of median) | ||
Blood pressure and indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Frankel 197821 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Clinic (n = 7): | Average blood pressure did not change significantly for any group | ||||||
Supine | 148 (4.9) | 95 (1.9) | +3 | +1 | NA | NA | |||
Standing | 147 (6.0) | 102 (2.6) | +2 | –1 | NA | NA | |||
Control (clinic monitor) | Clinic (n = 8): | ||||||||
Supine | 147 (4.6) | 94 (0.7) | +5 | –1 | NA | NA | |||
Standing | 154 (7.1) | 103 (1.4) | +3 | +2 | NA | NA | |||
Indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Berglund 19911a | Treatment (Menninger) | Laboratory (n = ns) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | Significant support for the effectiveness of the Menninger treatment |
Control (self-monitor) | Home (n = ns) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
Canino 199446 | Treatment (+ relaxation and anxiety management) | Laboratory (n = 8) | 147 | 96 | –13 | –12 |
–10 (6 months) (n = 7) |
–8 (6 months) (n = 7) |
Post-treatment differences between treatment and no intervention for SBP and DBP (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 respectively) |
Control (no treatment) | Laboratory (n = 9) | 145 | 97 | 0 | –0.1 | NA | NA | ||
Control (behavioural placebo treatment) | Laboratory (n = 4) | 156 | 97 | –7 | –1 | –6 (2.5 months) (n = 4) | –1 (2.5 months) (n = 4) | No follow-up data for controls | |
Chesney 198749 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Clinic | 137.6 | 94.4 | NR | NR | –5.5 (54 weeks) | –4.2 (54 weeks) | No difference between the behavioural groups (as a whole) and the monitoring group |
Worksite (n = 24) | 138.8 | 98.4 | NR | NR | –1.4 (54 weeks) (n = 24) | –5.2 (54 weeks) | |||
Treatment (+ relaxation and cognitive restructuring) | Clinic | 138.9 | 94.4 | NR | NR | –8.5 (54 weeks) | –1.7 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 25) | 143 | 98.1 | NR | NR | –10.5 (54 weeks) (n = 25) | –6.9 (54 weeks) | |||
Control (clinic monitor) | Clinic | 139.1 | 94.3 | NR | NR | –11.5 (54 weeks) | –6.1 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 40) | 136.9 | 95.1 | NR | NR | –2.4 (54 weeks) (n = 40) | –3.5 (54 weeks) | |||
Cohen 198350 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Clinic (n = 10) | 144 | 95 | –13 | –12 | Graph only | Graph only | Blood pressure not primary outcome. Unable to determine whether there are differences between groups on blood pressure measures |
Control (blood pressure monitor) | Home (n = 10) | 143 | 97 | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | Graph only | ||
Hafner 198222 | Treatment (+ relaxation and meditation) | Laboratory (n = 7) | 160 | 106.6 | –21.6 | –15.1 | –20.8 (3 months) (n = 7) | –14.7 (3 months) (n = 7) | No significant effects of biofeedback at post treatment or at follow-up |
Control (no treatment) | Laboratory (n = ?) | 159.1 | 98.3 | NS | NS | –8.6 (3 months) | –2 (3 months) | ||
Jurek 199251 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 20) | 132.2 (14.6) | 89.4 (5.7) | –1.3 | –3.9 | –1.5 (10 months) (n = 16) | –4 (10 months) (n = 16) | No differences between two groups |
Control (diuretic only) | Laboratory (n = 10) | 134.2 (8.3) | 92 (5.2) | +4.0 | –1.4 | NA | NA | ||
Khramelashvili 198659a | Treatment (+ relaxation) | NS (n = 30) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ‘Blood pressure decline significantly more marked in the treatment groups as compared to controls’ |
Control (no treatment) | NS (n = 20) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
McCraty 200344 | Treatment (+ IQM) | Worksite (n = 18) | 130.4 (11.1) | 82.9 (10.2) | NA | NA | –9 (3) (SEM); adjusted change –10.6 (2.1) (SEM) (3 months) | –5.5 (2.3) (SEM); adjusted change –6.3 (1.2) (SEM) (3 months) |
A significant reduction in SBP in the treatment group compared with control (p < 0.05) No significant difference in DBP |
Control (no treatment) | Worksite (n = 14) | 128.1 (8) | 84.1 (7.6) | NA | NA | –5.7 (3.1) (SEM); adjusted change –3.7 (2.4) (SEM) (3 months) | –4.9 (2.3) (SEM); adjusted change –3.9 (1.4) (SEM) (3 months) | ||
McGrady 198119 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 22) | 144.41 (19.83) | 90.59 (10.47) | –11.23 | –5.68 | NA | NA | Significant difference between biofeedback and control for SBP and DBP (p < 0.02 and p < 0.004 respectively) |
Control (clinic monitor) | Laboratory (n = 16) | 140.67 (19.36) | 90.94 (11.74) | –1.42 | –6.3 | NA | NA | ||
McGrady 199463 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 70) | 132.4 (12.6) | 85.8 (8.6) | –5.9 | –3.2 | –2.6 (10 months) (n = 36) | 0.7 (10 months) (n = 36) | No comparison between groups |
Control (no treatment) | Laboratory (n = 70) | 130.9 (11.2) | 85.6 (9.8) | –0.9 | +1 | NA | NA | ||
Patel 198840 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 49) | 144.9 (14.68) | 88.6 (7.50) | NA | NA | –4.9 (1 year) (n = 49) | –1.5 (1 year) (n = 49) |
Significant differences between biofeedback and control for SBP and DBP (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.015 respectively) After adjusting for blood pressure at entry there was a significant decrease in SBP, but not DBP |
Control (no treatment) | Laboratory (n = 54) | 135.7 (16.44) | 85.1 (9.67) | NA | NA | +7.1 (n = 54) | +2.6 (n = 54) |
Biofeedback combinations versus other behavioural treatments
Eight trials (n ≥ 408 approximately) compared biofeedback combinations with another behavioural treatment (Table 15). Of these, Patel and North45 reported a significant difference between biofeedback treatment and relaxation for both SBP and DBP. No data were reported for Khramelashvili et al. ,59 although the abstract stated that blood pressure decline was significantly more marked in the treatment groups than in the control groups. Five other trials22,38,42,43,49 found no significant effects of biofeedback treatment. One trial50 did not report comparative data. Results at 12 months from the Patel and North45 trial showed that biofeedback treatment combined with yoga continued to be more effective than relaxation.
Trial | Group | Setting/measure | Baseline SBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Baseline DBP (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP pre–post treatment (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in SBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Change in DBP at follow-up (mmHg), mean (SD) | Author conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood pressure biofeedback | |||||||||
Friedman 197838 | Treatment (+ hypnosis) | Laboratory (n = 10) | 139.8 (range 117–180) (mean of median) | 91.8 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –2.8 (mean of median) | –2.5 (1 month) (mean of median) | –3.3 (1 month), –4.0 (6 months) (n = 10) (mean of median) | No significant effects of biofeedback treatment |
Control (hypnosis) | Laboratory (n = 13) | 142.5 (range 120–195) (mean of median) | 93.1 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –8.2 (mean of median) | –10.1 (1month) (mean of median) | –8.0 (1 month), –8.5 (6 months) (mean of median) | ||
Control (biofeedback alone) | Laboratory (n = 13) | 146.5 (range 130–175) (mean of median) | 95.8 (range 85–105) (mean of median) | NC | –4.3 (mean of median) | –7.0 (1 month) (mean of median) | –4.0 (1 month), –7.4 (6 months) (mean of median) | ||
Indirect biofeedback | |||||||||
Chesney 198749 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Clinic | 137.6 | 94.4 | NA | NA | –5.5 (54 weeks) | –4.2 (54 weeks) | Blood pressure does not appear to show any differences |
Worksite (n = 24) | 138.8 | 98.4 | –1.4 (54 weeks) | –5.2 (54 weeks) | |||||
Treatment (+ relaxation and cognitive restructuring) | Clinic | 138.9 | 94.2 | NA | NA | –8.5 (54 weeks) | –1.7 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 25) | 143.0 | 98.1 | –10.5 (54 weeks) | –6.9 (54 weeks) | |||||
Control (relaxation) | Clinic | 139.2 | 95.3 | NA | NA | –9.8 (54 weeks) | –6.9 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 24) | 141.3 | 95.6 | –4.1 (54 weeks) | –0.3 (54 weeks) | |||||
Control (relaxation + cognitive restructuring) | Clinic | 136.8 | 95.6 | NA | NA | –12.2 (54 weeks) | –6.9 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 24) | 139.2 | 98 | –8.2 (54 weeks) | –4.8 (54 weeks) | |||||
Control (health behaviour) | Clinic | 136.1 | 94.7 | NA | NA | –7.5 (54 weeks) | –6.8 (54 weeks) | ||
Worksite (n = 24) | 138.4 | 96.1 | –5.9 (54 weeks) | –4.9 (54 weeks) | |||||
Cohen 198350 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Clinic (n = 10) | 144 | 95 | –13 | –12 | Graph only | Graph only | Blood pressure not primary outcome. Unable to determine differences between groups on blood pressure measures |
Control (relaxation) | Clinic (n = 10) | 143 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Hafner 198222 | Treatment (+ relaxation and meditation) | Laboratory (n = 7) | 160 | 106.6 | –21.6 | –15.1 | –20.8 (3 months) (n = 7) | –14.7 (3 months) (n = 7) | No significant effects at either post treatment or follow-up |
Control (meditation) | Laboratory (n = unclear) | 145.5 | 102.5 | NR (graph only) | NR (graph only) | –8.6 (3 months) | –2 (3 months) | ||
Khramelashvili 198659a | Treatment (+ relaxation) | NS (n = 30) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ‘Blood pressure decline significantly more marked in the treatment groups as compared to controls’ |
Control (no treatment) | NS (n = 20) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
Patel 197545 | Treatment (+ yoga) | Laboratory (n = 17) | 167 (23.6) | 99.6 (9.3) | NA | NA | –26.1 (16.5) (range 7–60) (3 months) | –15.2 (8.1) (range 1–30) (3 months) | Significant differences in the biofeedback group for SBP and DBP (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001 respectively) |
Control (relaxation) | Laboratory (n = 17) | 168.9 (20) | 100.6 (11.4) | NA | NA | –8.9 (14.5) (range –11 to 32) (3 months) | –4.2 (5.9) (range –10 to 13) (3 months) | ||
Irvine 199142 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Worksite (n = 50) | 137.3 (8.4) | 94.1 (2.8) | –5.6 (6.5); 3.7–7.5 (CI) | –5.1 (4.9); 3.7–6.5 (CI) | –7. (6.6); 5.5–9.3 (CI) (6 months) (n = 47) | –6.5 (3.8); 5.4–7.6 (CI) (6 months) (n = 47) | No significant differences between groups at post treatment or at follow-up |
Control (NSST) | Worksite (n = 51) | 136.4 (7.4) | 93.6 (3) | –5.8 (7.1); 3.8–7.8 (CI) | –4.2 (4.8); 2.8–5.6 (CI) | –5.3 (7.6); 3.1–7.5 (CI) (6 months) (n = 51) | –4.9 (4.8); 3.5–6.3 (CI) (6 months) (n = 51) | ||
Jacob 199243 | Treatment (+ relaxation) | Therapist | 133.1 | 89.7 | –2.2 (2.0 SE) | –3.1 (1.4 SE) | NA | NA | No significant differences between groups on any measure |
Clinic (sup) | 141.7 | 88.1 | +2.2 (3.1 SE) | +5.1 (1.8 SE) | |||||
Clinic (st) | 132.0 | 85.2 | +1.2 (3.6 SE) | +3.8 (2.9 SE) | |||||
ABPM (n = 10) | 122.2 | 84.7 | +3.8 (3.8 SE) | +4.9 (2.4 SE) | |||||
Control (stress education) | Therapist | 125.9 | 89.0 | –4.6 (2.1 SE) | –3.2 (1.5 SE) | NA | NA | ||
Clinic (sup) | 130.6 | 83.1 | –0.3 (3.3 SE) | +0.6 (1.9 SE) | |||||
Clinic (st) | 126.0 | 84.7 | –2.7 (3.8 SE) | –1.4 (3.0 SE) | |||||
ABPM (n = 9) | 119.2 | 80.7 | –3.7 (4.3 SE) | –3.1 (2.7 SE) |
Summary of results
Table 16 summarises the foregoing results.
Trial type | Number of RCTs | Dates | Combined sample size | Direct/indirect biofeedback | Summary of results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biofeedback alone vs antihypertensive medication | 3 | 1979–82 | 51 | 2 direct1 indirect | 1 trial56 favoured biofeedback2 trials41,60 favoured medication |
Biofeedback alone vs placebo | 3 | 1980–2007 | 123 (estimate) | 2 direct1 indirect | 1 trial35 favoured biofeedback2 trials47,53 found no difference |
Biofeedback alone vs no intervention | 8 | 1977–2005 | 235 (estimate) | 4 direct3 indirect1 ns | 3 trials15,18,64 favoured biofeedback1 trial41 favoured biofeedback only for DBP4 trials16,38,39,62 found no difference |
Biofeedback alone vs other behavioural treatments | 16 | 1977–93 | 465 (estimate) | 6 direct9 indirect1 ns | 3 trials18,41,58 favoured biofeedback7 trials39,53–55,57,60,62 found no difference2 trials38,61 found other interventions superior4 trials36,53,56 did not report comparative data |
Biofeedback combination vs placebo | 1 | 1978 | 22 | 1 direct | 1 trial21 found no difference |
Biofeedback combination vs no treatment | 13 | 1978–2003 | 558 (estimate) | 1 direct1 direct and indirect11 indirect | 5 trials19,40,44,46,59 favoured biofeedback5 trials21,22,38,49,51 reported no difference2 trials50,63 did not compare groups1 trial52 did not report data |
Biofeedback combination vs other behavioural treatments | 8 | 1978–2003 | 378 (estimate) | 1 direct7 indirect | 2 trials45,59 favoured biofeedback5 trials22,38,42,43,49 reported no difference1 trial50 did not report comparative data |
Summary of data beyond 6 months
Of the 15 trials reporting outcomes beyond 6 months, only eight had any usable data. These trials are summarised in Table 17.
Trial | Biofeedback type | Comparator | Outcome at follow-up |
---|---|---|---|
Achmon 198918 | Alone | Cognitive behavioural therapy | Biofeedback superior to cognitive behavioural therapy for SBP only |
Friedman 197838 | Alone | BPM | No significant differences |
Friedman 197838 | Alone | Hypnosis | Hypnosis significantly better |
Friedman 197838 | Combined | Hypnosis | No significant effects of intervention |
Friedman 197838 | Combined | Combined | No significant effects of intervention |
Hatch 198539 | Alone | Relaxation | No significant differences |
Zurawski 198761 | Alone | Stress management training | No significant differences |
Chesney 198749 | Combined | Range of therapies | No significant differences |
Chesney 198749 | Combined | BPM | No significant differences between behavioural group as a whole and control |
Irvine 199142 | Combined | Non-specific support treatment | No significant differences |
Jurek 199251 | Combined | No treatment | No significant differences |
Patel 198840 | Combined | No treatment | After adjusting for blood pressure at entry there was a significantly greater lowering of SBP than DBP |
Chapter 4 Discussion
The objective of this report was to assess the evidence for the long-term effectiveness of biofeedback procedures in treating adults with essential hypertension. Other objectives were to model the cost-effectiveness of the use of biofeedback for the treatment of essential hypertension, summarise information on currently used biofeedback equipment and identify any leading technologies that could be used in a future clinical trial.
The review included 36 small RCTs of ≥ 1660 patients. These included two treatment designs, those that exclusively employed biofeedback and those that used biofeedback with an adjunctive therapy. A number of biofeedback modalities were used and the number of training sessions varied across trials. Patients were described as mildly hypertensive, borderline hypertensive or just hypertensive. There were trials that included patients taking antihypertensive drugs, others with patients not taking antihypertensive drugs and others with a mixture of patients taking these medications. Thus, a range of interventions, biofeedback protocols and outcome measures were reported. This heterogeneity, combined with the poor quality of reporting, indicated that statistical analysis of the results would be inappropriate. No trials reporting long-term (> 12 months) outcomes were identified for inclusion in the review. Of the 15 trials reporting outcomes beyond 6 months, only eight had any usable data.
We assessed the level of evidence in relation to the effectiveness of biofeedback compared with antihypertensive drug therapy, placebo, no intervention and other behavioural therapies using trial author conclusions. Trial results were variable and conflicting and the small numbers involved makes generalisation of results questionable. No short- or long-term benefits of biofeedback in relation to moderation of hypertension were demonstrated. The measurement of blood pressure is not an exact science, with variations noted in relation to the person taking the reading and the equipment. 72 When benefits were shown they were within the standard error of reproducibility of blood pressure measurement and may therefore have arisen by chance. This lack of demonstrated benefit precluded a need to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.
Although we were unable to identify any particular treatment as promising this report does provide a partial list of currently available biofeedback equipment.
Our findings differ somewhat to those of the two previous reviews,11,25 which reported more positive findings. We have discussed the problems inherent in the meta-analysis from these two reviews and that they should therefore be considered with extreme caution. Treatment interventions differed across studies, as did the comparators and the time of measurement of outcomes. Both authors reported a need to estimate standard deviations and standard errors from data presented in the included trials to allow meta-analysis to be conducted. One of the authors later reported the problems inherent in the meta-analysis process that was used. 32
The meta-analysis of Nakao et al. 11 reported biofeedback to be more effective than non-intervention controls, but only superior to sham or non-specific behavioural interventions when combined with relaxation. The second review25 excluded from quantitative analysis trials that reported no measure of variability. This review also reported that both biofeedback and active treatments could produce small reductions in blood pressure, but that only biofeedback combined with adjunctive therapy was superior to no intervention. Of interest is that even though these meta-analyses reported statistical significance in a few instances they do not consistently achieve the clinically significant levels of 5–6 mmHg that has been shown to reduce the incidence of CVD events (e.g. acute myocardial infarction and stroke). 27
A factor brought out in the review by Nakao et al. 11 and also mentioned by one of our advisory panel is the impact of pretreatment blood pressures of the patients involved in biofeedback trials. Patients entering a trial with pretreatment grade 2 or grade 3 hypertension (> 150 mm Hg) were shown in the Nakao et al. 11 review to have demonstrated greater overall decreases in systolic blood pressure. However, the number of patients in these trials is small (approximately 130) and mean blood pressure readings for all trial participants were used in the analysis. Therefore, it is difficult to differentiate the actual effect in this subgroup of patients.
It is likely that many of the trials included in the review reported here were insufficiently powered to detect differences between treatment groups. Overall, the trial sizes were small and only four of the 36 trials included provided a sample size calculation. Although combining data from several small trials would increase our ability to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, as stated earlier, given the lack of trial quality and the variation in interventions and outcome reporting, we were unable to justify carrying out such an analysis. These difficulties have also been noted by other reviewers. 32 We did not go beyond the data presented in the published papers and relied upon authors’ conclusions related to the effectiveness of the biofeedback interventions. In some cases, when statistical comparisons between groups were not presented in the published report, no results were reported for these trials.
