Conectar
As pharmacotherapy often leads to adverse reactions, mind–body exercise (MBE) treatments have become a more popular option for treating depression in people living with breast cancer (BC). However, the most effective type of MBE treatment for this population remains unclear.
The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of the different MBE modes for depression in people with BC.
A systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to March 25, 2023, was conducted in the following database: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, China Biology Medicine, OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov. A traditional meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model to directly assess the effectiveness of various MBE interventions. Stata 16.0 software was used for performing the NMA.
The NMA was performed in 32 eligible RCTs including 2361 participants. The efficacy of MBE treatments on depression was ranked as the following: Liuzijue (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 95.4%) > Tai chi (SUCRA = 76.9%) > yoga (SUCRA = 55.0%) > Baduanjin (SUCRA = 53.9%) > Pilates (SUCRA = 38.6%) > dance (SUCRA = 30.2%) > Qigong (SUCRA = 28.1%) > control (SUCRA = 21.9%).
Our research showed that Liuzijue and Tai chi might be the most significantly effective MBE intervention for mitigating depression among BC survivors. Healthcare professionals could consider recommending Liuzijue and Tai Chi as a complementary therapy for BC survivors who experience depression.
As a devastating neurodegenerative disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD) imposes a considerable direct and indirect financial burden. However, effective drug treatment options are limited. In recent years, game therapy has become a research hotspot in this field.
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the conclusions of existing studies and integrate the data to evaluate the effects of game therapy on people living with dementia (PLWD).
We included randomized clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies which assessed the impacts of game therapy on PLWD and took cognitive function, quality of life, and depression as outcome indicators. Two trained researchers independently screened the studies, evaluated the quality, and extracted the data. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager (Revman) 5.3 and STATA16.0 software.
There were 12 studies involving 877 PLWD included, total. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of the test group were significantly higher than that of the control group (SMD = 2.69, 95% CI [1.88, 3.51], p < .01), and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia scores of the test group were significantly lower than those of the control group (SMD = −4.28, 95% CI [−6.96, −1.60], p < .01); but in terms of quality of life (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI [−0.82, 1.16], p = .74), the difference was not statistically significant.
Game therapy can improve cognitive function and depression in PLWD. The combination of different types of games can improve the different clinical symptoms of PLWD, and different intervention time also have different effects on the outcome, which shows that we can develop unique, systematic, safe, and scientific game intervention programs for PLWD to improve their cognitive function and depression.
The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.
The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.
We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.
A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.
While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.
FreshRSS 