Conectar
Weight management is an important part of disease management in patients with heart failure. However, the effectiveness of reported weight management interventions is inconclusive.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of weight management on functional status, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure.
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on April 3, 2022. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021283817). Eligible studies assessed functional status, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure. Two researchers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk bias of each study. Dichotomous variables were presented as OR with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The data were analyzed using a fixed effect or random effect model, and heterogeneity was determined using I 2 statistics. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3.
Among 4279 studies screened, seven randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The results showed that weight management significantly improved functional status (OR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.07, 0.35], I 2 = 52%) and reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.34, 0.85], I 2 = 0%), but had no significant effect on heart failure-related hospitalizations (OR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.20, 2.66]).
Weight management has effects on improved functional status and reduced all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure. It is necessary to strengthen the weight management interventions of patients with heart failure to improve patients' functional status and reduce all-cause mortality.
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.
Current studies have revealed that acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) can alleviate the adverse effects of cancer; however, its effectiveness on the psychological flexibility, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and quality of life of patients with cancer remains unclear.
The aims of this study were to identify the effectiveness of ACT on psychological flexibility, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and quality of life of patients with cancer, and to explore moderators.
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang electronic databases were searched from inception to September 29, 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias assessment tool II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to evaluate evidence certainty. The data were analyzed using R Studio. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022361185).
The study included 19 relevant studies (1643 patients) published between 2012 and 2022. The pooled results showed that ACT significantly improved psychological flexibility (mean difference [MD] = −4.22, 95% CI [−7.86, −0.58], p = .02) and quality of life (Hedges' g = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59, 1.29], Z = 5.31, p < .01) but did not significantly improve fatigue (Hedges' g = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.24, 0.18], p = .75) or sleep disturbance (Hedges' g = −0.26, 95% CI [−0.82, 0.30], p = .37) in patients with cancer. Additional analyses revealed a 3-month sustainable effect on psychological flexibility (MD = −4.36, 95% CI [−8.67, −0.05], p < .05), and moderation analysis showed that intervention duration (β = −1.39, p < .01) and age (β = 0.15, p = .04) moderated the effects of ACT on psychological flexibility and sleep disturbance, respectively.
Acceptance and commitment therapy demonstrates effectiveness for psychological flexibility and quality of life of patients with cancer, but there is a lack of evidence regarding its effects on fatigue and sleep disturbance. In clinical practice, ACT should be designed in more detail and rounded to achieve better results.
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 