Other issues emerged during the compilation of this review, many of which have been reported previously. To demonstrate effectiveness there is a need for trials of longer duration. 29,73 Such trials would need to address the issue of the white coat effect by including blood pressure measures taken outside of the laboratory/clinic environment. There is also a need to provide a more rounded picture of blood pressure readings in different circumstances. This might be achieved through the use of ABPM or patient self-monitoring at home. 29 It has also been suggested that end points beyond blood pressure changes should be assessed, and these might include effects of treatment on end-organ damage. In addition, changes in technology could be integrated in any future research. For example, advice from the AAPB (Robert Crago, 2007, personal communication) indicates that ‘…heart rate variability training – the heart math product – is currently being investigated…’.
Chapter 5 Research recommendations
Of major concern is the poor quality of existing trials. Any proposed future trials need to address the major design weaknesses highlighted in this and previous reviews. That is, they need to be suitably powered to detect meaningful (clinically significant not just statistically significant) differences between treatment groups, randomise patients to groups using robust techniques, employ credible placebo treatments and ensure that adequate blinding procedures are in place. Patient attrition must be adequately reported and dealt with in any final analyses. In addition, researchers need to adequately report the details of the intervention and ensure that participants are appropriately trained in the biofeedback technique. Issues of patient subgroups also need to be addressed, for example patients at the upper end of the hypertension scale, older patients and patients from varied ethnic backgrounds.
Although researchers in the area will be disappointed in the results of this review, the poor quality of the currently available research, the diversity of interventions and the inconsistent and incomplete reporting of study outcomes mean that there is currently no evidence that demonstrates the clinical effectiveness of the use of biofeedback in the treatment of hypertension. Given the current standards for the treatment of hypertension, further research is likely to be considered only as an adjunct to pharmacological interventions.
Chapter 6 Conclusion
There is currently no evidence that consistently demonstrates the effectiveness of the use of any particular biofeedback treatment in the control of essential hypertension when compared with pharmacotherapy, placebo (sham biofeedback treatment), no intervention or other behavioural therapies. The lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness negated the need to conduct an economic analysis. Further research might be considered into the potential role of biofeedback as an adjunct to drug therapy.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this monograph was commissioned and funded by the NIHR HTA programme as project number 07/04/01. The protocol was agreed in July 2007.
The authors would like to thank the clinical experts who provided information and commented on drafts of this report: Professor Carolyn Yucha, Dr Wolfgang Linden and Professor Edzard Ernst. The opinions presented in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the clinical experts, the HTA programme or the Department of Health.
We are also pleased to acknowledge Naveen Rao’s assistance with the data extraction for this report.
Contributions of authors (alphabetically)
Ms Rumona Dickson was involved in project management and provided input into all aspects of the review. Dr Yenal Dundar developed the search strategies and participated in study quality assessment and data extraction and checking. Dr Janette Greenhalgh was the principal review co-ordinator. All contributors took part in the editing and production of this report.
About the assessment group
The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) was established within the University of Liverpool in April 2001. It is a multidisciplinary research group whose purpose, in the first instance, is to conduct systematic reviews commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Disclaimers
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.
References
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Hypertension: Management of Hypertension in Adults in Primary Care 2006. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG34/quickrefguide/pdf/English (accessed February 2007).
- Joint Health Surveys Unit . Health Survey for England 2003 2003.
- Izzo J, Black H. Hypertension primer. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2003.
- Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, Davis M, McInnes GT, Potter JF, et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the fourth working party of the British Hypertension Society. J Hum Hypertens 2004;18:139-85.
- Department of Health . Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation 1999.
- Standing P, Deakin, H, Norman, P, Standing R. Hypertension – its detection, prevalence, control and treatment in a quality driven British general practice. Br J Cardiol 2005;12:471-6.
- World Health Organization International Society of Hypertension Writing Group . 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J Hypertens 2003;21:1983-92.
- Vassan S, Beiser A, Seshadri S, Larson M, Kannel W, D’Agostino R, et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. J Am Med Assoc 2002;287:1003-10.
- The Information Centre . GPs Delivering Better Services to Patients, Statistics Show 2006. www.ic.nhs.uk/news-and-events/press-office/press-releases/archived-press-releases/april-2006--march2007/gps-delivering-better-services-for-patients-statistics-show (accessed March 2007).
- Primatesta P, Poulter NR. Improvement in hypertension management in England: results from the Health Survey for England 2003. J Hypertens 2006;24:1187-92.
- Nakao M, Yano E, Nomura S, Kuboki T. Blood pressure-lowering effects of biofeedback treatment in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertens Res Clin Exp 2003;26:37-46.
- Norris P. Biofeedback, voluntary control and human potential. Biofeedback Self Regul 1986;11:1-20.
- DiCara L, Miller N. Instrumental learning of systolic blood pressure responses by curarized rats: dissociation of cardiac and vascular changes. Psychosom Med 1968;30:489-94.
- Shapiro D, Tursky B, Gershon, Stern M. Effects of feedback and reinforcement on the control of human systolic blood pressure. Science 1969;163:588-9.
- Nakao M, Nomura S, Shimosawa T, Yoshiuchi K, Kumano H, Kuboki T, et al. Clinical effects of blood pressure biofeedback treatment on hypertension by auto-shaping. Psychosom Med 1997;59:331-8.
- Blanchard EB, Eisele G, Vollmer A, Payne A, Gordon M, Cornish P, et al. Controlled evaluation of thermal biofeedback in treatment of elevated blood pressure in unmedicated mild hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1996;21:167-90.
- Paran E, Amir M, Yaniv N. Evaluating the response of mild hypertensives to biofeedback-assisted relaxation using a mental stress test. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1996;27:157-67.
- Achmon J, Granek M, Golomb M, Hart J. Behavioral treatment of essential hypertension: a comparison between cognitive therapy and biofeedback of heart rate. Psychosom Med 1989;51:152-64.
- McGrady AV, Yonker R, Tan SY, Fine TH, Woerner M. The effect of biofeedback-assisted relaxation training on blood pressure and selected biochemical parameters in patients with essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1981;6:343-53.
- Schwartz MS, Andrasik F. Biofeedback: a practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2003.
- Frankel BL, Patel DJ, Horwitz D, Friedewald WT, Gaarder KR. Treatment of hypertension with biofeedback and relaxation techniques. Psychosom Med 1978;40:276-93.
- Hafner RJ. Psychological treatment of essential hypertension: a controlled comparison of meditation and meditation plus biofeedback. Biofeedback Self Regul 1982;7:305-16.
- Patel CH. Yoga and bio-feedback in the management of hypertension. Lancet 1973;2:1053-5.
- Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback n.d. www.aapb.org/.
- Yucha CB, Clark L, Smith M, Uris P, LaFleur B, Duval S. The effect of biofeedback in hypertension. Appl Nurs Res 2001;14:29-35.
- Linden W. Psychologic treatment for hypertension can be efficacious. Prev Cardiol 2003;6:48-53.
- Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42:1206-52.
- Jacob RG, Chesney MA, Williams DM, Ding Y, Shapiro AP. Relaxation therapy for hypertension: design effects and treatment effects. Ann Behav Med 1991;13:5-17.
- Linden W, Moseley JV. The efficacy of behavioral treatments for hypertension. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2006;31:51-63.
- Linden W, Satin JR. Avoidable pitfalls in behavioral medicine outcome research. Ann Behav Med 2007;33:143-7.
- The University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research . Critical Appraisal of Secondary Research 2006.
- Yucha CB. Problems inherent in assessing biofeedback efficacy studies. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2002;27:99-106.
- Moher D, Chalmers T, Dook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Drummond R, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
- Khan K, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowdon A, Kleijnen J. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD’s Guidance for Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews 2001.
- Tsai P-S, Chang N-C, Chang W-Y, Lee P-H, Wang M-Y. Blood pressure biofeedback exerts intermediate-term effects on blood pressure and pressure reactivity in individuals with mild hypertension: a randomized controlled study. J Altern Complement Med 2007;13:547-54.
- Blanchard E, Khramelashvili V, McCoy G. The USA–USSR collaborative cross-cultural comparison of autogenic training and thermal biofeedback in the treatment of mild hypertension. Health Psychol 1988:175-92.
- Friedman H, Taub HA. The use of hypnosis and biofeedback procedures for essential hypertension. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1977;25:335-47.
- Friedman H, Taub HA. 6-month follow-up of use of hypnosis and biofeedback procedures in essential hypertension. Am J Clin Hypn 1978;20:184-8.
- Hatch JP, Klatt KD, Supik JD, Rios N, Fisher JG, Bauer RL, et al. Combined behavioral and pharmacological treatment of essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1985;10:119-38.
- Patel C, Marmot M. Can general practitioners use training in relaxation and management of stress to reduce mild hypertension?. BMJ 1988;296:21-4.
- Goldstein I, Shapiro D, Thananopavarn C, Sambhi M. Comparison of drug and behavioral treatments of essential hypertension. Health Psychol 1982;1:7-26.
- Irvine MJ, Logan AG. Relaxation behavior-therapy as sole treatment for mild hypertension. Psychosom Med 1991;53:587-97.
- Jacob RG, Shapiro AP, Ohara P, Portser S, Kruger A, Gatsonis C, et al. Relaxation therapy for hypertension – setting-specific effects. Psychosom Med 1992;54:87-101.
- McCraty R, Atkinson M, Tomasino D. Impact of a workplace stress reduction program on blood pressure and emotional health in hypertensive employees. J Altern Complement Med 2003;9:355-69.
- Patel C, North WR. Randomised controlled trial of yoga and bio-feedback in management of hypertension. Lancet 1975;2:93-5.
- Canino E, Cardona R, Monsalve P, Perez Acuna F, Lopez B, Fragachan F. A behavioral treatment program as a therapy in the control of primary hypertension. Acta Cient Venez 1994;45:23-30.
- Hunyor SN, Henderson RJ, Lal SKL, Carter NL, Kobler H, Jones M, et al. Placebo-controlled biofeedback blood pressure effect in hypertensive humans. Hypertension 1997;29:1225-31.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, McCaffrey RJ, Berger M, Musso AJ, Wittrock DA, et al. Evaluation of a minimal-therapist-contact thermal biofeedback treatment program for essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1987;12:93-103.
- Chesney MA, Black GW, Swan GE, Ward MM. Relaxation training for essential hypertension at the worksite. I. The untreated mild hypertensive. Psychosom Med 1987;49:250-63.
- Cohen J, Sedlacek K. Attention and autonomic self-regulation. Psychosom Med 1983;45:243-57.
- Jurek IE, Higgins JT, McGrady A. Interaction of biofeedback-assisted relaxation and diuretic in treatment of essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1992;17:125-41.
- Berglund M. Effects of Cognitive and Biobehavioral Interventions on Hypertension Levels in Police Officers 1991.
- Billion L. The Effect of EMG Biofeedback, Relaxation, and Sham EEG Alpha Training on Blood Pressure of Essential Hypertensives 1980.
- Blanchard EB, Miller ST, Abel GG, Haynes MR, Wicker R. Evaluation of biofeedback in the treatment of borderline essential hypertension. J Appl Behav Anal 1979;12:99-109.
- Hager JL, Surwit RS. Hypertension self-control with a portable feedback unit or meditation-relaxation. Biofeedback Self Regul 1978;3:269-76.
- Thananopavarn C, Shapiro D, Eggena P, Goldstein IB, Sambhi MP. Trial of biofeedback and relaxation in the treatment of mild essential hypertension. Clin Res 1979;27.
- Walsh P, Dale A, Anderson DE. Comparison of biofeedback pulse wave velocity and progressive relaxation on essential hypertensives. Percept Mot Skills 1977;44:839-43.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, Musso A, Gerardi MA, Pallmeyer TP, Gerardi RJ, et al. A controlled comparison of thermal biofeedback and relaxation training in the treatment of essential hypertension. I. Short-term and long-term outcome. Behav Ther 1986;17:563-79.
- Khramelashvili VV, Aivazian TA, Salenko BB. Psychological non-drug treatment of hypertension and the criteria of its effectiveness. Kardiologiia 1986;26:66-9.
- Luborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Brady JP, Kron RE, Weiss T, Cohen M, et al. Behavioral versus pharmacological treatments for essential hypertension – a needed comparison. Psychosom Med 1982;44:203-13.
- Zurawski RM, Smith TW, Houston BK. Stress management for essential hypertension: comparison with a minimally effective treatment, predictors of response to treatment, and effects on reactivity. J Psychosom Res 1987;31:453-62.
- Blanchard EB, Eisele G, Gordon MA, Cornish PJ, Wittrock DA, Gilmore L, et al. Thermal biofeedback as an effective substitute for sympatholytic medication in moderate hypertension: a failure to replicate. Biofeedback Self Regul 1993;18:237-53.
- McGrady A. Effects of group relaxation training and thermal biofeedback on blood pressure and related physiological and psychological variables in essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1994;19:51-66.
- Bonso E, Palomba D, Perkovic D, Palatini P. Effect of a biofeedback system using an auto-shaping method on blood pressure at rest and during stress in mild hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2005;18.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, Andrasik F, Acerra M, Pallmeyer TP, Gerardi R, et al. Preliminary results from a controlled evaluation of thermal biofeedback as a treatment for essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1984;9:471-95.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, Wittrock D, Musso A, Gerardi RJ, Pangburn L. A controlled comparison of thermal biofeedback and relaxation training in the treatment of essential hypertension. II. Effects on cardiovascular reactivity. Health Psychol 1988;7:19-33.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, Berger M, Musso A, Pallmeyer TP, Gerardi R, et al. A controlled comparison of thermal biofeedback and relaxation training in the treatment of essential hypertension. IV. Prediction of short-term clinical outcome. Behav Ther 1989;20:405-15.
- Blanchard EB, McCaffrey RJ, Musso A, Gerardi MA, McCoy GC. A controlled comparison of thermal biofeedback and relaxation training in the treatment of essential hypertension. III. Psychological changes accompanying treatment. Biofeedback Self Regul 1987;12:227-40.
- McCoy GC, Blanchard EB, Wittrock DA, Morrison S, Pangburn L, Siracusa K, et al. Biochemical changes associated with thermal biofeedback treatment of hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1988;13:139-50.
- Blanchard EB, McCoy GC, McCaffrey RJ, Wittrock DA, Musso A, Berger M, et al. The effects of thermal biofeedback and autogenic training of cardiovascular reactivity: the joint USSR–USA Behavioral Hypertension Treatment Project. Biofeedback Self Regul 1988;13:25-38.
- Patel C, Marmot MG, Terry DJ. Controlled trial of biofeedback-aided behavioural methods in reducing mild hypertension. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1981;282:2005-8.
- Obrien E, Beevers G, Lip G. ABC of hypertension blood pressure measurement. IV. Automated sphygmomanometry: self blood pressure measurement. BMJ 2001;322:1167-70.
- Boulware LE, Daumit GL, Frick KD, Minkovitz CS, Lawrence RS, Powe NR. Quality of clinical reports on behavioral interventions for hypertension. Prev Med 2002;34:463-75.
- Hayes Inc . Biofeedback for the Treatment of Hypertension 2006.
- Yucha CB, Tsai PS, Calderon KS, Tian L. Biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for essential hypertension: who is most likely to benefit?. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005;20:198-205.
- Turskey B, Shapiro D, Schwartz GE. Automated constant cuff pressure system to measure average systolic and diastolic blood pressure in man. IEEE 1972;19:271-75.
Appendix 1 Search strategy
Database | Years | Search strategy | References identified |
---|---|---|---|
MEDLINE | 1950 to May 2007 (week 2) | See below | 570 |
EMBASE | 1980 to 2007 (week 20) | See below | 346 |
ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science | 1945 to 2007 | Biofeedbacka and hypertensiona | 105 |
ISI Web of Knowledge/ISI Proceedings | 1990 to 2007 | As above | 16 |
Cochrane Library 2007 (2)a | 2007 (2) | As above | 57 (CENTRAL: 54, other reviews: 2, HTA: 1) |
CINAHL | 1982 to May 2007 (week 3) | See below | 86 |
AMED | 1985 to May 2007 | See below | 96 |
PsycINFO | 1967 to October 2007 | See below | 553 |
Total references identified | 1829 | ||
Duplicates | 902 | ||
Total | 927 |
Search strategy: MEDLINE (Ovid)
-
hypertens$.tw.
-
(blood adj pressure).tw.
-
exp Hypertension/
-
exp “Biofeedback (Psychology)”/
-
(bio-feedback$or biofeedback$).tw.
-
*”Mind-Body and Relaxation Techniques”/
-
*Cognitive Therapy/or *Behavior Therapy/
-
((relax$or cognitive) adj3 (therap$or technique$)).tw.
-
or/1–3
-
or/4–8
-
9 and 10
-
animals/
-
humans/
-
12 not 13
-
11 not 14
Search strategy: EMBASE (Ovid)
-
hypertens$.tw.
-
(blood adj pressure).tw.
-
exp Hypertension/
-
(bio-feedback$or biofeedback$).tw.
-
((relax$or cognitive) adj3 (therap$or technique$)).tw.
-
*Feedback System/
-
or/1–3
-
or/4–6
-
7 and 8
-
limit 9 to human
Search strategy: AMED (Ovid)
-
hypertens$.tw.
-
(blood adj pressure).tw.
-
exp hypertension/
-
exp Biofeedback/or Relaxation/or Cognitive therapy/
-
(bio-feedback$or biofeedback$).tw.
-
((relax$or cognitive) adj3 (therap$or technique$)).tw.
-
or/1–3
-
or/4–6
-
7 and 8
Search strategy: CINAHL (Ovid)
-
hypertens$.tw
-
(blood adj pressure).tw.
-
exp hypertension/
-
exp “BIOFEEDBACK (IOWA NIC)”/or exp BIOFEEDBACK/
-
(bio-feedback$or biofeedback$).tw.
-
*”SIMPLE RELAXATION THERAPY (IOWA NIC)”/or *RELAXATION TECHNIQUES/
-
((relax$or cognitive) adj3 (therap$or technique$)).tw.
-
or/1–3
-
or/4–7
-
8 and 9
Search strategy: PsycINFO 1967 to October 2007
-
hypertens$.tw.
-
(blood adj pressure).tw.
-
exp HYPERTENSION/
-
exp BIOFEEDBACK/
-
(bio-feedback$or biofeedback$).tw.
-
(Mind-Body and Relaxation Techniques).mp. [mp=title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key concepts]
-
*relaxation therapy/
-
*Cognitive Therapy/
-
((relax$or cognitive) adj3 (therap$or technique$)).tw.
-
or/1–3
-
or/4–8
-
and/10–11
-
limit 12 to human
Appendix 2 Biofeedback equipment
Table 18 presents the responses from various organisations regarding biofeedback equipment. The BHS and the ASH were unable to recommend any equipment. We had no response from the BFE or the EHS. The AAPB provides a spreadsheet that lists equipment and suppliers and a separate web page that presents advice on selecting and purchasing biofeedback equipment. One of our clinical advisers (CY) recommended that we just list websites of sellers or biofeedback equipment to ‘...allow the reader to explore and come to their own conclusions, or refer the reader to the AAPB website for their spreadsheet, which I assume is objective.’
