| Outcomes | No of Participants (studies*) Follow up | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with Control | Risk difference with Central antihypertensive drugs (clonidine) versus placebo (95% CI) | ||||
| Cognitive function: Stockings of Cambridge - minimum moves |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - minimum moves at 30 minutes in the control groups was 10.22 |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - minimum moves at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 1.22 lower (3.33 lower to 0.89 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Stockings of Cambridge - initial think time (secs) |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - initial think time (secs) at 30 minutes in the control groups was 9.27 |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - initial think time (secs) at 30 minutes in the intervention group (clonidine) was 1.28 lower (5.19 lower to 2.63 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Stockings of Cambridge - subsequent thinking time (secs) |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - subsequent thinking time (secs) at 30 minutes in the control groups was 1.89 |
The mean cognitive function: stockings of cambridge - subsequent thinking time (secs) at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0.51 lower (3.08 lower to 2.06 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Rapid Visual Information Processing - reaction time (secs) |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: rapid visual information processing - reaction time (secs) at 30 minutes in the control groups was 5.15 |
The mean cognitive function: rapid visual information processing - reaction time (secs) at 30 minutes in the intervention group (clonidine) was 0.15 lower (1.42 lower to 1.12 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Intradimensional (IDS) set sift errors |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: intradimensional (ids) set sift errors at 30 minutes in the control groups was 0.22 |
The mean cognitive function: intradimensional (ids) set sift errors at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0.22 higher (0.34 lower to 0.78 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Extradimensional (EDS) set shift errors |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: extradimensional (eds) set shift errors at 30 minutes in the control groups was 4.44 |
The mean cognitive function: extradimensional (eds) set shift errors at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 2.66 lower (7.12 lower to 1.8 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Spatial working memory: between-search errors |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: spatial working memory: between-search errors at 30 minutes in the control groups was 9.26 |
The mean cognitive function: spatial working memory: between-search errors at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 2.17 lower (7.41 lower to 3.07 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: Spatial working memory: strategy score |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: spatial working memory: strategy score at 30 minutes in the control groups was 31.78 |
The mean cognitive function: spatial working memory: strategy score at 30 minutes in the intervention group (clonidine) was 0.22 lower (5.92 lower to 5.48 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: pattern recognition - number correct |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: pattern recognition - number correct at 30 minutes in the control groups was 21.4 |
The mean cognitive function: pattern recognition - number correct at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0.9 higher (0.77 lower to 2.57 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: spatial recognition - number correct |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: spatial recognition - number correct at 30 minutes in the control groups was 15.3 |
The mean cognitive function: spatial recognition - number correct at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0.1 lower (2.44 lower to 2.24 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: spatial span - length |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: spatial span - length at 30 minutes in the control groups was 6.1 |
The mean cognitive function: spatial span - length at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0.3 higher (0.84 lower to 1.44 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: delayed matching to sample 2 sec delay |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: delayed matching to sample 2 sec delay at 30 minutes in the control groups was 7.78 |
The mean cognitive function: delayed matching to sample 2 sec delay at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 1.22 lower (2.65 lower to 0.21 higher) | |
| Cognitive function: paired associate learning - sets completed |
18 (1 study) 30 minutes |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ due to risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision |
The mean cognitive function: paired associate learning - sets completed at 30 minutes in the control groups was 8.89 |
The mean cognitive function: paired associate learning - sets completed at 30 minutes in the intervention group was 0 higher (0.3 lower to 0.3 higher) | |
Downgraded by 1 increment if the majority of the evidence was at high risk of bias, and downgraded by 2 increments if the majority of the evidence was at very high risk of bias
The majority of the evidence included an indirect population (downgraded by one increment): downgraded if the ME/CFS diagnostic criteria used did not include PEM as a compulsory feature [original analysis]; percentage of participants with PEM unclear [PEM reanalysis – see Appendix G for additional details]
Downgraded by 1 increment if the confidence interval crossed one MID or by 2 increments if the confidence interval crossed both MIDs
Studies included: Morriss 2002
From: Pharmacological interventions
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.