Objective: Meta‐analyses of psychotherapies usually report effects sizes, while clinicians and patients need to know the proportion of patients who benefit from therapy. We conducted a meta‐analysis of therapies for depression reporting the rates of response (50% symptom reduction), remission (HAM‐D <7), clinical significant deterioration for psychotherapy, and control conditions (CAU, waitlist, and pill placebo), as well as the relative risk of these outcomes and the numbers‐needed‐to‐be‐treated (NNTs).Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and included 228 randomized trials comparing psychotherapy for depression against control conditions (75 with low risk of bias). Only therapies with at least 10 trials were included. We extracted outcomes from the studies, and for those studies not reporting the outcomes, we used a validated method to estimate the rates.Results: The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 41% (95% CI: 38~43), 17% (15~20) for usual care (CAU), and 16% (95% CI: 14~18) for waitlist. No significant differences between types of therapy were found. The NNT for therapy versus CAU was 5.3 and versus waitlist 3.9. About one third of patients remitted after therapy compared with 7%–13% in control conditions. The rates of deterioration were 5% versus 12%–13%, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses supported the general findings.Conclusion: Psychotherapies for depression may be effective compared with control conditions, but more than half of patients receiving therapy do not respond and only one third remitted. More effective treatments and treatment strategies such as sequencing and combining treatments are clearly needed.

Prediction intervals are commonly used in meta-analysis with random-effects models. One widely used method, the Higgins–Thompson–Spiegelhalter prediction interval, replaces the heterogeneity parameter with its point estimate, but its validity strongly depends on a large sample approximation. This is a weakness in meta-analyses with few studies. We propose an alternative based on bootstrap and show by simulations that its coverage is close to the nominal level, unlike the Higgins–Thompson–Spiegelhalter method and its extensions. The proposed method was applied in three meta-analyses.

Significance: In the past few years, findings have been controversial in regard to whether human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are distinct from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in their molecular signatures and differentiation properties. In this study, hiPSCs and hESCs have overlapping variations in molecular signatures such as RNA expression and DNA methylation. However, some hiPSC clones retained a significant number of undifferentiated cells even after neural differentiation culture and formed teratoma when transplanted into mouse brains. These differentiation-defective hiPSC clones were marked by higher expression levels of several genes, including those expressed from long terminal repeats of specific human endogenous retroviruses. They need to be identified and eliminated prior to applications in regenerative medicine.

To evaluate the risks and benefits of using a circular stapler (CS) compared with the hand-sewn (HS) method for the esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated that the use of a CS might prevent anastomotic leakage, whereas it was more likely to lead to anastomotic strictures. The relative efficacy of this intervention in comparison with the HS method has not been conclusively determined. A systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs that compared HS versus mechanical anastomosis using a CS was conducted regarding the leakage, strictures, operative time, and mortality. The study protocol was established a priori according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Twelve RCTs were included with a total of 1407 patients. The use of a CS, compared with the HS method, (1) led to no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage [risk ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-1.59] or postoperative mortality (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 0.95-2.83), (2) increased the incidence of anastomotic strictures (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.16-2.42), and (3) reduced the length of the operation time (mean: -15.3 minutes, range: -28.1 to -2.39). For these results, a subgroup analysis and a meta-regression analysis yielded no significant differences for the anastomotic site, diameter of the CS, layer, or configuration. The use of a CS contributed to reducing the length of the operation, but was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic strictures. Both the CS and the HS method are viable alternatives in the reconstruction after esophagectomy.