Organisation | Recommendation |
---|---|
British Hypertension Society | Unable to recommend any biofeedback equipment; however, there is a list of recommended blood pressure monitors for home use |
National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine | Unable to recommend any equipment but suggested looking at trials that they had funded and contacting authors |
American Hypertension Society | Unable to recommend any equipment |
American Association for Applied Physiology and Biofeedback | The AAPB website has a PDF spreadsheet providing a survey of instrumentation and a guide to buying equipment as well as details of US Food and Drugs Administration certification requirements: www.aapb.org/, www.aapb.org/, www.aapb.org/ |
Biomedical Central (a supplier) | Our most popular instrument is the ProComp 8 with Infiniti software, which interfaces with your personal computer. This is an eight-channel system that can be tailored to your practice. Most impressive is the ability to create your own personal design screens with the latest developer tools |
Biofeedback Foundation of Europe | No response |
European Society for Hypertension | No response |
A recent Hayes review74 included a section on equipment and lists the following as popular devices |
Autogenic Systems: Autogen AT 42 Portable Single Channel Temperature Instrument, Autogen AT 53 Portable Dual Channel EMG, Autogen AT 62 Portable Single Alpha-Theta EEG, Autogen AT 64 Portable Single Channel SCR Instrument Biofeedback Instrument Company: ProComp Infiniti+ System Therapeutic Alliances Inc: NeuroEDUCATOR®3 EMG Biofeedback System NeuroDyne Medical Corp: MEDAC System/3R |
www.meditations-uk.com/products/wilddivine.html | The Wild Divine computer game |
Table 19 shows the equipment described in some of the biofeedback trials included in this review. They are grouped by modality type. It should be noted that some trials are very old and the instruments are likely to have been updated or superseded. The three most recent trials are those by Tsai et al. ,35 McCraty et al. 44 and Yucha et al. 75
Trial | Biofeedback modality | Biofeedback equipment used |
---|---|---|
Friedman H, Taub HA. 6-month follow-up of use of hypnosis and biofeedback procedures in essential hypertension. Am J Clin Hypn 1978;20:184–8; also used data from Friedman and Taub 197737 | BP | London Pressureometer, model 1905 |
Tsai P-S, Chang N-C, Chang W-Y, Lee P-H, Wang M-Y. Blood pressure biofeedback exerts intermediate-term effects on blood pressure and pressure reactivity in individuals with mild hypertension: a randomized controlled study. J Altern Complement Med 2007;13:547–54 | BP | Finger arterial blood pressure device (Finometer TNO Biomedical Instrumentation, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) |
Hager JL, Surwit RS. Hypertension self-control with a portable feedback unit or meditation-relaxation. Biofeedback Self Regul 1978;3:269–76 | BP | SBP BF device: cuff plus counter; Parke-Davis BPI: home. |
Frankel BL, Patel DJ, Horwitz D, Friedewald WT, Gaarder KR. Treatment of hypertension with biofeedback and relaxation techniques. Psychosom Med 1978;40:276–93 | DBP and EMG |
Laboratory: automated feedback system developed by Turskey et al. 76 (Lexington Instrument Co.), EMG feedback system BIFS Model B-1 (Biofeedback Systems, Boulder, CO) Home: NIH-built EMG feedback unit |
McGrady AV, Yonker R. The effect of biofeedback-assisted relaxation training on blood pressure and selected biochemical parameters in patients with essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1981;6:343–53 | EMG | Autogen 1700 EMG (data accessed) |
Zurawski RM, Smith TW, Houston BK. Stress management for essential hypertension: comparison with a minimally effective treatment, predictors of response to treatment, and effects on reactivity. J Psychosom Res 1987;31:453–62 | GSR | Lafayette Instruments model GSR J140. Feedback delivered over headphones via tone |
Patel C, Marmot M. Can general practitioners use training in relaxation and management of stress to reduce mild hypertension? Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1988;296:21–4 | GSR | Multichannel galvanic skin resistance biofeedback instrument |
Patel C, North WR . Randomised controlled trial of yoga and bio-feedback in management of hypertension. Lancet 1975;2:93–5 | GSR EMG | Relaxometer (Aleph One, Cambridge), GS2 90 (Biofeedback Systems, Manchester), EMG – Myophone (Aleph One) |
Achmon J, Granek M, Golomb M, Hart J. Behavioral treatment of essential hypertension: a comparison between cognitive therapy and biofeedback of heart rate. Psychosom Med 1989;51:152–64 | Heart rate | Pulseminder, model 77194 (Computer Instruments, New York, NY), provides continuous feedback and digit transcription of ear lobe capillary pulsations |
Yucha CB, Tsai P, Calderon KS, Tian L. Biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for essential hypertension: who is most likely to benefit? J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005;20:198–205 | Heart rate | Biofeedback-assisted relaxation included eight sessions of thermal, EMG and RSA biofeedback using Procomp/Multitrace biofeedback system (Thought Technology, West Chazy, NY) |
McCraty R, Atkinson M, Tomasino D. Impact of a workplace stress reduction program on blood pressure and emotional health in hypertensive employees. J Altern Complement Med 2003;9:355–69 | HRV training | Freeze-Framer® (Quantum Intech, Boulder Creek, CA) |
Canino E, Cardona R, Monsalve P, Perez Acuna F, Lopez B, Fragachan F. A behavioral treatment program as a therapy in the control of primary hypertension. Acta Cient Venez 1994;45:23–30 | Peripheral temperature | Autogen 2.000-B: temperature biofeedback |
Walsh P, Dale A, Anderson DE. Comparison of biofeedback pulse wave velocity and progressive relaxation on essential hypertensives. Percept Mot Skills 1977;44:839–43 | Pulse wave velocity | PWR monitored and recorded on Grass Polygraph model 7WC8PA. Timing of trials and assessment carried out with Coulbourn solid state logic system |
Nakao M, Nomura S, Shimosawa T, Yoshiuchi K, Kumano H, Kuboki T, et al. Clinical effects of blood pressure biofeedback treatment on hypertension by auto-shaping. Psychosom Med 1997;59:331–8 | SBP | Photic Biofeedback-1 (PFB-1) (Pioneer Corp., Japan) |
Blanchard EB, Eisele G, Gordon MA, Cornish PJ, Wittrock DA, Gilmore L, et al. Thermal biofeedback as an effective substitute for sympatholytic medication in moderate hypertension: a failure to replicate. Biofeedback Self Regul 1993;18:237–53 | TBF |
Med Associates ANL-410 (temp) Grass Instrument Company precious metal electrodes. EMG measured by Grass 7p73 preamplifier. Quantification by Grass 7p710 cumulative integrator |
Blanchard EB, Eisele G, Vollmer A, Payne A, Gordon M, Cornish P, et al. Controlled evaluation of thermal biofeedback in treatment of elevated blood pressure in unmedicated mild hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1996;21:167–90 | TBF | TBF device: Cyborg Model J42 |
Blanchard E, Khramelashvili V, McCoy G. The USA–USSR collaborative cross-cultural comparison of autogenic training and thermal biofeedback in the treatment of mild hypertension. Health Psychol 1988;7(Suppl.):175–92 | TBF | Therapy: Cyborg J-42 thermal biofeedback trainer |
McGrady A. Effects of group relaxation training and thermal biofeedback on blood pressure and related physiological and psychological variables in essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1994;19:51–66 | TBF | Autogen 1700 EMG (data accessed) |
Chesney MA, Black GW, Swan GE, Ward MM. Relaxation training for essential hypertension at the worksite. I. The untreated mild hypertensive. Psychosom Med 1987;49:250–63 | TBF and EMG | J&J Enterprises Thermal Model T-62, J&J Enterprises EMG Model M-53 |
Appendix 3 QUOROM flow diagram of trial selection
Appendix 4 Excluded trials
Trial | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|
Adsett CA, Bellissimo A, Mitchell A, Wilczynski N, Haynes RB. Behavioral and physiological effects of a beta blocker and relaxation therapy on mild hypertensives. Psychosom Med 1989;51:523–36 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Aivazyan TA, Zaitsev VP, Salenko BB, Yurenev AP, Patrusheva IF. Efficacy of relaxation techniques in hypertensive patients. Health Psychol 1988;7(Suppl.):193–200 | Cannot distinguish outcomes |
Bennett P, Wallace L, Carroll D, Smith N. Treating type A behaviours and mild hypertension in middle-aged men. J Psychosom Res 1991;35:209–23 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Benson H, Stuart E, Friedman R, Eisenberg DM, Delbanco TL, Chalmers TC. Cognitive therapy for hypertension. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:91 | Letter |
Bertilson HS, Bartz AE, Zimmerman AD. Treatment program for borderline hypertension among college students: relaxation, finger temperature biofeedback, and generalization. Psychol Rep 1979;44:107–14 | Non-RCT |
Bosley F, Allen TW. Stress management training for hypertensives: cognitive and physiological effects. J Behav Med 1989;12:77–89 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Brauer AP, Horlick L, Nelson E, Farquhar JW, Agras WS. Relaxation therapy for essential hypertension: a Veterans Administration outpatient study. J Behav Med 1979;2:21–9 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Buby C, Elfner LF, May JG, Jr. Relaxation pretraining, pulse wave velocity and thermal biofeedback in the treatment of essential hypertension. Int J Psychophysiol 1990;9:225–30 | Non-RCT |
Catherine TJ. Effect of relaxation exercise on hypertensive patients: thesis abstract. Asian J Cardiovasc Nurs 2000;8:10–11 | Non-RCT |
Cejnar M, Hunyor SN, Liggins GW, Bartrop R. Voluntary blood pressure control using continuous systolic blood pressure biofeedback. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1988;15:265–9 | Non-RCT |
Charlesworth EA, Williams BJ, Baer PE. Stress management at the worksite for hypertension: compliance, cost–benefit, health care and hypertension-related variables. Psychosom Med 1984;46:387–97 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Cooper MI. Effect of relaxation on blood pressure and serum cholesterol. Act Nerv Super 1982;(Suppl. 3):428–36 | Non-RCT |
Cottier C, Shapiro K, Julius S. Treatment of mild hypertension with progressive muscle relaxation. Predictive value of indexes of sympathetic tone. Arch Intern Med 1984;144:1954–8 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Crowther JH. Stress management training and relaxation imagery in the treatment of essential hypertension. J Behav Med 1983;6:169–87 | Not biofeedback treatment |
De-Ping Lee D, DeQuattro V, Allen J, Kimura S, Aleman E, Konugres G, et al. Behavioral vs beta-blocker therapy in patients with primary hypertension: effects on blood pressure, left ventricular function and mass, and the pressor surge of social stress anger. Am Heart J 1988;116:637–44 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Elfimov M, Kotovskaya Y, Kobalava Z, Moiseev V. Biofeedback treatment improves clinic and self-measured blood pressure in stress-induced arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2005;23:S394 | Normotensive patients |
Engel BT, Gaarder KR, Glasgow MS. Behavioral treatment of high blood pressure. I. Analyses of intra- and interdaily variations of blood pressure during a one-month, baseline period. Psychosom Med 1981;43:255–70 | Non-RCT |
Engel BT, Glasgow MS, Gaarder KR. Behavioral treatment of high blood pressure. III. Follow-up results and treatment recommendations. Psychosom Med 1983;45:23–9 | Non-RCT |
Erbeck JR, Elfner LF, Driggs DF. Reduction of blood pressure by indirect biofeedback. Biofeedback Self Regul 1983;8:63–72 | Normotensive patients |
Franck M, Schäfer H, Stiels W, Wassermann R, Herrmann JM. Relaxation therapy with respiratory feedback in patients with essential hypertension. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 1994;44:316–22 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Garcia-Vera MP, Sanz J, Labrador FJ. Psychological changes accompanying and mediating stress-management training for essential hypertension. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 1998;23:159–78 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Glasgow MS, Engel BT, D’Lugoff BC. A controlled study of a standardized behavioral stepped treatment for hypertension. Psychosom Med 1989;51:10–26 | Cannot identify data for biofeedback treatment |
Glasgow MS, Gaarder KR, Engel BT. Behavioral treatment of high blood pressure. II. Acute and sustained effects of relaxation and systolic blood pressure biofeedback. Psychosom Med 1982;44:155–70 | Non-RCT |
Goebel M, Viol GW, Lorenz GJ, Clemente J. Relaxation and biofeedback in essential hypertension: a preliminary report of a six-year project. Am J Clin Biofeedback 1980;3:20–9 | Non-RCT |
Goebel M, Viol GW, Orebaugh C. An incremental model to isolate specific effects of behavioral treatments in essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1993;18: 255–80 | Non-RCT |
Goldstein IB, Shapiro D, Thananopavaran C. Home relaxation techniques for essential hypertension. Psychosom Med 1984;46:398–414 | Non-RCT |
Golubev MV, Aivazian TA, Zaitsev VP. The efficacy of psychotherapy with biofeedback in the rehabilitation of hypertension patients. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult 1998;(6):16–18 | Non-RCT |
Grossman E, Grossman A, Schein MH, Zimlichman R, Gavish B. Breathing-control lowers blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens 2001;15:263–9 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Hahn YB, Ro YJ, Song HH, Kim NC, Kim HS, Yoo YS. The effect of thermal biofeedback and progressive muscle relaxation training in reducing blood pressure of patients with essential hypertension. Image J Nurs Sch 1993;25:204–7 | Non-RCT |
Henderson RJ, Hart MG, Lal SKL, Hunyor SN. The effect of home training with direct blood pressure biofeedback of hypertensives: a placebo-controlled study. J Hypertens 1998;16:771–8 | Some patients included in previous trial |
Jacob RG, Shapiro AP, Reeves RA, Johnsen AM, McDonald RH, Coburn PC. Relaxation therapy for hypertension. Comparison of effects with concomitant placebo, diuretic, and beta-blocker. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:2335–40 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Knust U. Pilot study of lowering blood pressure though instrumental conditioning (biofeedback) in patients suffering from arterial essential hypertension. Z Klin Med 1978;33:1993–9 | Non-RCT |
Lee DD, DeQuattro V, Davison GC, Kimura S, Barndt R, Sullivan P. Noradrenergic hyperactivity in primary hypertension; central and peripheral markers of both behavioral pathogenesis and efficacy of sympatholytic and relaxation therapy. Clin Exp Hypertens A 1988;10(Suppl. 1):225–34 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Lee DD, Kimura S, DeQuattro V, Davison G, Relaxation therapy lowers blood pressure more effectively in hypertensives with raised plasma norepinephrine and blunts pressor response to anger. Clin Exp Hypertens A 1989;11(Suppl. 1):191–8 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Luborsky L, Ancona L, Masoni A, Scolari G, Longoni A. Behavioral versus pharmacological treatments for essential hypertension: a pilot study. Int J Psychiatry Med 1980;10:33–40 | Non-RCT |
McGrady A, Nadsady PA, Schumann-Brzezinski C. Sustained effects of biofeedback-assisted relaxation therapy in essential hypertension. Biofeedback Self Regul 1991;16:399–411 | Non-RCT |
Nakao ME, Yano E, Nomura S, Kuboki T. Blood pressure-lowering effects of biofeedback treatment in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertens Res Clin Exp 2003;26:37–46 | Non-RCT |
Nazzaro P, Mudoni A, Manzari M, Merlo M, Pieri R, Panettieri I, et al. Efficacy of biofeedback treatment compared with drug therapy in hypertensive patients. Funct Neurol 1991;6:49–57 | Not included population |
Nowlis DP, Borzone XC. Long-term psychosomatic effects of biofeedback vs. relaxation training. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, September 1980 | Mixed population |
Paran E, Amir M, Yaniv N. Evaluating the response of mild hypertensives to biofeedback-assisted relaxation using a mental stress test. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1996;27:157–67 | No blood pressure outcome measures |
Patel C. 12-month follow-up of yoga and bio-feedback in the management of hypertension. Lancet 1975;1:62–4 | Non-RCT |
Patel C, Marmot MG, Terry DJ. Controlled trial of biofeedback-aided behavioural methods in reducing mild hypertension. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1981;282:2005–8 | Mixed patients and risk factors |
Richter-Heinrich E, Homuth V, Gohlke HR, Heinrich B, Schmidt KH, Wiedemann R, et al. Effectiveness of behavioral treatment methods compared to pharmacological therapy and self recordings of blood pressure in essential hypertensives (preliminary report). Act Nerv Super 1982;(Suppl. 3):422–7 | Non-RCT |
Schein MH, Gavish B, Herz M, Rosner-Kahana D, Naveh P, Knishkowy B, et al. Treating hypertension with a device that slows and regularises breathing: a randomised, double-blind controlled study. J Hum Hypertens 2001;15:271–8 | Not biofeedback |
Shapiro D, Hui KK, Oakley ME, Pasic J, Jamner LD. Reduction in drug requirements for hypertension by means of a cognitive-behavioral intervention. Am J Hypertens 1997;10:9–17 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Shapiro DH, Jr. Overview: clinical and physiological comparison of meditation with other self-control strategies. Am J Psychiatry 1982;139:267–74 | Non-RCT |
Shufan Z. Effects of patient education and biofeedback: interim results. J Hum Hypertens 1995;9:51 | Non-RCT |
Southam MA, Agras WS, Taylor CB, Kraemer HC. Relaxation training. Blood pressure lowering during the working day. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:715–17 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Storer JH, Frate DA, Banahan BF, Johnson SA, Meydrech EF. Adapting relaxation techniques to rural populations: implications for high blood pressure therapy. J Rural Health 1989;5:13–18 | Paper not available |
Surwit RS, Shapiro D, Good MI. Comparison of cardiovascular biofeedback, neuromuscular biofeedback, and meditation in the treatment of borderline essential hypertension. J Consult Clin Psychol 1978;46:252–63 | Non-RCT |
Taylor CB, Farquhar JW, Nelson E, Agras S. Relaxation therapy and high blood pressure. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1977;34:339–42 | Not biofeedback treatment |
van Montfrans GA, Karemaker JM, Wieling W, Dunning AJ. Relaxation therapy and continuous ambulatory blood pressure in mild hypertension: a controlled study. BMJ 1990;300:1368–72 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Wadden TA. Predicting treatment response to relaxation therapy for essential hypertension. J Nerv Ment Dis 1983;171:683–9 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Wadden TA. Relaxation therapy for essential hypertension: specific or nonspecific effects? J Psychosom Res 1984;28:53–61 | Not biofeedback treatment |
Wartman SA, Gunther AB, Nelson BA, Caporello EA, Musiker HR. A randomized clinical-trial of biofeedback and compliance counseling in the treatment of essential-hypertension. Clin Res 1983;31:A647 | No blood pressure measures |
Webb M, Beckstead J, Meininger J, Robinson S. Stress management for African American women with elevated blood pressure: a pilot study. Biol Res Nurs 2006;7:187–96 | Not biofeedback treatment |
White LJ. Biofeedback for hypertension. Ann Intern Med 1985;102:709–15 | Non-RCT |
Yucha CB, Clark L, Smith M, Uris P, LaFleur B, Duval S. The effect of biofeedback in hypertension. Appl Nurs Res 2001;14:29–35 | Non-RCT |
Yucha CB, Tsai P, Calderon KS, Tian L. Biofeedback-assisted relaxation training for essential hypertension: who is most likely to benefit? J Cardiovasc Nurs 2005;20: 198–205 | Non-RCT |
Appendix 5 Trial characteristics
Trial | Report type | Intervention: type of biofeedback and number of training sessions | Comparator(s) and number of sessions | Number of patients, total and by arm | Timing of post-treatment follow-up | Primary outcome | Location | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Funding source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Achmon 198918 | Full | Heart rate: 17 sessions, one per week |
CGTA: 17 sessions, 1.5 hours per week No treatment: two lectures + monthly checks |
Randomised: 97 Treatment: 37; CGTA: 40; no treatment: 20 Reported: 77 Treatment: 27; CGTA: 30; no treatment: 20 |
6 months | To compare the efficacy of methods in the treatment of hypertension | Israel |
GP referred 25–60 years BP ≥ 140/90 for at least 6 months ≥ 8 years education Patient interested in participating and gave informed consent |
No heart or renal disease No beta-blockers (diuretics OK) No psychiatric disease or organic brain syndrome |
NS |
Billion 198053a | Abstract | EMG: 16 sessions, two sessions per week |
Relaxation Placebo: non-contingent EMG posed as EEG alpha biofeedback (sham biofeedback) Two sessions per week for 8 weeks |
Randomised: NS Reported: 29 |
NA | Reduction in blood pressure | USA | NS | NS | NS |
Blanchard 197954 | Full | SBP: 12 sessions |
Relaxation EMG biofeedback 12 sessions |
Randomised: 33 Reported: 28 Treatment: 10; EMG: 9; relaxation: 9 |
4 months | Effects of intervention on SBP and DBP | USA | Essential hypertension: SBP > 140 mmHg; DBP > 90 mmHg | End-organ damage | NHLBI |
Blanchard 198658 | Full | TBF: 16 sessions, two per week, + home practice with glass thermometer | Relaxation: eight sessions, one per week, + home practice using tape |
Randomised: 87 Reported: 71 Treatment: 44 (withdraw then treat: 22; treat then withdraw: 22); relaxation: 43 (withdraw then treat: 20; treat then withdraw: 23) |
Up to 1 year | To control BP using single drug (diuretic) | USA |
Essential hypertension diagnosed by physician and study physician Controlled to 140/90 mmHg on two drugs |
End-organ damage Serious medical or psychiatric conditions |
NHLBI |
Blanchard 198748 | Full | TBF (laboratory): 16 sessions, two per week | TBF (home): 8 weeks, five sessions |
Randomised: 18 Reported: 18 Laboratory: 9; home: 9 |
4–9 weeks | To compare clinic-based and home-based regimen of biofeedback | USA | Essential hypertension | NS | NHLBI |
Blanchard 198836 (USA) | Full | TBF: 20 sessions, two per week, + home practice |
AT: 20 sessions, two per week Relaxation: 20 sessions, two per week |
Randomised: unclear Reported: 29 Treatment: 10; AT: 11; relaxation: 8 |
1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (including booster treatment session) | Reduction in DBP | USA | DBP 90–110 mmHg on repeat screening not taking antihypertensive medication |
End-organ damage Secondary hypertension Life-threatening illness Severe psychiatric disorder |
NHLBI |
Blanchard 198836 (USSR) | Full | TBF: 20 sessions, two per week, + home practice |
AT: 20 sessions, two per week Relaxation: 20 sessions, two per week |
Randomised: unclear Reported: 30 Treatment: 10; AT: 10; relaxation: 10 |
1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (including booster treatment session) | Reduction in DBP | USSR | DBP 90–110 mmHg on repeat screening not taking antihypertensive medication |
End-organ damage Secondary hypertension Life-threatening illness Severe psychiatric disorder |
NS |
Blanchard 199362 | Full | TBF: 16 sessions, two per week, + regular home practice |
EMG: 16 sessions, two per week, + regular home practice Home BP monitor: 8 weeks |
Randomised: 41 Reported:33 Treatment: 14 (3 w/d); EMG: 16 (3 w/d); self-monitor: 14 (2 w/d) |
Discontinuation of sympatholytic medication from two-drug regimen with diuretic as second drug | USA | Adults with moderate hypertension well controlled on metoprolol plus diuretic |
Cardiac disease Diabetes Asthma Could not stabilise on metoprolol BP not controlled |
NHLBI | |
Blanchard 199616 | Full | TBF: 16 sessions, two per week | Home BP monitor: two per day for 4 weeks |
Randomised: 46 Reported: 42 Treatment: 21; self-monitor: 21 |
12 months of follow-up (0, 3, 6 and 12 months’ follow-up) | DBP < 90 mmHg | USA |
DBP ≥ 90 mmHg at second/third screening visit Unmedicated |
DBP > 105 mmHg or SBP > 180 mmHg, DBP < 90 mmHg | NHLBI |
Bonso 200564a | Abstract | NS: four sessions, one per week, 2 weeks follow-up | Self-monitor: 6 weeks |
Randomised: NS Reported: 29 Group allocation: NS |
2 weeks | Reduction in BP | Italy | Stage 1 hypertension | NS | NS |
Friedman 197837,38 | Full | BP: seven sessions, daily home practice |
Hypnosis + BF: seven Hypnosis only: seven Clinic monitor: seven |
Randomised: 48 Reported: 48 Treatment: 13; BF + hypnosis: 10; hypnosis: 13; clinic monitor: 12 |
1 month and 6 months | Effects on diastolic blood pressure | USA |
Diagnosis of hypertension Minimum DBP 85 mmHg during baseline Able to complete all sessions and 1-week follow up |
NS | Medical Research Service of the Veterans Administration |
Goldstein 198241 | Full | SBP and DBP: 16 sessions, two per week |
Antihypertensive medication Relaxation Self-monitor |
Randomised: 36 Reported: 36 Treatment: 9; relaxation: 9; medication: 9; self-monitor: 9 |
6 months | To evaluate BF and Benson relaxation, and to compare their effectiveness with drug therapy | USA |
DBP: 90–105 mmHg SBP:150–165 mmHg |
Secondary hypertension Obesity Drug abuse Alcoholism Heart disease Psychotherapy and organicity |
NHLBI |
Hager 197855 | Full | BP: 40 sessions, 4 weeks | Meditation: 40 sessions, 4 weeks |
Randomised: 30 Reported: 17 Treatment: 7; meditation: 10 |
NA | To compare biofeedback and meditation–relaxation in reducing SBP and DBP | USA |
History SBP 145 mmHg or DBP > 95 mmHg; Essential hypertension |
NS | NIMH |
Hatch 198539 | Full | DBP: 12 sessions |
Progressive deep muscle relaxation training Self-directed relaxation training No treatment |
Randomised: 52 Reported: 52 Treatment: 13; relaxation:13; self-relaxation:13; no treatment:13 |
12 months | To compare the effectiveness of direct DBP-BF and progressive deep muscle relaxation in patients whose BP is already effectively controlled pharmacologically | USA |
Essential hypertension Active pharmacological treatment Age range 21–70 years |
Evidence of psychiatric disorder or other serious medical disorder Concomitant medications (HRTs, cardio, psychotropic) |
NIH research |
Hunyor 199747 | Full | SBP: eight sessions | Placebo (sham biofeedback treatment): eight sessions |
Randomised: 58 Reported: 56 Treatment: 28; placebo: 28 |
NA | The capability of SBP lowering of ≥ 5 mmHg using continuous pressure feedback | Australia | Mildly hypertensive: SBP < 200 mmHg, DBP < 115 mmHg |
SBP ≥ 200 mmHg DBP ≥ 115 mmHg Inability to make time commitment Evidence of target organ damage LVH Retinal haemorrhages |
National Health and Medical Research Council, National Heart Foundation (Australia), the Government Health Employees Research Fund (NSW), North Shore Heart Research Foundation |
Luborsky 198260 | Full | BP: five sessions, one per week |
Antihypertensive medication Metronome-conditioned relaxation Mild exercise |
Randomised: 51 Reported: 51 Treatment: 14; medication: 10; relaxation: 16; exercise: 11 |
3 months | Comparison of pharmacotherapy and behavioural therapy | USA |
BP > 140/90 mmHg and < 165/103 mmHg 20–55 years |
Evidence of target organ damage | Research grant |
Nakao 199715 | Full | SBP: four sessions, one per week | No treatment |
Randomised: 31 Reported: 30 Treatment: 15; self-monitor: 15 |
3 months | To study the efficacy of this system for the treatment of essential hypertension, compare simple blood pressure self-monitoring and self-monitoring + blood pressure biofeedback and investigate the physiological changes that occur during blood pressure biofeedback | Japan |
Diagnosis of essential hypertension according to WHO 35–65 years Antihypertensive medication unchanged for 3 weeks |
History of beta-blocker use History of cerebral vascular accident |
NS |
Thananopavarn 197956a | Abstract | NS: 2 hours, 3 days per week |
Relaxation: 2 hours, 3 days per week Antihypertensive medication |
Randomised: NS Reported: 12 Treatment: 5; relaxation: 3; medication: 4 |
NA | Change in BP | USA |
Mild essential hypertension No medication for at least 4 weeks DBP > 90 mmHg |
NS | NS |
Tsai 200735 | Full | BP: four sessions, one per week | Placebo (sham biofeedback treatment) |
Randomised: 42 Reported: 38 Treatment: 20; placebo: 18 |
12 weeks (8 weeks after treatment) | Change in SBP | Taiwan |
Stage 1 hypertension (SBP 140–159 mmHg or DBP 90–99 mmHg) 19–56 years Able to read and write |
Receiving/received cardiovascular medication for hypertension within previous 2 months Kidney or liver disease Neurological disorder Psychiatric disorder Diabetes |
NHRI and National Science Council Taiwan |
Walsh 197757 | Full | Pulse wave velocity: five sessions, one per week | Relaxation: five sessions, one per week |
Randomised: 24 Reported: 24 Treatment: 11; relaxation: 13 |
NAa | To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of two behavioural treatments for essential hypertension | USA | NS | NS | Supported by NSF |
Zurawski 198761 | Full | GSR: eight sessions, one per week, 60–90 minutes, + home practice | SMT: eight sessions, one per week, 60–90 minutes, + home practice |
Randomised: 29 Reported: 25 Treatment: 14; SMT: 11 |
6 months | The effectiveness of SMT relative to GSR BF in the treatment of essential hypertensive blood pressure at rest and in response to simulated stressful situations | USA |
Consecutive casual BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg Under care of physician Diagnosis of essential hypertension Age 18–60 years Not excessively overweight Willing to monitor type and dosage of medications taken throughout project |
NS | NS |
Trial | Report type | Intervention: type of biofeedback and number of sessions | Combination therapy | Comparator(s) and number of sessions | Number of patients, total and by arm | Timing of post-treatment follow-up | Primary outcome | Location | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Funding source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Berglund 199152a | Abstract | TBF: 12 sessions | Menninger protocol | Self-monitor |
Randomised: NS Reported: 40 Group allocation: NS |
NS | Change in blood pressure | USA | NS | NS | California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego |
Canino 199446 | Full | TBF: 15 sessions | Relaxation + anxiety management |
Placebo behavioural therapy No treatment |
Randomised: 28 Reported: 28 Treatment: 8; placebo: 4; no treatment: 9 |
6 months | Reduction in DBP and SBP; effects of behavioural therapy on control + reduction of blood pressure | Venezuela |
Established essential hypertension 25–48 years Mean blood pressure 140/90 mmHg No antihypertensive medication Willing to attend sessions |
NS | NS |
Chesney 198749 | Full | TBF and EMG (modality alternated across sessions): 13 over 17 weeks then five sessions follow-up over 36 weeks | Relaxation | Combined behavioural group consisting of relaxation, RCR, BFCR, HBC, clinic BPM |
Randomised: 158 Reported: 158 Treatment: 24; BFCR: 25; relaxation: 24; RCR: 24; HBC: 21; clinic BPM: 40 |
54 weeks | Change in blood pressure between behavioural therapy and BPM groups | USA |
DBP between 90 and 104 mmHg Not taking antihypertensive medication |
DBP > 90 mmHg but medicated Secondary hypertension DBP > 105 mmHg SBP > 170 mmHg |
NHLBI |
Cohen 198350 | Full | EMG and TBF: 20 sessions, two per week | Relaxation |
Relaxation: five sessions, one per week, and again at week 15 Waiting list |
Randomised: 30 Reported: 30 Treatment:10; relaxation: 10; waiting list: 10 |
4 months | Effects of interventions on attentional dimensions | USA | Diagnosis of hypertension for 2 years |
Not essential hypertension Major disease-related complications Serious medical or psychological illness |
Research fellowship |
Frankel 197821 | Full | DBP and EMG: 20 sessions over 16 weeks + home practice | Relaxation |
Placebo (sham biofeedback treatment): 20 sessions over 16 weeks Clinic blood pressure monitor |
Randomised: 22 Reported: 22 Treatment: 7; placebo: 7; clinic blood pressure monitor: 8 |
NA | Effects of interventions on blood pressure | NS | Uncomplicated hypertension | NS | NS |
Friedman 197837,38 | Full | BP: seven sessions | Hypnosis |
Biofeedback only Hypnosis only Clinic blood pressure monitor Seven sessions |
Randomised: 48 Reported: 48 Treatment: 10; BF only: 13; hypnosis:13; clinic blood pressure monitor: 12 |
1 month and 6 months | Effects on DBP | USA |
Hypertension Minimum DBP 85 mmHg during baseline Able to complete all training sessions and 1-week follow-up |
NS | Medical Research Service of the Veterans Administration |
Hafner 198222 | Full | GSR or EMG: eight sessions, one per week | Relaxation + meditation |
Meditation, one session per week for 8 weeks No treatment |
Randomised: 21 Group allocation unclear |
3 months | Is a combination of meditation and biofeedback-aided relaxation superior to meditation alone? | UK |
Essential hypertension No relevant lesions or disorders |
NS | St George’s Hospital Society for Psychosomatic Research |
Irvine 199142 | Full | GSR: 6–12 sessions | Relaxation + imagery + meditation | NSST |
All: 110 Reported: 101 Treatment: 50; NSST: 51 |
6 months | To evaluate relaxation behaviour therapy as sole treatment for uncomplicated and previously untreated mild hypertension | Canada | Untreated hypertensives with mean DBP < 105 mmHg |
SBP ≥ 200 mmHg at first screening DBP ≥ 120 mmHg at any screening DBP averaged > 114 mmHg after third screening DBP averaged > 104 mmHg after fifth screening Myocardial infarction Congestive heart failure Stroke Angina pectoris Currently taking antihypertensive medication |
Ontario Ministry of Health, National Health and Research Development, Ciba Geigy |
Jacob 199243 | Full | TBF: 12 sessions | Relaxation | Stress education: 12 sessions |
Randomised: 20 Reported: 19 Treatment: 10; stress education: 9 |
NS | Comparison of biofeedback and stress education in reduction of blood pressure in hypertensive patients whose antihypertensive medications were experimentally controlled | USA | DBP > 90 mmHg | NS | NHLBI |
Jurek 199251 | Full | EMG and TBF: 16 sessions, two per week | Relaxation + diuretic | Diuretic only |
Randomised: 47 Reported: 30 Treatment: 20; diuretic only: 10 |
10–12 months | Effect and comparison of two arms in lowering of SBP and DBP | USA |
21–60 years Diagnosis of hypertension 1 year |
NS | Northwestern Ohio Heart Association |
Khramelashvili 198659a | Abstract | NS | Relaxation | NS |
Randomised: NS Reported: 80 Treatment: 30; autotraining: 30; no intervention: 20 |
NS | Changes in blood pressure, stress tolerance and psychological status | NS | Essential hypertension (stages IIA–IIB) | NS | NS |
McCraty 200344 | Full | HR variability: 12 hours in 2 weeks | IQM | Waiting list |
Randomised: 38 Reported: 32 Treatment: 18; waiting list: 14 |
3 months | Impact of a workplace-based stress management programme on blood pressure, emotional health and workplace-related measures in hypertensive employees | USA |
Regular schedule of hypertensive medications At least 1/4 baseline BP readings in a range of 90–105 mmHg DBP or 140–179 mmHg SBP |
Changes in hypertensive medications Schedule conflicts and/or personal reasons |
NS |
McGrady 198119 | Full | EMG: 16 sessions, two per week | Relaxation | Blood pressure monitoring |
Randomised: 43 Reported: 38 Treatment: 22; blood pressure monitor: 16 |
None | Effect of BF + relaxation on treatment of essential hypertension | USA | Essential hypertension | NS | North Western Ohio Heart Association |
McGrady 199463 | Full | TBF: eight sessions, one per week | Relaxation | Waiting list |
Randomised: 138 Reported: 101 Treatment: 70; waiting list 31 |
10 months | Effects of relaxation and TBF on BP and related psychological and physiological parameters | USA |
Essential hypertension Medicated or unmedicated diagnosed by physician |
Not clear | City of Toledo Health Department |
Patel 197545 | Full | GSR EMG: 12 sessions, two per week, + home practice | Yoga | Relaxation: 12 sessions, two per week, 30 minutes each |
Randomised: 37 Reported: 34 Treatment: 17; yoga: 17 |
3 months | Effects of therapy on blood pressure | UK | Medicated for at least 6 months with initial DBP levels of at least 110 mmHg on two separate days | NS | Support from South West Thames RHA |
Patel 198840 | Full | GSR: eight sessions, one per week, + home practice | Relaxation | No treatment |
Randomised: 116 Reported: 103 Treatment: 49; no treatment: 54 |
1 year | Changes in SBP and DBP | UK | The last 134 recruits to the second phase of a 6-year MRC trial who consented to take part | NS | Support from British Heart Foundation; Wyeth Laboratories sponsored workshops for doctors and nurses |
Appendix 6 Patient characteristics
Trial | Gender (% male) | Ethnic origin | Age (years), mean (SD) | % antihypertensive medication | Years hypertensive, mean (SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Achmon 198918 | Treatment: 63%; CGTG: 57%; no treatment: 75% | NS | Treatment: 40.1 (8.3); CGTG: 41.6 (9.0); no treatment: 40.0 (8.6) | Treatment: 48%; CGTG: 40%; no treatment: 35% | Treatment: 5.5 (4.7); CGTG: 4.2 (3.3); no treatment: 5.1 (4.8) |
Billion 198053a | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Blanchard 197954 | 48.40% | NS | 39.5 (range 23–56) | 45% | NS |
Blanchard 198658 |
Treatment: 64% Relaxation: withdraw then treat: 55%, treat then withdraw: 44% |
NS |
Treatment: withdraw then treat: 50.7; treat then withdraw: 50.1 Relaxation: withdraw then treat: 48.8; treat then withdraw: 48.1 |
100% |
Treatment: withdraw then treat: 6.5; treat then withdraw: 9.2 Relaxation: withdraw then treat: 7.8; treat then withdraw: 8.1 |
Blanchard 198748 | All: 72%; laboratory: 63%; home: 88.8% | NS | All: 48.05; laboratory: 45.8; home: 50.3 | 100% | Laboratory: 5.9; home: 6.4 |
Blanchard 198836 (USA) | All: 100% | White | Treatment: 45 (8.26) (range 34–61); AT: 44 (6.1) (range 36–52); relaxation: 40.75 (10.12) (range 27–57) | None | Treatment: 5.6 (6) (range 0.5–18); AT: 6.2 (6.2) (range 0.5–20); relaxation: 2.9 (2.0) (range 1–7) |
Blanchard 198836 (USSR) | All: 100% | White | Treatment: 30.9 (5.3) (range 24–42); AT: 33.6 (11.2) (range 23–48); relaxation: 35.2 (9.2) (range 21–50) | None | Treatment: 6.9 (5.7) (range 1–17); AT: 10.7 (7.3) (range 2–28); relaxation: 7.6 (3.6) (range 3–13) |
Blanchard 199362 | All: 61%; treatment: 64%; EMG: 60%; self-monitor: 58%; withdrawn: 75% | NS | Treatment: 48.4; EMG: 53.5; self-monitor: 52.8; withdrawn: 51.4 | 100% | Treatment: 8.2; EMG: 10.0; self-monitor: 10.0; withdrawn: 7.0 |
Blanchard 199616 | All: 67%; treatment: 71%; self-monitor: 59% | NS | Treatment: 50.0 (range 32–61); self-monitor: 51.0 (range 40–62) | None | Treatment: 8.3; self-monitor: 8.4 |
Bonso 200564a | NS | NS | 22–55 (range) | None | NS |
Friedman 197837,38 | Biofeedback + hypnosis: 80%; biofeedback: 77%; hypnosis: 85%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 83% | NS | Treatment: 47.2 (range 29–54); biofeedback + hypnosis: 48.2 (range 32–53); hypnosis: 47.1 (range 23–60); clinic blood pressure monitor: 48.3 (range 31–59) | Treatment: 62%; biofeedback + hypnosis: 60%; hypnosis: 69%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 75% | NS |
Goldstein 198241 | Treatment: 70%; relaxation: 80%; antihypertensive medication: 80%; self-monitor: 80% | NS | Treatment: 51.1; relaxation: 51.2; antihypertensive medication: 54.6; self-monitor: 49.1 (range 35–60) | Medication arm only | Treatment: 11.2; relaxation: 6.7; antihypertensive medication: 14.1; self-monitor: 8.5 |
Hager 197855 | 50% | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Hatch 198539 | Treatment: 30.7%; relaxation: 53.8%; self-relaxation: 30.7%; no treatment: 46.1% |
Anglo: treatment: 85%; relaxation: 85%; self-relaxation: 67%; no treatment: 77% Hispanic: treatment: 15%; relaxation: 23%; self-relaxation: 15%; no treatment: 15% Black: no treatment: 8% |
Treatment: 51.6; relaxation: 50.2; self-relaxation: 50.4; no treatment: 52.2 (range 21–70) | Treatment: 100%; relaxation: 85%; self-relaxation: 92%; no treatment: 92% | Treatment: 8.0; relaxation: 5.2; self-relaxation: 7.7; no treatment: 5.8 |
Hunyor 199747 | NS | NS | 18–69 (range) | None | All: 9.5 (9.2) (range 0–45) |
Luborsky 198260 | NS | NS | 38 (range 20–55) | Antihypertensive medication arm only | NS |
Nakao 199715 | All: 33%; treatment: 33%; self-monitor: 33% | NS | All: 56; treatment: 55 (8); self-monitor: 56 (8) | Treatment: 33%; self-monitor: 47% | Treatment (months) 49 (72); self-monitor (months) 42 (57) |
Thananopavarn 197956a | NS | NS | NS | Antihypertensive medication arm only | NA |
Tsai 200735 | Treatment: 50%; placebo: 78% | NS | Treatment: 46.5 (10.3); placebo: 39.9 (10.8) | None | NS |
Walsh 197757 | All: 63% | NS | All: 24–69 (range) | Treatment: 45%; relaxation: 54% | NS |
Zurawski 198761 | Treatment: 40%; SMT: 57% | NS | Treatment: 45.99; SMT: 47.5 | Treatment: 73%; SMT: 53% | NS |
Trial | Gender (% male) | Ethnic origin | Age (years), mean (SD) | % antihypertensive medication | Years hypertensive, mean (SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Berglund 199152a | All: 100% | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Canino 199446 | All: 66% | NS | 35 (2) | None | NS |
Chesney 198749 | All: 89% | All: 87% white | All: 47 | Increased weekly: treatment from 1.7% to 16.9%; clinic blood pressure monitoring from 0% to 12.5% | NS |
Cohen 198350 | Treatment: 40%; relaxation: 50%; waiting list: 40% | NS | Treatment: 47.4 (range 26–72); relaxation: 48.2 (range 31–68); waiting list: 37.8 (range 28–54) | 90% | 2 |
Frankel 197821 | Active treatment: 57.1%; placebo treatment: 57.1%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 50% |
Active treatment: white: 71%; black: 29% Placebo treatment: white: 86%; black: 14% Clinic blood pressure monitor: white: 38%; black: 63% |
Active treatment: 43.8; placebo treatment: 50.4; clinic blood pressure monitor: 43.5 | 32% |
Active treatment: Placebo treatment: Clinic blood pressure monitor: 11.3 |
Friedman 197837,38 | Treatment: 80%; biofeedback only: 77%; hypnosis: 85%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 83% | NS | Treatment: 48.2 (range 32–53); biofeedback only: 47.2 (range 29–54); hypnosis: 47.1 (range 23–60); clinic blood pressure monitor: 48.3 (range 31–59) | Treatment: 60%; biofeedback only: 62%; hypnosis: 69%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 75% | NS |
Hafner 198222 | All: 57% | NS | All: 48.9 (range 25–68) | 90% | All: 4.1 (range 4 months to 10 years) |
Irvine 199142 | Treatment: 82%; NSST: 82% | NS | Treatment: 46.7 (8.1); NSST: 45.8 (8.5) | None | NA |
Jacob 199243 | Treatment: 60%; stress education: 78% | NS | Treatment: 46.5 (11.4); stress education: 51.4 (8.3) | 100% | Treatment: 13 (range 3–37); stress education: 10 (range 2.5–30) |
Jurek 199251 | All: 63.3%; treatment: 60%; diuretic only: 70% | White: 80%; black: 20% | Treatment: 49; diuretic only: 48 | 100% | |
Khramelashvili 198659a | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
McCraty 200344 | Treatment: 72%; waiting list: 71% | NS | Treatment: 48.2 (6.5); waiting list: 43.1 (5.6) | Treatment: 78%; waiting list: 79% | NS |
McGrady 198119 | Treatment: 32%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 31% |
Treatment: black: 5%; white: 95% Clinic blood pressure monitor: white: 100% |
Treatment: 55; clinic blood pressure monitor: 42 | Treatment: 86%; clinic blood pressure monitor: 75% | NS |
McGrady 199463 | Treatment: 34%; waiting list: 48% |
Treatment: black: 27%; white: 73% Waiting list: black: 19%; white: 81% |
Treatment: 48; waiting list: 49 | Treatment: 78%; waiting list: 74% | Treatment: 8.2; waiting list: 8.6 |
Patel 197545 | Treatment: 35%; relaxation: 41% | NS | Treatment: 59.5 (range 37–95); relaxation: 58.6 (range 34–75) | Treatment: 86%; relaxation: 100% | NS |
Patel 198840 | Treatment: 51%; no treatment: 50% | NS |
Treatment: 35–44 years: 10; 45–54 years: 15; > 55 years: 24 No treatment: 35–44 years: 10; 45–54 years: 17; > 55 years: 24 |
Treatment: 30%; no treatment: 30% | At least 6 |
List of abbreviations
- AAPB
- American Association for Applied Physiology and Biofeedback
- ABPM
- ambulatory blood pressure monitor
- ACE
- angiotensin-converting enzyme
- ASH
- American Society for Hypertension
- BFE
- Biofeedback Foundation of Europe
- BHS
- British Hypertension Society
- CCB(s)
- calcium channel blocker(s)
- CRD
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
- CVD
- cardiovascular disease
- DBP
- diastolic blood pressure
- EHS
- European Society for Hypertension
- EMG
- electromyographic
- GSR
- galvanic skin response
- HR
- heart rate
- HSE
- Health Survey for England
- ICHSC
- Information Centre for Health and Social Care
- IQM
- inner quality management
- ITT
- intention to treat
- NCCAM
- National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- NICE
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
- QUOROM
- quality of reporting of meta-analyses
- RCT(s)
- randomised controlled trial(s)
- SBP
- systolic blood pressure
- TBF
- thermal biofeedback
- WHO
- World Health Organization
All abbreviations that have been used in this report are listed here unless the abbreviation is well known (e.g. NHS), or it has been used only once, or it is a non-standard abbreviation used only in figures/tables/appendices, in which case the abbreviation is defined in the figure legend or in the notes at the end of the table.
Notes
Health Technology Assessment reports published to date
-
Home parenteral nutrition: a systematic review.
By Richards DM, Deeks JJ, Sheldon TA, Shaffer JL.
-
Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer.
A review by Selley S, Donovan J, Faulkner A, Coast J, Gillatt D.
-
The diagnosis, management, treatment and costs of prostate cancer in England and Wales.
A review by Chamberlain J, Melia J, Moss S, Brown J.
-
Screening for fragile X syndrome.
A review by Murray J, Cuckle H, Taylor G, Hewison J.
-
A review of near patient testing in primary care.
By Hobbs FDR, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Wilson S, Hyde CJ, Thorpe GH, et al.
-
Systematic review of outpatient services for chronic pain control.
By McQuay HJ, Moore RA, Eccleston C, Morley S, de C Williams AC.
-
Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome.
A review by Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al.
-
Preschool vision screening.
A review by Snowdon SK, Stewart-Brown SL.
-
Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials.
A review by Ashcroft RE, Chadwick DW, Clark SRL, Edwards RHT, Frith L, Hutton JL.
-
A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.
By Davis A, Bamford J, Wilson I, Ramkalawan T, Forshaw M, Wright S.
-
Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review.
By Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, Addison GM, Bain MD, Cockburn F, et al.
-
Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence.
By Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness of laxatives in the elderly.
By Petticrew M, Watt I, Sheldon T.
-
When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies.
A review by Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L.
-
Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome.
A review by Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A.
-
Screening for ovarian cancer: a systematic review.
By Bell R, Petticrew M, Luengo S, Sheldon TA.
-
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
A review by Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, et al.
-
A cost–utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis.
By Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D.
-
Effectiveness and efficiency of methods of dialysis therapy for end-stage renal disease: systematic reviews.
By MacLeod A, Grant A, Donaldson C, Khan I, Campbell M, Daly C, et al.
-
Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model.
By Faulkner A, Kennedy LG, Baxter K, Donovan J, Wilkinson M, Bevan G.
-
Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
By Song F, Glenny AM.
-
Bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for malignancy.
A review by Johnson PWM, Simnett SJ, Sweetenham JW, Morgan GJ, Stewart LA.
-
Screening for speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature.
By Law J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C.
-
Resource allocation for chronic stable angina: a systematic review of effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions.
By Sculpher MJ, Petticrew M, Kelland JL, Elliott RA, Holdright DR, Buxton MJ.
-
Detection, adherence and control of hypertension for the prevention of stroke: a systematic review.
By Ebrahim S.
-
Postoperative analgesia and vomiting, with special reference to day-case surgery: a systematic review.
By McQuay HJ, Moore RA.
-
Choosing between randomised and nonrandomised studies: a systematic review.
By Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C.
-
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
A review by Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR.
-
Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials.
A review by Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J, Thornton J.
-
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
By Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P.
-
The costs and benefits of paramedic skills in pre-hospital trauma care.
By Nicholl J, Hughes S, Dixon S, Turner J, Yates D.
-
Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal cancer.
By Harris KM, Kelly S, Berry E, Hutton J, Roderick P, Cullingworth J, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of trials and other studies.
By Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F.
-
Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses.
A review by Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, Murray D, Morris R, Lodge M, et al.
-
Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.
By Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, Connelly JB, Hewison J, Robinson MB, et al.
-
Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions.
A review by Briggs AH, Gray AM.
-
The role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the delivery of health care: a systematic review.
By Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Thomas H.
-
A randomised controlled trial of different approaches to universal antenatal HIV testing: uptake and acceptability. Annex: Antenatal HIV testing – assessment of a routine voluntary approach.
By Simpson WM, Johnstone FD, Boyd FM, Goldberg DJ, Hart GJ, Gormley SM, et al.
-
Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review.
By Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JAC, Burney PGJ.
-
Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials.
A review by Johnston K, Buxton MJ, Jones DR, Fitzpatrick R.
-
Cooperatives and their primary care emergency centres: organisation and impact.
By Hallam L, Henthorne K.
-
Screening for cystic fibrosis.
A review by Murray J, Cuckle H, Taylor G, Littlewood J, Hewison J.
-
A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.
By Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A.
-
Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment.
A review by Billingham LJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR.
-
Antenatal and neonatal haemoglobinopathy screening in the UK: review and economic analysis.
By Zeuner D, Ades AE, Karnon J, Brown J, Dezateux C, Anionwu EN.
-
Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.
A review by Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al.
-
‘Early warning systems’ for identifying new healthcare technologies.
By Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J.
-
A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme.
By Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al.
-
Near patient testing in diabetes clinics: appraising the costs and outcomes.
By Grieve R, Beech R, Vincent J, Mazurkiewicz J.
-
Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment.
A review by Robert G, Milne R.
-
The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review.
By Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2) Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds.
By Bradley M, Cullum N, Nelson EA, Petticrew M, Sheldon T, Torgerson D.
-
A systematic literature review of spiral and electron beam computed tomography: with particular reference to clinical applications in hepatic lesions, pulmonary embolus and coronary artery disease.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Harris KM, Roderick P, Boyce JC, et al.
-
What role for statins? A review and economic model.
By Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G, McCabe C, Payne N, Pickin M, Sheldon TA, et al.
-
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials.
A review by Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al.
-
Antimicrobial prophylaxis in total hip replacement: a systematic review.
By Glenny AM, Song F.
-
Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.
By Lister-Sharp D, Chapman S, Stewart-Brown S, Sowden A.
-
Economic evaluation of a primary care-based education programme for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
A review by Lord J, Victor C, Littlejohns P, Ross FM, Axford JS.
-
The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project.
A review by Cairns JA, van der Pol MM.
-
Geriatric rehabilitation following fractures in older people: a systematic review.
By Cameron I, Crotty M, Currie C, Finnegan T, Gillespie L, Gillespie W, et al.
-
Screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia: a systematic review with supplementary research.
By Davies SC, Cronin E, Gill M, Greengross P, Hickman M, Normand C.
-
Community provision of hearing aids and related audiology services.
A review by Reeves DJ, Alborz A, Hickson FS, Bamford JM.
-
False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications.
By Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K.
-
Costs and benefits of community postnatal support workers: a randomised controlled trial.
By Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A.
-
Implantable contraceptives (subdermal implants and hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives: two systematic reviews to assess relative effectiveness, acceptability, tolerability and cost-effectiveness.
By French RS, Cowan FM, Mansour DJA, Morris S, Procter T, Hughes D, et al.
-
An introduction to statistical methods for health technology assessment.
A review by White SJ, Ashby D, Brown PJ.
-
Disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By Clegg A, Bryant J, Milne R.
-
Publication and related biases.
A review by Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ.
-
Cost and outcome implications of the organisation of vascular services.
By Michaels J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S, Shackley P, Slack R.
-
Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
By Coster S, Gulliford MC, Seed PT, Powrie JK, Swaminathan R.
-
The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: a systematic review of international studies and a selective review of the British literature.
By Elkan R, Kendrick D, Hewitt M, Robinson JJA, Tolley K, Blair M, et al.
-
The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.
By Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth.
A rapid review by Song F, O’Meara S, Wilson P, Golder S, Kleijnen J.
-
Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women’s views.
By Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer.
By Lister-Sharp D, McDonagh MS, Khan KS, Kleijnen J.
-
Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review.
By Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E.
-
Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive–behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care.
By King M, Sibbald B, Ward E, Bower P, Lloyd M, Gabbay M, et al.
-
Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients’ outcome influenced by GPs’ referral for plain radiography?
By Kerry S, Hilton S, Patel S, Dundas D, Rink E, Lord J.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration.
By O’Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T.
-
Using routine data to complement and enhance the results of randomised controlled trials.
By Lewsey JD, Leyland AH, Murray GD, Boddy FA.
-
Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, Stevens A, Burls A, Hyde C.
-
Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review.
By Hayes JA, Black NA, Jenkinson C, Young JD, Rowan KM, Daly K, et al.
-
A systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to promote the initiation of breastfeeding.
By Fairbank L, O’Meara S, Renfrew MJ, Woolridge M, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D.
-
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators: arrhythmias. A rapid and systematic review.
By Parkes J, Bryant J, Milne R.
-
Treatments for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By Brañas P, Jordan R, Fry-Smith A, Burls A, Hyde C.
-
Early asthma prophylaxis, natural history, skeletal development and economy (EASE): a pilot randomised controlled trial.
By Baxter-Jones ADG, Helms PJ, Russell G, Grant A, Ross S, Cairns JA, et al.
-
Screening for hypercholesterolaemia versus case finding for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Marks D, Wonderling D, Thorogood M, Lambert H, Humphries SE, Neil HAW.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in the medical management of unstable angina.
By McDonagh MS, Bachmann LM, Golder S, Kleijnen J, ter Riet G.
-
A randomised controlled trial of prehospital intravenous fluid replacement therapy in serious trauma.
By Turner J, Nicholl J, Webber L, Cox H, Dixon S, Yates D.
-
Intrathecal pumps for giving opioids in chronic pain: a systematic review.
By Williams JE, Louw G, Towlerton G.
-
Combination therapy (interferon alfa and ribavirin) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a rapid and systematic review.
By Shepherd J, Waugh N, Hewitson P.
-
A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.
By MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS.
-
Intravascular ultrasound-guided interventions in coronary artery disease: a systematic literature review, with decision-analytic modelling, of outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Lindsay HSJ, Blaxill JM, Evans JA, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of counselling patients with chronic depression.
By Simpson S, Corney R, Fitzgerald P, Beecham J.
-
Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema.
By Hoare C, Li Wan Po A, Williams H.
-
Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review.
By Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR.
-
The management of dyspepsia: a systematic review.
By Delaney B, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, Innes M, Soo S, Barton P, et al.
-
A systematic review of treatments for severe psoriasis.
By Griffiths CEM, Clark CM, Chalmers RJG, Li Wan Po A, Williams HC.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, McIntyre L, De Broe S, Gerard K, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Stewart A, Sandercock J, Bryan S, Hyde C, Barton PM, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare.
By Sassi F, Archard L, Le Grand J.
-
Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood.
By Eiser C, Morse R.
-
Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.
By Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al.
-
General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: learning disability and acquired brain injury.
By Riemsma RP, Forbes CA, Glanville JM, Eastwood AJ, Kleijnen J.
-
An assessment of screening strategies for fragile X syndrome in the UK.
By Pembrey ME, Barnicoat AJ, Carmichael B, Bobrow M, Turner G.
-
Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners.
By Lilford RJ, Richardson A, Stevens A, Fitzpatrick R, Edwards S, Rock F, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy.
By Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T.
-
Effects of educational and psychosocial interventions for adolescents with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
By Hampson SE, Skinner TC, Hart J, Storey L, Gage H, Foxcroft D, et al.
-
Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation for hyaline cartilage defects in knees: a rapid and systematic review.
By Jobanputra P, Parry D, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies.
By Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma: a rapid and systematic review.
By Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, Major K, Milne R.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.
By Lewis R, Whiting P, ter Riet G, O’Meara S, Glanville J.
-
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.
By Burns T, Knapp M, Catty J, Healey A, Henderson J, Watt H, et al.
-
How to develop cost-conscious guidelines.
By Eccles M, Mason J.
-
The role of specialist nurses in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By De Broe S, Christopher F, Waugh N.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity.
By O’Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a rapid and systematic review.
By Chilcott J, Wight J, Lloyd Jones M, Tappenden P.
-
Extended scope of nursing practice: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of appropriately trained nurses and preregistration house officers in preoperative assessment in elective general surgery.
By Kinley H, Czoski-Murray C, George S, McCabe C, Primrose J, Reilly C, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of day care for people with severe mental disorders: (1) Acute day hospital versus admission; (2) Vocational rehabilitation; (3) Day hospital versus outpatient care.
By Marshall M, Crowther R, Almaraz- Serrano A, Creed F, Sledge W, Kluiter H, et al.
-
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.
By Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH.
-
Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment.
By Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
By Ward S, Morris E, Bansback N, Calvert N, Crellin A, Forman D, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.
By Lloyd Jones M, Hummel S, Bansback N, Orr B, Seymour M.
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.
By Brocklebank D, Ram F, Wright J, Barry P, Cates C, Davies L, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for investigation of the knee joint.
By Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Bungay H, Hatrick C, Salas C, Parry D, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.
By Forbes C, Shirran L, Bagnall A-M, Duffy S, ter Riet G.
-
Superseded by a report published in a later volume.
-
The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial.
By Kendrick D, Fielding K, Bentley E, Miller P, Kerslake R, Pringle M.
-
Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients.
By McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.
By Clegg A, Scott DA, Sidhu M, Hewitson P, Waugh N.
-
Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
By Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G.
-
Depot antipsychotic medication in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia: (1) Meta-review; (2) Patient and nurse attitudes.
By David AS, Adams C.
-
A systematic review of controlled trials of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief psychological treatments for depression.
By Churchill R, Hunot V, Corney R, Knapp M, McGuire H, Tylee A, et al.
-
Cost analysis of child health surveillance.
By Sanderson D, Wright D, Acton C, Duree D.
-
A study of the methods used to select review criteria for clinical audit.
By Hearnshaw H, Harker R, Cheater F, Baker R, Grimshaw G.
-
Fludarabine as second-line therapy for B cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a technology assessment.
By Hyde C, Wake B, Bryan S, Barton P, Fry-Smith A, Davenport C, et al.
-
Rituximab as third-line treatment for refractory or recurrent Stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wake B, Hyde C, Bryan S, Barton P, Song F, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
A systematic review of discharge arrangements for older people.
By Parker SG, Peet SM, McPherson A, Cannaby AM, Baker R, Wilson A, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices used in the routine management of chronic asthma in older children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Peters J, Stevenson M, Beverley C, Lim J, Smith S.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the management of obesity: a technology assessment.
By O’Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G.
-
The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance angiography for carotid artery stenosis and peripheral vascular disease: a systematic review.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Westwood ME, Davies LM, Gough MJ, Bamford JM, et al.
-
Promoting physical activity in South Asian Muslim women through ‘exercise on prescription’.
By Carroll B, Ali N, Azam N.
-
Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burls A, Clark W, Stewart T, Preston C, Bryan S, Jefferson T, et al.
-
A review of the natural history and epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: implications for resource allocation and health economic models.
By Richards RG, Sampson FC, Beard SM, Tappenden P.
-
Screening for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Scott DA, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clegg AJ, Colquitt J, Sidhu MK, Royle P, Loveman E, Walker A.
-
The clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab for breast cancer: a systematic review.
By Lewis R, Bagnall A-M, Forbes C, Shirran E, Duffy S, Kleijnen J, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine for breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Lewis R, Bagnall A-M, King S, Woolacott N, Forbes C, Shirran L, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease.
By Vale L, Wyness L, McCormack K, McKenzie L, Brazzelli M, Stearns SC.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Woolacott NF, Jones L, Forbes CA, Mather LC, Sowden AJ, Song FJ, et al.
-
A systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation of new drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: etanercept.
By Cummins C, Connock M, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of growth hormone in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Cave C, Mihaylova B, Chase D, McIntyre L, Gerard K, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of growth hormone in adults in relation to impact on quality of life: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Loveman E, Chase D, Mihaylova B, Cave C, Gerard K, et al.
-
Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of patients on repeat prescriptions in general practice: a randomised controlled trial.
By Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Lowe CJ, Freementle N, Vail A.
-
The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety.
By Kaltenthaler E, Shackley P, Stevens K, Beverley C, Parry G, Chilcott J.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride for ovarian cancer.
By Forbes C, Wilby J, Richardson G, Sculpher M, Mather L, Reimsma R.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions based on a stages-of-change approach to promote individual behaviour change.
By Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, et al.
-
A systematic review update of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists.
By Robinson M, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Jones L, Riemsma R, Palmer S, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and barriers to implementation of thrombolytic and neuroprotective therapy for acute ischaemic stroke in the NHS.
By Sandercock P, Berge E, Dennis M, Forbes J, Hand P, Kwan J, et al.
-
A randomised controlled crossover trial of nurse practitioner versus doctor-led outpatient care in a bronchiectasis clinic.
By Caine N, Sharples LD, Hollingworth W, French J, Keogan M, Exley A, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost – consequences of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of sex offenders.
By Adi Y, Ashcroft D, Browne K, Beech A, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C.
-
Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost–utility analysis.
By Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, Calvert NW, Lloyd Jones M.
-
Which anaesthetic agents are cost-effective in day surgery? Literature review, national survey of practice and randomised controlled trial.
By Elliott RA Payne K, Moore JK, Davies LM, Harper NJN, St Leger AS, et al.
-
Screening for hepatitis C among injecting drug users and in genitourinary medicine clinics: systematic reviews of effectiveness, modelling study and national survey of current practice.
By Stein K, Dalziel K, Walker A, McIntyre L, Jenkins B, Horne J, et al.
-
The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature.
By Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib in chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review.
By Garside R, Round A, Dalziel K, Stein K, Royle R.
-
A comparative study of hypertonic saline, daily and alternate-day rhDNase in children with cystic fibrosis.
By Suri R, Wallis C, Bush A, Thompson S, Normand C, Flather M, et al.
-
A systematic review of the costs and effectiveness of different models of paediatric home care.
By Parker G, Bhakta P, Lovett CA, Paisley S, Olsen R, Turner D, et al.
-
How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.
By Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure.
By Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, Wyness L, Fraser C, MacLeod A, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease.
By Clark W, Raftery J, Barton P, Song F, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus negative.
By Chilcott J, Lloyd Jones M, Wight J, Forman K, Wray J, Beverley C, et al.
-
Systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing’s sarcoma and neuroblastoma.
By Riley RD, Burchill SA, Abrams KR, Heney D, Lambert PC, Jones DR, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of screening for Helicobacter pylori to reduce mortality and morbidity from gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease: a discrete-event simulation model.
By Roderick P, Davies R, Raftery J, Crabbe D, Pearce R, Bhandari P, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine dental checks: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Davenport C, Elley K, Salas C, Taylor-Weetman CL, Fry-Smith A, Bryan S, et al.
-
A multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the costs and benefits of using structured information and analysis of women’s preferences in the management of menorrhagia.
By Kennedy ADM, Sculpher MJ, Coulter A, Dwyer N, Rees M, Horsley S, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost–utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, Moore D, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C.
-
Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities.
By Grimshaw GM, Szczepura A, Hultén M, MacDonald F, Nevin NC, Sutton F, et al.
-
First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS).
By Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson AM.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound locating devices for central venous access: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams RG, Thomas SM, Beverley C, Davidson A.
-
A systematic review of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia.
By Bagnall A-M, Jones L, Lewis R, Ginnelly L, Glanville J, Torgerson D, et al.
-
Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study.
By Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, et al.
-
Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Boland A, Dundar Y, Bagust A, Haycox A, Hill R, Mujica Mota R, et al.
-
Screening for fragile X syndrome: a literature review and modelling.
By Song FJ, Barton P, Sleightholme V, Yao GL, Fry-Smith A.
-
Systematic review of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyps.
By Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P.
-
Towards efficient guidelines: how to monitor guideline use in primary care.
By Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Cox S, Gilbert C.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acute hospital-based spinal cord injuries services: systematic review.
By Bagnall A-M, Jones L, Richardson G, Duffy S, Riemsma R.
-
Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies.
By Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for treatment of urinary stress incontinence.
By Cody J, Wyness L, Wallace S, Glazener C, Kilonzo M, Stearns S, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient education models for diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle P, Dunn N, Waugh N.
-
The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials.
By Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, Karnon J, Tappenden P.
-
Cost–benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65–74 years of age.
By Allsup S, Gosney M, Haycox A, Regan M.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heart-beating donors.
By Wight J, Chilcott J, Holmes M, Brewer N.
-
Can randomised trials rely on existing electronic data? A feasibility study to explore the value of routine data in health technology assessment.
By Williams JG, Cheung WY, Cohen DR, Hutchings HA, Longo MF, Russell IT.
-
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.
By Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a package comprising a patient-orientated, evidence-based self- help guidebook and patient-centred consultations on disease management and satisfaction in inflammatory bowel disease.
By Kennedy A, Nelson E, Reeves D, Richardson G, Roberts C, Robinson A, et al.
-
The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review.
By Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N.
-
The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy.
By Sharp PF, Olson J, Strachan F, Hipwell J, Ludbrook A, O’Donnell M, et al.
-
Lowering blood pressure to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke: a new preventive strategy.
By Law M, Wald N, Morris J.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ward S, Kaltenthaler E, Cowan J, Brewer N.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for early localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
By Hummel S, Paisley S, Morgan A, Currie E, Brewer N.
-
Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system.
By Royle P, Waugh N.
-
Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B.
By Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, Cooper N, Sutton A, Abrams K.
-
A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Hickman line insertions in adult cancer patients by nurses.
By Boland A, Haycox A, Bagust A, Fitzsimmons L.
-
Redesigning postnatal care: a randomised controlled trial of protocol-based midwifery-led care focused on individual women’s physical and psychological health needs.
By MacArthur C, Winter HR, Bick DE, Lilford RJ, Lancashire RJ, Knowles H, et al.
-
Estimating implied rates of discount in healthcare decision-making.
By West RR, McNabb R, Thompson AGH, Sheldon TA, Grimley Evans J.
-
Systematic review of isolation policies in the hospital management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review of the literature with epidemiological and economic modelling.
By Cooper BS, Stone SP, Kibbler CC, Cookson BD, Roberts JA, Medley GF, et al.
-
Treatments for spasticity and pain in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.
By Beard S, Hunn A, Wight J.
-
The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews.
By Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP.
-
The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.
By Bankhead CR, Brett J, Bukach C, Webster P, Stewart-Brown S, Munafo M, et al.
-
What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke?
By Wardlaw JM, Keir SL, Seymour J, Lewis S, Sandercock PAG, Dennis MS, et al.
-
Systematic review and modelling of the investigation of acute and chronic chest pain presenting in primary care.
By Mant J, McManus RJ, Oakes RAL, Delaney BC, Barton PM, Deeks JJ, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and economic modelling.
By Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, Round A, Price A.
-
A systematic review of the role of bisphosphonates in metastatic disease.
By Ross JR, Saunders Y, Edmonds PM, Patel S, Wonderling D, Normand C, et al.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine (Xeloda®) for locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer.
By Jones L, Hawkins N, Westwood M, Wright K, Richardson G, Riemsma R.
-
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.
By Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and costs of the Sugarbaker procedure for the treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei.
By Bryant J, Clegg AJ, Sidhu MK, Brodin H, Royle P, Davidson P.
-
Psychological treatment for insomnia in the regulation of long-term hypnotic drug use.
By Morgan K, Dixon S, Mathers N, Thompson J, Tomeny M.
-
Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome.
By Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography compared with diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
By Kaltenthaler E, Bravo Vergel Y, Chilcott J, Thomas S, Blakeborough T, Walters SJ, et al.
-
The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis.
By Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review.
By Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Czoski-Murray C, Warren E, Chilcott J, Beverley C, Psyllaki MA, Cowan J.
-
Routine examination of the newborn: the EMREN study. Evaluation of an extension of the midwife role including a randomised controlled trial of appropriately trained midwives and paediatric senior house officers.
By Townsend J, Wolke D, Hayes J, Davé S, Rogers C, Bloomfield L, et al.
-
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.
By Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al.
-
A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery.
By Reeves BC, Angelini GD, Bryan AJ, Taylor FC, Cripps T, Spyt TJ, et al.
-
Does early magnetic resonance imaging influence management or improve outcome in patients referred to secondary care with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
By Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MGC, Vale L, Scott NW, Campbell MK, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Burls A.
-
A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.
By Bridle C, Palmer S, Bagnall A-M, Darba J, Duffy S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis.
By Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N.
-
Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement.
By Avenell A, Broom J, Brown TJ, Poobalan A, Aucott L, Stearns SC, et al.
-
Autoantibody testing in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus.
By Dretzke J, Cummins C, Sandercock J, Fry-Smith A, Barrett T, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prehospital intravenous fluids in trauma patients.
By Dretzke J, Sandercock J, Bayliss S, Burls A.
-
Newer hypnotic drugs for the short-term management of insomnia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Dündar Y, Boland A, Strobl J, Dodd S, Haycox A, Bagust A, et al.
-
Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.
By Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J.
-
EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy.
By Garry R, Fountain J, Brown J, Manca A, Mason S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: developments on the health economics of interferon-β and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis.
By Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, Oakley J, McCabe C.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Price A.
-
VenUS I: a randomised controlled trial of two types of bandage for treating venous leg ulcers.
By Iglesias C, Nelson EA, Cullum NA, Torgerson DJ, on behalf of the VenUS Team.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction.
By Mowatt G, Vale L, Brazzelli M, Hernandez R, Murray A, Scott N, et al.
-
A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme.
By Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S.
-
The Social Support and Family Health Study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of two alternative forms of postnatal support for mothers living in disadvantaged inner-city areas.
By Wiggins M, Oakley A, Roberts I, Turner H, Rajan L, Austerberry H, et al.
-
Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review.
By Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant, Cuckle HS.
-
Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status.
By Critchley HOD, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B.
-
Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, Dickson R, Dündar Y, Haycox A, et al.
-
Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
By Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al.
-
Rituximab (MabThera®) for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Knight C, Hind D, Brewer N, Abbott V.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Jones L, Griffin S, Palmer S, Main C, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Pegylated interferon α-2a and -2b in combination with ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Brodin H, Cave C, Waugh N, Price A, Gabbay J.
-
Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment- elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Main C, Palmer S, Griffin S, Jones L, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programmes: improving services to under-represented groups.
By Beswick AD, Rees K, Griebsch I, Taylor FC, Burke M, West RR, et al.
-
Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials.
By Hussain-Gambles M, Leese B, Atkin K, Brown J, Mason S, Tovey P.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes.
By Colquitt JL, Green C, Sidhu MK, Hartwell D, Waugh N.
-
Identification and assessment of ongoing trials in health technology assessment reviews.
By Song FJ, Fry-Smith A, Davenport C, Bayliss S, Adi Y, Wilson JS, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of a long-acting insulin analogue, insulin glargine
By Warren E, Weatherley-Jones E, Chilcott J, Beverley C.
-
Supplementation of a home-based exercise programme with a class-based programme for people with osteoarthritis of the knees: a randomised controlled trial and health economic analysis.
By McCarthy CJ, Mills PM, Pullen R, Richardson G, Hawkins N, Roberts CR, et al.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Green C, Colquitt JL, Kirby J, Davidson P, Payne E.
-
Acupuncture of chronic headache disorders in primary care: randomised controlled trial and economic analysis.
By Vickers AJ, Rees RW, Zollman CE, McCarney R, Smith CM, Ellis N, et al.
-
Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.
By Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al.
-
Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations.
By Wallace P, Barber J, Clayton W, Currell R, Fleming K, Garner P, et al.
-
Randomised controlled multiple treatment comparison to provide a cost-effectiveness rationale for the selection of antimicrobial therapy in acne.
By Ozolins M, Eady EA, Avery A, Cunliffe WJ, O’Neill C, Simpson NB, et al.
-
Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?
By Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L.
-
Improving the referral process for familial breast cancer genetic counselling: findings of three randomised controlled trials of two interventions.
By Wilson BJ, Torrance N, Mollison J, Wordsworth S, Gray JR, Haites NE, et al.
-
Randomised evaluation of alternative electrosurgical modalities to treat bladder outflow obstruction in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
By Fowler C, McAllister W, Plail R, Karim O, Yang Q.
-
A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative therapies for patients with inoperable oesophageal cancer.
By Shenfine J, McNamee P, Steen N, Bond J, Griffin SM.
-
Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography.
By Taylor P, Champness J, Given- Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts H.
-
Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials.
By Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, et al.
-
Lay public’s understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials.
By Robinson EJ, Kerr CEP, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, et al.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy for depressive illness, schizophrenia, catatonia and mania: systematic reviews and economic modelling studies.
By Greenhalgh J, Knight C, Hind D, Beverley C, Walters S.
-
Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology.
By Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, Harwood R, Foley B, Smith P, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris®) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Green C, Dinnes J, Takeda A, Shepherd J, Hartwell D, Cave C, et al.
-
A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
By Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P.
-
Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK.
By Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C.
-
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation.
By McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wilby J, Kainth A, Hawkins N, Epstein D, McIntosh H, McDaid C, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine.
By Peveler R, Kendrick T, Buxton M, Longworth L, Baldwin D, Moore M, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hartwell D, Colquitt J, Loveman E, Clegg AJ, Brodin H, Waugh N, et al.
-
A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies in stroke care.
By Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Knapp M, Swift C, Donaldson N.
-
The investigation and analysis of critical incidents and adverse events in healthcare.
By Woloshynowych M, Rogers S, Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C.
-
Potential use of routine databases in health technology assessment.
By Raftery J, Roderick P, Stevens A.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study.
By Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C, Bayliss S, Ready A, Raftery J, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
By Stevenson M, Lloyd Jones M, De Nigris E, Brewer N, Davis S, Oakley J.
-
A systematic review to examine the impact of psycho-educational interventions on health outcomes and costs in adults and children with difficult asthma.
By Smith JR, Mugford M, Holland R, Candy B, Noble MJ, Harrison BDW, et al.
-
An evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and quality of renal replacement therapy provision in renal satellite units in England and Wales.
By Roderick P, Nicholson T, Armitage A, Mehta R, Mullee M, Gerard K, et al.
-
Imatinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wilson J, Connock M, Song F, Yao G, Fry-Smith A, Raftery J, et al.
-
Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.
By Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and decision-analytical modelling.
By Robinson M, Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Bowens A, et al.
-
Outcomes of electrically stimulated gracilis neosphincter surgery.
By Tillin T, Chambers M, Feldman R.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Stein K, Castelnuovo E, Pitt M, Ashcroft D, Dimmock P, et al.
-
Systematic review on urine albumin testing for early detection of diabetic complications.
By Newman DJ, Mattock MB, Dawnay ABS, Kerry S, McGuire A, Yaqoob M, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of water-based therapy for lower limb osteoarthritis.
By Cochrane T, Davey RC, Matthes Edwards SM.
-
Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain.
By Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J, Thorpe L, Brazier J, Campbell M, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica.
By Price C, Arden N, Coglan L, Rogers P.
-
The British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group (BROSG) randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of aggressive versus symptomatic therapy in established rheumatoid arthritis.
By Symmons D, Tricker K, Roberts C, Davies L, Dawes P, Scott DL.
-
Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials.
By King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Brodin H, Loveman E, Payne E, Clegg A.
-
A trial of problem-solving by community mental health nurses for anxiety, depression and life difficulties among general practice patients. The CPN-GP study.
By Kendrick T, Simons L, Mynors-Wallis L, Gray A, Lathlean J, Pickering R, et al.
-
The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials.
By Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al.
-
Is hydrotherapy cost-effective? A randomised controlled trial of combined hydrotherapy programmes compared with physiotherapy land techniques in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
By Epps H, Ginnelly L, Utley M, Southwood T, Gallivan S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study of systematic screening (targeted and total population screening) versus routine practice for the detection of atrial fibrillation in people aged 65 and over. The SAFE study.
By Hobbs FDR, Fitzmaurice DA, Mant J, Murray E, Jowett S, Bryan S, et al.
-
Displaced intracapsular hip fractures in fit, older people: a randomised comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty.
By Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF.
-
Long-term outcome of cognitive behaviour therapy clinical trials in central Scotland.
By Durham RC, Chambers JA, Power KG, Sharp DM, Macdonald RR, Major KA, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Castelnuovo E, Stein K, Pitt M, Garside R, Payne E.
-
Newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Knowles R, Griebsch I, Dezateux C, Brown J, Bull C, Wren C.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clegg AJ, Scott DA, Loveman E, Colquitt J, Hutchinson J, Royle P, et al.
-
The effectiveness of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and laser diagnostic glaucoma scanning system (GDx) in detecting and monitoring glaucoma.
By Kwartz AJ, Henson DB, Harper RA, Spencer AF, McLeod D.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects in knee joints: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clar C, Cummins E, McIntyre L, Thomas S, Lamb J, Bain L, et al.
-
Systematic review of effectiveness of different treatments for childhood retinoblastoma.
By McDaid C, Hartley S, Bagnall A-M, Ritchie G, Light K, Riemsma R.
-
Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anticoagulation, dextran and regional anaesthesia as thromboprophylaxis.
By Roderick P, Ferris G, Wilson K, Halls H, Jackson D, Collins R, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parent training/education programmes for the treatment of conduct disorder, including oppositional defiant disorder, in children.
By Dretzke J, Frew E, Davenport C, Barlow J, Stewart-Brown S, Sandercock J, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease.
By Loveman E, Green C, Kirby J, Takeda A, Picot J, Payne E, et al.
-
FOOD: a multicentre randomised trial evaluating feeding policies in patients admitted to hospital with a recent stroke.
By Dennis M, Lewis S, Cranswick G, Forbes J.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews.
By Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, Walker S, McLeod C, De Verteuil R, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery.
By Whiting P, Gupta R, Burch J, Mujica Mota RE, Wright K, Marson A, et al.
-
Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies.
By Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR.
-
Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence.
By Martin JL, Williams KS, Abrams KR, Turner DA, Sutton AJ, Chapple C, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for children with epilepsy. A systematic review.
By Connock M, Frew E, Evans B-W, Bryan S, Cummins C, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M, Stein K, Price A, Gilbert N.
-
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Main C, Bojke L, Griffin S, Norman G, Barbieri M, Mather L, et al.
-
Evaluation of molecular techniques in prediction and diagnosis of cytomegalovirus disease in immunocompromised patients.
By Szczepura A, Westmoreland D, Vinogradova Y, Fox J, Clark M.
-
Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study.
By Wu O, Robertson L, Twaddle S, Lowe GDO, Clark P, Greaves M, et al.
-
A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers.
By Nelson EA, O’Meara S, Craig D, Iglesias C, Golder S, Dalton J, et al.
-
Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial).
By Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE, MacIntyre JB, Palfreyman SJ, Ratcliffe J, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care.
By Speight PM, Palmer S, Moles DR, Downer MC, Smith DH, Henriksson M, et al.
-
Measurement of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive diagnostic testing strategies for deep vein thrombosis.
By Goodacre S, Sampson F, Stevenson M, Wailoo A, Sutton A, Thomas S, et al.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® for the treatment of occlusal pit/fissure caries and root caries.
By Brazzelli M, McKenzie L, Fielding S, Fraser C, Clarkson J, Kilonzo M, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trials of conventional antipsychotic versus new atypical drugs, and new atypical drugs versus clozapine, in people with schizophrenia responding poorly to, or intolerant of, current drug treatment.
By Lewis SW, Davies L, Jones PB, Barnes TRE, Murray RM, Kerwin R, et al.
-
Diagnostic tests and algorithms used in the investigation of haematuria: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.
By Rodgers M, Nixon J, Hempel S, Aho T, Kelly J, Neal D, et al.
-
Cognitive behavioural therapy in addition to antispasmodic therapy for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: randomised controlled trial.
By Kennedy TM, Chalder T, McCrone P, Darnley S, Knapp M, Jones RH, et al.
-
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies for Fabry’s disease and mucopolysaccharidosis type 1.
By Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Frew E, Mans A, Dretzke J, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Health benefits of antiviral therapy for mild chronic hepatitis C: randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.
By Wright M, Grieve R, Roberts J, Main J, Thomas HC, on behalf of the UK Mild Hepatitis C Trial Investigators.
-
Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation.
By Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, Iglesias CP, Hawkins K, Cullum NA, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.
By King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, Weatherly H, Asseburg C, Richardson G, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher’s disease: a systematic review.
By Connock M, Burls A, Frew E, Fry-Smith A, Juarez-Garcia A, McCabe C, et al.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model.
By Thomas KS, Keogh-Brown MR, Chalmers JR, Fordham RJ, Holland RC, Armstrong SJ, et al.
-
A systematic literature review of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent wandering in dementia and evaluation of the ethical implications and acceptability of their use.
By Robinson L, Hutchings D, Corner L, Beyer F, Dickinson H, Vanoli A, et al.
-
A review of the evidence on the effects and costs of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in different patient groups, and modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost–utility for these groups in a UK context.
By Buxton M, Caine N, Chase D, Connelly D, Grace A, Jackson C, et al.
-
Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A.
-
An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in patient management in intensive care: a systematic review and a randomised controlled trial.
By Harvey S, Stevens K, Harrison D, Young D, Brampton W, McCabe C, et al.
-
Accurate, practical and cost-effective assessment of carotid stenosis in the UK.
By Wardlaw JM, Chappell FM, Stevenson M, De Nigris E, Thomas S, Gillard J, et al.
-
Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Misso K, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of testing for hepatitis C in former injecting drug users.
By Castelnuovo E, Thompson-Coon J, Pitt M, Cramp M, Siebert U, Price A, et al.
-
Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Kaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
By Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, et al.
-
Psychological therapies including dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: a systematic review and preliminary economic evaluation.
By Brazier J, Tumur I, Holmes M, Ferriter M, Parry G, Dent-Brown K, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model.
By Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, et al.
-
Cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of an outpatient group programme.
By O’Dowd H, Gladwell P, Rogers CA, Hollinghurst S, Gregory A.
-
A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling.
By Brown TJ, Hooper L, Elliott RA, Payne K, Webb R, Roberts C, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for coronary artery disease: systematic review.
By Waugh N, Black C, Walker S, McIntyre L, Cummins E, Hillis G.
-
What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET).
By Williams J, Russell I, Durai D, Cheung W-Y, Farrin A, Bloor K, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Pandor A, Eggington S, Paisley S, Tappenden P, Sutcliffe P.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness.
By Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, et al.
-
Telemedicine in dermatology: a randomised controlled trial.
By Bowns IR, Collins K, Walters SJ, McDonagh AJG.
-
Cost-effectiveness of cell salvage and alternative methods of minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion: a systematic review and economic model.
By Davies L, Brown TJ, Haynes S, Payne K, Elliott RA, McCollum C.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.
By Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R, Hernandez R, Fraser C, McKinley A, et al.
-
Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review.
By Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Bravo Vergel Y, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of clinical decision tools for acute abdominal pain.
By Liu JLY, Wyatt JC, Deeks JJ, Clamp S, Keen J, Verde P, et al.
-
Evaluation of the ventricular assist device programme in the UK.
By Sharples L, Buxton M, Caine N, Cafferty F, Demiris N, Dyer M, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation in children.
By Yao G, Albon E, Adi Y, Milford D, Bayliss S, Ready A, et al.
-
Amniocentesis results: investigation of anxiety. The ARIA trial.
By Hewison J, Nixon J, Fountain J, Cocks K, Jones C, Mason G, et al.
-
Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Dundar Y, Bagust A, Dickson R, Dodd S, Green J, Haycox A, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.
By Collins R, Fenwick E, Trowman R, Perard R, Norman G, Light K, et al.
-
A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection.
By Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kunst H, Gibson A, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women.
By Stevenson M, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M, Beverley C.
-
A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines.
By Raynor DK, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, Grime J, Nicolson DJ, Pollock K, et al.
-
Oral naltrexone as a treatment for relapse prevention in formerly opioid-dependent drug users: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Adi Y, Juarez-Garcia A, Wang D, Jowett S, Frew E, Day E, et al.
-
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost–utility analysis.
By Kanis JA, Stevenson M, McCloskey EV, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M.
-
Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection.
By Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al.
-
Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Jowett S, Frew E, Liu Z, Taylor RJ, et al.
-
Exercise Evaluation Randomised Trial (EXERT): a randomised trial comparing GP referral for leisure centre-based exercise, community-based walking and advice only.
By Isaacs AJ, Critchley JA, See Tai S, Buckingham K, Westley D, Harridge SDR, et al.
-
Interferon alfa (pegylated and non-pegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Hartwell D, Davidson P, Price A, Waugh N.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
By Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, Carroll C.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alfa, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment.
By Wilson J, Yao GL, Raftery J, Bohlius J, Brunskill S, Sandercock J, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events.
By Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, Holmes M, Ara R, Ryan A, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers.
By Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, Arksey H, Golder S, Adamson J, et al.
-
Additional therapy for young children with spastic cerebral palsy: a randomised controlled trial.
By Weindling AM, Cunningham CC, Glenn SM, Edwards RT, Reeves DJ.
-
Screening for type 2 diabetes: literature review and economic modelling.
By Waugh N, Scotland G, McNamee P, Gillett M, Brennan A, Goyder E, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet for secondary hyperparathyroidism in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Mealing S, Roome C, Snaith A, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Takeda AL, Jones J, Loveman E, Tan SC, Clegg AJ.
-
A systematic review of duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease.
By Collins R, Cranny G, Burch J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Craig D, Wright K, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review.
By Colquitt JL, Kirby J, Green C, Cooper K, Trompeter RS.
-
A systematic review of the routine monitoring of growth in children of primary school age to identify growth-related conditions.
By Fayter D, Nixon J, Hartley S, Rithalia A, Butler G, Rudolf M, et al.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness of preventing and treating Staphylococcus aureus carriage in reducing peritoneal catheter-related infections.
By McCormack K, Rabindranath K, Kilonzo M, Vale L, Fraser C, McIntyre L, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy in severe depression: a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic analysis.
By McLoughlin DM, Mogg A, Eranti S, Pluck G, Purvis R, Edwards D, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of speech and language therapy for children with primary language impairment.
By Boyle J, McCartney E, Forbes J, O’Hare A.
-
Hormonal therapies for early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hind D, Ward S, De Nigris E, Simpson E, Carroll C, Wyld L.
-
Cardioprotection against the toxic effects of anthracyclines given to children with cancer: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Picot J, Levitt G, Sullivan I, Baxter L, Clegg A.
-
Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Dagenais P, Dickson R, Dundar Y, et al.
-
Prenatal screening and treatment strategies to prevent group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost-effectiveness and expected value of information analyses.
By Colbourn T, Asseburg C, Bojke L, Philips Z, Claxton K, Ades AE, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bone morphogenetic proteins in the non-healing of fractures and spinal fusion: a systematic review.
By Garrison KR, Donell S, Ryder J, Shemilt I, Mugford M, Harvey I, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial.
By Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, King CC, Jack W, van der Pol M, et al.
-
Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen.
By Bamford J, Fortnum H, Bristow K, Smith J, Vamvakas G, Davies L, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Black C, Cummins E, Royle P, Philip S, Waugh N.
-
Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and economic analysis.
By Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Cramp M, et al.
-
The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Homebased compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost-effectiveness and patient adherence.
By Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip GYH, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, et al.
-
A systematic review of the clinical, public health and cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection and identification of bacterial intestinal pathogens in faeces and food.
By Abubakar I, Irvine L, Aldus CF, Wyatt GM, Fordham R, Schelenz S, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD trial.
By Marson AG, Appleton R, Baker GA, Chadwick DW, Doughty J, Eaton B, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of managing long-term oral anti-coagulation therapy: a systematic review and economic modelling.
By Connock M, Stevens C, Fry-Smith A, Jowett S, Fitzmaurice D, Moore D, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing relapse in people with bipolar disorder.
By Soares-Weiser K, Bravo Vergel Y, Beynon S, Dunn G, Barbieri M, Duffy S, et al.
-
Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernández R, Siddiqui MAR, Cook J, Lourenco T, et al.
-
Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models.
By Davis A, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulos I.
-
Contamination in trials of educational interventions.
By Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, Hewitt C, Howe A, Ramsay CR, et al.
-
Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers.
By Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Rogers G, Dyer M, Mealing S, et al.
-
Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hill RA, Boland A, Dickson R, Dündar Y, Haycox A, McLeod C, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for heart failure: systematic review and economic model.
By Fox M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Dean J, Stein K, Price A, et al.
-
Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study.
By Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease: a randomised controlled trial. The CECaT trial.
By Sharples L, Hughes V, Crean A, Dyer M, Buxton M, Goldsmith K, et al.
-
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods.
By Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PMM.
-
Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
By Leontiadis GI, Sreedharan A, Dorward S, Barton P, Delaney B, Howden CW, et al.
-
A review and critique of modelling in prioritising and designing screening programmes.
By Karnon J, Goyder E, Tappenden P, McPhie S, Towers I, Brazier J, et al.
-
An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme.
By Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J.
-
A systematic review and economic model of switching from nonglycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery.
By Cranny G, Elliott R, Weatherly H, Chambers D, Hawkins N, Myers L, et al.
-
‘Cut down to quit’ with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis.
By Wang D, Connock M, Barton P, Fry-Smith A, Aveyard P, Moore D.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies for reducing fracture risk in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis with additional data on long-term risk of fracture and cost of disease management.
By Thornton J, Ashcroft D, O’Neill T, Elliott R, Adams J, Roberts C, et al.
-
Does befriending by trained lay workers improve psychological well-being and quality of life for carers of people with dementia, and at what cost? A randomised controlled trial.
By Charlesworth G, Shepstone L, Wilson E, Thalanany M, Mugford M, Poland F.
-
A multi-centre retrospective cohort study comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy and uterine artery embolisation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. The HOPEFUL study.
By Hirst A, Dutton S, Wu O, Briggs A, Edwards C, Waldenmaier L, et al.
-
Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling.
By Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L, et al.
-
The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation.
By Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S.
-
Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Weatherly H, Fox D, Golder S, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.
By Loveman E, Frampton GK, Clegg AJ.
-
Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: systematic review and qualitative study.
By Raftery J, Bryant J, Powell J, Kerr C, Hawker S.
-
Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris G, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing bloodstream infections: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hockenhull JC, Dwan K, Boland A, Smith G, Bagust A, Dundar Y, et al.
-
Stepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial.
By Mihaylov S, Stark C, McColl E, Steen N, Vanoli A, Rubin G, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy in adolescents with major depression treated by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The ADAPT trial.
By Goodyer IM, Dubicka B, Wilkinson P, Kelvin R, Roberts C, Byford S, et al.
-
The use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hind D, Tappenden P, Tumur I, Eggington E, Sutcliffe P, Ryan A.
-
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease.
By Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, et al.
-
Structural neuroimaging in psychosis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Albon E, Tsourapas A, Frew E, Davenport C, Oyebode F, Bayliss S, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over.
By Shepherd J, Rogers G, Anderson R, Main C, Thompson-Coon J, Hartwell D, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years.
By Main C, Shepherd J, Anderson R, Rogers G, Thompson-Coon J, Liu Z, et al.
-
Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ara R, Tumur I, Pandor A, Duenas A, Williams R, Wilkinson A, et al.
-
Topical or oral ibuprofen for chronic knee pain in older people. The TOIB study.
By Underwood M, Ashby D, Carnes D, Castelnuovo E, Cross P, Harding G, et al.
-
A prospective randomised comparison of minor surgery in primary and secondary care. The MiSTIC trial.
By George S, Pockney P, Primrose J, Smith H, Little P, Kinley H, et al.
-
A review and critical appraisal of measures of therapist–patient interactions in mental health settings.
By Cahill J, Barkham M, Hardy G, Gilbody S, Richards D, Bower P, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4–5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ, Marr J.
-
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip.
By de Verteuil R, Imamura M, Zhu S, Glazener C, Fraser C, Munro N, et al.
-
A preliminary model-based assessment of the cost–utility of a screening programme for early age-related macular degeneration.
By Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K, Brand C, Chakravarthy U, Davis S, et al.
-
Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Frampton GK, Tanajewski L, Turner D, Price A.
-
Absorbent products for urinary/faecal incontinence: a comparative evaluation of key product categories.
By Fader M, Cottenden A, Getliffe K, Gage H, Clarke-O’Neill S, Jamieson K, et al.
-
A systematic review of repetitive functional task practice with modelling of resource use, costs and effectiveness.
By French B, Leathley M, Sutton C, McAdam J, Thomas L, Forster A, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectivness of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease – a UK collaborative study. The reflux trial.
By Grant A, Wileman S, Ramsay C, Bojke L, Epstein D, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review.
By Takeda A, Loveman E, Harris P, Hartwell D, Welch K.
-
Performance of screening tests for child physical abuse in accident and emergency departments.
By Woodman J, Pitt M, Wentz R, Taylor B, Hodes D, Gilbert RE.
-
Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Rodgers M, McKenna C, Palmer S, Chambers D, Van Hout S, Golder S, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement.
By Lourenco T, Armstrong N, N’Dow J, Nabi G, Deverill M, Pickard R, et al.
-
Immunoprophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) with palivizumab in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wang D, Cummins C, Bayliss S, Sandercock J, Burls A.
-
Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions (transfusional haemosiderosis) in patients suffering with chronic anaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By McLeod C, Fleeman N, Kirkham J, Bagust A, Boland A, Chu P, et al.
-
Thrombophilia testing in people with venous thromboembolism: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Simpson EL, Stevenson MD, Rawdin A, Papaioannou D.
-
Surgical procedures and non-surgical devices for the management of non-apnoeic snoring: a systematic review of clinical effects and associated treatment costs.
By Main C, Liu Z, Welch K, Weiner G, Quentin Jones S, Stein K.
-
Continuous positive airway pressure devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea syndrome: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By McDaid C, Griffin S, Weatherly H, Durée K, van der Burgt M, van Hout S, Akers J, et al.
-
Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
By Sutcliffe P, Hummel S, Simpson E, Young T, Rees A, Wilkinson A, et al.
-
The harmful health effects of recreational ecstasy: a systematic review of observational evidence.
By Rogers G, Elston J, Garside R, Roome C, Taylor R, Younger P, et al.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients.
By Mowatt G, Houston G, Hernández R, de Verteuil R, Fraser C, Cuthbertson B, et al.
-
The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports.
By Taylor RS, Elston J.
-
Controlling Hypertension and Hypotension Immediately Post Stroke (CHHIPS) – a randomised controlled trial.
By Potter J, Mistri A, Brodie F, Chernova J, Wilson E, Jagger C, et al.
-
Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative women: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Pilgrim H, Lloyd-Jones M, Rees A.
-
Amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza (including a review of existing guidance no. 67): a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Tappenden P, Jackson R, Cooper K, Rees A, Simpson E, Read R, et al.
-
Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods.
By Hobart J, Cano S.
-
Treatment of severe ankle sprain: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three types of mechanical ankle support with tubular bandage. The CAST trial.
By Cooke MW, Marsh JL, Clark M, Nakash R, Jarvis RM, Hutton JL, et al. , on behalf of the CAST trial group.
-
Non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Baxter L, Hird S.
-
Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.
By Farmer AJ, Wade AN, French DP, Simon J, Yudkin P, Gray A, et al.
-
How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different health-care settings meet criteria for a screening programme? Systematic reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria.
By Feder G, Ramsay J, Dunne D, Rose M, Arsene C, Norman R, et al.
-
Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Simpson, EL, Duenas A, Holmes MW, Papaioannou D, Chilcott J.
-
The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of suspected acoustic neuroma: a systematic review of clinical and costeffectiveness and natural history.
By Fortnum H, O’Neill C, Taylor R, Lenthall R, Nikolopoulos T, Lightfoot G, et al.
-
Dipsticks and diagnostic algorithms in urinary tract infection: development and validation, randomised trial, economic analysis, observational cohort and qualitative study.
By Little P, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Moore M, Lowes JA, et al.
-
Systematic review of respite care in the frail elderly.
By Shaw C, McNamara R, Abrams K, Cannings-John R, Hood K, Longo M, et al.
-
Neuroleptics in the treatment of aggressive challenging behaviour for people with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial (NACHBID).
By Tyrer P, Oliver-Africano P, Romeo R, Knapp M, Dickens S, Bouras N, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study.
By Kendrick T, Chatwin J, Dowrick C, Tylee A, Morriss R, Peveler R, et al.
-
Diagnostic strategies using DNA testing for hereditary haemochromatosis in at-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Cooper K, Picot J, Clegg A, Roderick P, Rosenberg W, et al.
-
Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al.
-
Development of a decision support tool for primary care management of patients with abnormal liver function tests without clinically apparent liver disease: a record-linkage population cohort study and decision analysis (ALFIE).
By Donnan PT, McLernon D, Dillon JF, Ryder S, Roderick P, Sullivan F, et al.
-
A systematic review of presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation.
By Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Norman G, Myers L, Sowden A.
-
Paracetamol and ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children: the PITCH randomised controlled trial.
By Hay AD, Redmond NM, Costelloe C, Montgomery AA, Fletcher M, Hollinghurst S, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to compare minimally invasive glucose monitoring devices with conventional monitoring in the management of insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (MITRE).
By Newman SP, Cooke D, Casbard A, Walker S, Meredith S, Nunn A, et al.
-
Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making.
By Andronis L, Barton P, Bryan S.
-
Trastuzumab for the treatment of primary breast cancer in HER2-positive women: a single technology appraisal.
By Ward S, Pilgrim H, Hind D.
-
Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer: a single technology appraisal.
By Chilcott J, Lloyd Jones M, Wilkinson A.
-
The use of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer.
By Griffin S, Dunn G, Palmer S, Macfarlane K, Brent S, Dyker A, et al.
-
Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
By Dundar Y, Bagust A, Hounsome J, McLeod C, Boland A, Davis H, et al.
-
Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients.
By Green C, Bryant J, Takeda A, Cooper K, Clegg A, Smith A, et al.
-
Fludarabine phosphate for the firstline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
By Walker S, Palmer S, Erhorn S, Brent S, Dyker A, Ferrie L, et al.
-
Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer.
By McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Hockenhull J, Dundar Y, Proudlove C, et al.
-
Cetuximab plus radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.
By Griffin S, Walker S, Sculpher M, White S, Erhorn S, Brent S, et al.
-
Infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis.
By Loveman E, Turner D, Hartwell D, Cooper K, Clegg A
-
Psychological interventions for postnatal depression: cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation. The PoNDER trial.
By Morrell CJ, Warner R, Slade P, Dixon S, Walters S, Paley G, et al.
-
The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and value of information analysis.
By Rogowski R, Burch J, Palmer S, Craigs C, Golder S, Woolacott N.
-
Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnosis of heart failure, with modelling of implications of different diagnostic strategies in primary care.
By Mant J, Doust J, Roalfe A, Barton P, Cowie MR, Glasziou P, et al.
-
A multicentre randomised controlled trial of the use of continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the early treatment of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: the 3CPO trial.
By Gray AJ, Goodacre S, Newby DE, Masson MA, Sampson F, Dixon S, et al. , on behalf of the 3CPO study investigators.
-
Early high-dose lipid-lowering therapy to avoid cardiac events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ara R, Pandor A, Stevens J, Rees A, Rafia R.
-
Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alpha for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: an updated systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Jones J, Shepherd J, Baxter L, Gospodarevskaya E, Hartwell D, Harris P, et al.
-
Methods to identify postnatal depression in primary care: an integrated evidence synthesis and value of information analysis.
By Hewitt CE, Gilbody SM, Brealey S, Paulden M, Palmer S, Mann R, et al.
-
A double-blind randomised placebocontrolled trial of topical intranasal corticosteroids in 4- to 11-year-old children with persistent bilateral otitis media with effusion in primary care.
By Williamson I, Benge S, Barton S, Petrou S, Letley L, Fasey N, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of storing donated kidneys from deceased donors: a systematic review and economic model.
By Bond M, Pitt M, Akoh J, Moxham T, Hoyle M, Anderson R.
-
Rehabilitation of older patients: day hospital compared with rehabilitation at home. A randomised controlled trial.
By Parker SG, Oliver P, Pennington M, Bond J, Jagger C, Enderby PM, et al.
-
Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, Gospodarevskaya E, Loveman E, Baxter L, et al.
-
Rapid testing for group B streptococcus during labour: a test accuracy study with evaluation of acceptability and cost-effectiveness.
By Daniels J, Gray J, Pattison H, Roberts T, Edwards E, Milner P, et al.
-
Screening to prevent spontaneous preterm birth: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling.
By Honest H, Forbes CA, Durée KH, Norman G, Duffy SB, Tsourapas A, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model.
By Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Elston J, Weiner G, Taylor RS, et al.
-
Gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.
By Jones J, Takeda A, Tan SC, Cooper K, Loveman E, Clegg A.
-
Varenicline in the management of smoking cessation: a single technology appraisal.
By Hind D, Tappenden P, Peters J, Kenjegalieva K.
-
Alteplase for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: a single technology appraisal.
By Lloyd Jones M, Holmes M.
-
Rituximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
By Bagust A, Boland A, Hockenhull J, Fleeman N, Greenhalgh J, Dundar Y, et al.
-
Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma.
By Jones J, Shepherd J, Hartwell D, Harris P, Cooper K, Takeda A, et al.
-
Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
By Boland A, Bagust A, Hockenhull J, Davis H, Chu P, Dickson R.
-
Adalimumab for the treatment of psoriasis.
By Turner D, Picot J, Cooper K, Loveman E.
-
Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip and knee surgery: a single technology appraisal.
By Holmes M, C Carroll C, Papaioannou D.
-
Romiplostim for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a single technology appraisal.
By Mowatt G, Boachie C, Crowther M, Fraser C, Hernández R, Jia X, et al.
-
Sunitinib for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: a critique of the submission from Pfizer.
By Bond M, Hoyle M, Moxham T, Napier M, Anderson R.
-
Vitamin K to prevent fractures in older women: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Stevenson M, Lloyd-Jones M, Papaioannou D.
Health Technology Assessment programme
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
Prioritisation Strategy Group
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
-
Dr Bob Coates, Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Andrew Cook, Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Peter Davidson, Director of Science Support, NETSCC, HTA
-
Professor Robin E Ferner, Consultant Physician and Director, West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital NHS Trust, Birmingham
-
Professor Paul Glasziou, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Dr Nick Hicks, Director of NHS Support, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Edmund Jessop, Medical Adviser, National Specialist, National Commissioning Group (NCG), Department of Health, London
-
Ms Lynn Kerridge, Chief Executive Officer, NETSCC and NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Ruairidh Milne, Director of Strategy and Development, NETSCC
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Ms Pamela Young, Specialist Programme Manager, NETSCC, HTA
HTA Commissioning Board
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
-
Senior Lecturer in General Practice, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford
-
Professor Ann Ashburn, Professor of Rehabilitation and Head of Research, Southampton General Hospital
-
Professor Deborah Ashby, Professor of Medical Statistics, Queen Mary, University of London
-
Professor John Cairns, Professor of Health Economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Peter Croft, Director of Primary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University
-
Professor Nicky Cullum, Director of Centre for Evidence-Based Nursing, University of York
-
Professor Jenny Donovan, Professor of Social Medicine, University of Bristol
-
Professor Steve Halligan, Professor of Gastrointestinal Radiology, University College Hospital, London
-
Professor Freddie Hamdy, Professor of Urology, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Allan House, Professor of Liaison Psychiatry, University of Leeds
-
Dr Martin J Landray, Reader in Epidemiology, Honorary Consultant Physician, Clinical Trial Service Unit, University of Oxford?
-
Professor Stuart Logan, Director of Health & Social Care Research, The Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth
-
Dr Rafael Perera, Lecturer in Medical Statisitics, Department of Primary Health Care, Univeristy of Oxford
-
Professor Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology & Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Mark Sculpher, Professor of Health Economics, University of York
-
Professor Helen Smith, Professor of Primary Care, University of Brighton
-
Professor Kate Thomas, Professor of Complementary & Alternative Medicine Research, University of Leeds
-
Professor David John Torgerson, Director of York Trials Unit, University of York
-
Professor Hywel Williams, Professor of Dermato-Epidemiology, University of Nottingham
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Dr Morven Roberts, Clinical Trials Manager, Medical Research Council
Diagnostic Technologies & Screening Panel
-
Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London
-
Professor Judith E Adams, Consultant Radiologist, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester & Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust, and Professor of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, Cancer & Imaging Sciences, University of Manchester
-
Ms Jane Bates, Consultant Ultrasound Practitioner, Ultrasound Department, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
-
Dr Stephanie Dancer, Consultant Microbiologist, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride
-
Professor Glyn Elwyn, Primary Medical Care Research Group, Swansea Clinical School, University of Wales
-
Dr Ron Gray, Consultant Clinical Epidemiologist, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford
-
Professor Paul D Griffiths, Professor of Radiology, University of Sheffield
-
Dr Jennifer J Kurinczuk, Consultant Clinical Epidemiologist, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
-
Dr Susanne M Ludgate, Medical Director, Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London
-
Dr Anne Mackie, Director of Programmes, UK National Screening Committee
-
Dr Michael Millar, Consultant Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Barts and The London NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital
-
Mr Stephen Pilling, Director, Centre for Outcomes, Research & Effectiveness, Joint Director, National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, University College London
-
Mrs Una Rennard, Service User Representative
-
Dr Phil Shackley, Senior Lecturer in Health Economics, School of Population and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Dr W Stuart A Smellie, Consultant in Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital
-
Dr Nicholas Summerton, Consultant Clinical and Public Health Advisor, NICE
-
Ms Dawn Talbot, Service User Representative
-
Dr Graham Taylor, Scientific Advisor, Regional DNA Laboratory, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Professor Lindsay Wilson Turnbull, Scientific Director of the Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations and YCR Professor of Radiology, Hull Royal Infirmary
-
Dr Tim Elliott, Team Leader, Cancer Screening, Department of Health
-
Dr Catherine Moody, Programme Manager, Neuroscience and Mental Health Board
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Pharmaceuticals Panel
-
Consultant Physician and Director, West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital NHS Trust, Birmingham
-
Professor in Child Health, University of Nottingham
-
Mrs Nicola Carey, Senior Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care, The University of Reading
-
Mr John Chapman, Service User Representative
-
Dr Peter Elton, Director of Public Health, Bury Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Ben Goldacre, Research Fellow, Division of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry, King’s College London
-
Mrs Barbara Greggains, Service User Representative
-
Dr Bill Gutteridge, Medical Adviser, London Strategic Health Authority
-
Dr Dyfrig Hughes, Reader in Pharmacoeconomics and Deputy Director, Centre for Economics and Policy in Health, IMSCaR, Bangor University
-
Professor Jonathan Ledermann, Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre
-
Dr Yoon K Loke, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacology, University of East Anglia
-
Professor Femi Oyebode, Consultant Psychiatrist and Head of Department, University of Birmingham
-
Dr Andrew Prentice, Senior Lecturer and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, The Rosie Hospital, University of Cambridge
-
Dr Martin Shelly, General Practitioner, Leeds, and Associate Director, NHS Clinical Governance Support Team, Leicester
-
Dr Gillian Shepherd, Director, Health and Clinical Excellence, Merck Serono Ltd
-
Mrs Katrina Simister, Assistant Director New Medicines, National Prescribing Centre, Liverpool
-
Mr David Symes, Service User Representative
-
Dr Lesley Wise, Unit Manager, Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit, VRMM, Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Mr Simon Reeve, Head of Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness, Medicines, Pharmacy and Industry Group, Department of Health
-
Dr Heike Weber, Programme Manager, Medical Research Council
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Therapeutic Procedures Panel
-
Consultant Physician, North Bristol NHS Trust
-
Professor of Psychiatry, Division of Health in the Community, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Professor Jane Barlow, Professor of Public Health in the Early Years, Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, Coventry
-
Ms Maree Barnett, Acting Branch Head of Vascular Programme, Department of Health
-
Mrs Val Carlill, Service User Representative
-
Mrs Anthea De Barton-Watson, Service User Representative
-
Mr Mark Emberton, Senior Lecturer in Oncological Urology, Institute of Urology, University College Hospital, London
-
Professor Steve Goodacre, Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Christopher Griffiths, Professor of Primary Care, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
-
Mr Paul Hilton, Consultant Gynaecologist and Urogynaecologist, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Nicholas James, Professor of Clinical Oncology, University of Birmingham, and Consultant in Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital
-
Dr Peter Martin, Consultant Neurologist, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge
-
Dr Kate Radford, Senior Lecturer (Research), Clinical Practice Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston
-
Mr Jim Reece Service User Representative
-
Dr Karen Roberts, Nurse Consultant, Dunston Hill Hospital Cottages
-
Dr Phillip Leech, Principal Medical Officer for Primary Care, Department of Health
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Dr Morven Roberts, Clinical Trials Manager, Medical Research Council
-
Professor Tom Walley, Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Disease Prevention Panel
-
Medical Adviser, National Specialist, National Commissioning Group (NCG), London
-
Director, NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Cambridge
-
Dr Elizabeth Fellow-Smith, Medical Director, West London Mental Health Trust, Middlesex
-
Dr John Jackson, General Practitioner, Parkway Medical Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Mike Kelly, Director, Centre for Public Health Excellence, NICE, London
-
Dr Chris McCall, General Practitioner, The Hadleigh Practice, Corfe Mullen, Dorset
-
Ms Jeanett Martin, Director of Nursing, BarnDoc Limited, Lewisham Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Julie Mytton, Locum Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Bristol Primary Care Trust
-
Miss Nicky Mullany, Service User Representative
-
Professor Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Ken Stein, Senior Clinical Lecturer in Public Health, University of Exeter
-
Dr Kieran Sweeney, Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth
-
Professor Carol Tannahill, Glasgow Centre for Population Health
-
Professor Margaret Thorogood, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry
-
Ms Christine McGuire, Research & Development, Department of Health
-
Dr Caroline Stone, Programme Manager, Medical Research Council
Expert Advisory Network
-
Professor Douglas Altman, Professor of Statistics in Medicine, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Professor John Bond, Professor of Social Gerontology & Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Andrew Bradbury, Professor of Vascular Surgery, Solihull Hospital, Birmingham
-
Mr Shaun Brogan, Chief Executive, Ridgeway Primary Care Group, Aylesbury
-
Mrs Stella Burnside OBE, Chief Executive, Regulation and Improvement Authority, Belfast
-
Ms Tracy Bury, Project Manager, World Confederation for Physical Therapy, London
-
Professor Iain T Cameron, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of the School of Medicine, University of Southampton
-
Dr Christine Clark, Medical Writer and Consultant Pharmacist, Rossendale
-
Professor Collette Clifford, Professor of Nursing and Head of Research, The Medical School, University of Birmingham
-
Professor Barry Cookson, Director, Laboratory of Hospital Infection, Public Health Laboratory Service, London
-
Dr Carl Counsell, Clinical Senior Lecturer in Neurology, University of Aberdeen
-
Professor Howard Cuckle, Professor of Reproductive Epidemiology, Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Leeds
-
Dr Katherine Darton, Information Unit, MIND – The Mental Health Charity, London
-
Professor Carol Dezateux, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health, London
-
Mr John Dunning, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge
-
Mr Jonothan Earnshaw, Consultant Vascular Surgeon, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester
-
Professor Martin Eccles, Professor of Clinical Effectiveness, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Pam Enderby, Dean of Faculty of Medicine, Institute of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Gene Feder, Professor of Primary Care Research & Development, Centre for Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
-
Mr Leonard R Fenwick, Chief Executive, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Mrs Gillian Fletcher, Antenatal Teacher and Tutor and President, National Childbirth Trust, Henfield
-
Professor Jayne Franklyn, Professor of Medicine, University of Birmingham
-
Mr Tam Fry, Honorary Chairman, Child Growth Foundation, London
-
Professor Fiona Gilbert, Consultant Radiologist and NCRN Member, University of Aberdeen
-
Professor Paul Gregg, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgical Science, South Tees Hospital NHS Trust
-
Bec Hanley, Co-director, TwoCan Associates, West Sussex
-
Dr Maryann L Hardy, Senior Lecturer, University of Bradford
-
Mrs Sharon Hart, Healthcare Management Consultant, Reading
-
Professor Robert E Hawkins, CRC Professor and Director of Medical Oncology, Christie CRC Research Centre, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester
-
Professor Richard Hobbs, Head of Department of Primary Care & General Practice, University of Birmingham
-
Professor Alan Horwich, Dean and Section Chairman, The Institute of Cancer Research, London
-
Professor Allen Hutchinson, Director of Public Health and Deputy Dean of ScHARR, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Peter Jones, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
-
Professor Stan Kaye, Cancer Research UK Professor of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey
-
Dr Duncan Keeley, General Practitioner (Dr Burch & Ptnrs), The Health Centre, Thame
-
Dr Donna Lamping, Research Degrees Programme Director and Reader in Psychology, Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London
-
Mr George Levvy, Chief Executive, Motor Neurone Disease Association, Northampton
-
Professor James Lindesay, Professor of Psychiatry for the Elderly, University of Leicester
-
Professor Julian Little, Professor of Human Genome Epidemiology, University of Ottawa
-
Professor Alistaire McGuire, Professor of Health Economics, London School of Economics
-
Professor Rajan Madhok, Medical Director and Director of Public Health, Directorate of Clinical Strategy & Public Health, North & East Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire Health Authority, York
-
Professor Alexander Markham, Director, Molecular Medicine Unit, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Dr Peter Moore, Freelance Science Writer, Ashtead
-
Dr Andrew Mortimore, Public Health Director, Southampton City Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Sue Moss, Associate Director, Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton
-
Professor Miranda Mugford, Professor of Health Economics and Group Co-ordinator, University of East Anglia
-
Professor Jim Neilson, Head of School of Reproductive & Developmental Medicine and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Liverpool
-
Mrs Julietta Patnick, National Co-ordinator, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield
-
Professor Robert Peveler, Professor of Liaison Psychiatry, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton
-
Professor Chris Price, Director of Clinical Research, Bayer Diagnostics Europe, Stoke Poges
-
Professor William Rosenberg, Professor of Hepatology and Consultant Physician, University of Southampton
-
Professor Peter Sandercock, Professor of Medical Neurology, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh
-
Dr Susan Schonfield, Consultant in Public Health, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, Middlesex
-
Dr Eamonn Sheridan, Consultant in Clinical Genetics, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Dr Margaret Somerville, Director of Public Health Learning, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth
-
Professor Sarah Stewart-Brown, Professor of Public Health, Division of Health in the Community, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Professor Ala Szczepura, Professor of Health Service Research, Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Mrs Joan Webster, Consumer Member, Southern Derbyshire Community Health Council
-
Professor Martin Whittle, Clinical Co-director, National Co-ordinating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health, Lymington