scholarly journals Autogenic Training for Reducing Chronic Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonia Kohlert ◽  
Katharina Wick ◽  
Jenny Rosendahl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Passive Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Autogenic Training ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Autogenic training (AT) is frequently used as therapeutic approach in multimodal pain therapy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the efficacy of AT in individuals suffering from chronic pain in comparison to passive and active control groups. Methods A comprehensive literature search in Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and PubPsych and manual searches (last search April 7, 2021) were conducted to locate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment guidelines and references of relevant articles and previous reviews were checked. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text database, DART-Europe E-theses Portal, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), and the Theses Database of the German National Library were screened to identify any unpublished material. Results A total of 13 eligible studies (k = 15 comparisons) including 576 participants were identified. Random-effects meta-analyses revealed a significantly positive, moderate effect of AT on the primary outcome pain compared to passive control groups (g = 0.58, 95% CI [0.36; 0.79], k = 9, I2 = 0%). In comparison with other psychological interventions, no difference was found (g = − 0.05, 95% CI [− 0.30; 0.20], k = 6, I2 = 0%). Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of findings. Overall risk-of-bias judgment was ‘some concerns’ in the majority of studies. Conclusions Beneficial effects of AT on pain reduction were demonstrated, but findings are prone to bias. Furthermore, high methodological quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the promising evidence of AT for individuals with chronic pain.

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/22821 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e22821
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. Objective This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. Methods We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. Results Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/22821

scholarly journals Auricular Plaster Therapy for Comorbid Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huimin Zhao ◽  
Dan Li ◽  
Ying Yang ◽  
Yueting Liu ◽  
Jie Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Rate ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Comorbid Insomnia ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Although the effectiveness of auricular plaster therapy (APT) on primary insomnia has been systematically reviewed, no systematic review of studies has focused on the effect on comorbid insomnia. Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of APT for comorbid insomnia. Methods. Fifteen databases were searched from inception to July 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of APT as an exclusive intervention for comorbid insomnia against Western medications, sham APT or no treatment were identified. Results. Fourteen studies involving 928 participants were identified. The pooled outcomes revealed that APT was superior to control conditions for the global score on PSQI (SMD = -1.13, and 95% CI = -1.48—-0.78) and the effective rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.13—1.36, NNT = 5, and 95% CI =4—7). Furthermore, the results of subgroup analyses were similar to the pooled results. Additionally, the pooled results were verified to be stable by sensitivity analyses. Regarding safety, no significant difference was identified between APT and Western medications. Conclusions. APT appears to be an effective and safe treatment for comorbid insomnia. However, the benefits of APT for comorbid insomnia could not be ascertained due to the paucity of the quantity and quality of the included studies. Large-scale studies using proper methodology are needed to yield a firm conclusion.

scholarly journals 2116. Comparative Effectiveness of Amphotericin B, Azoles, and Echinocandins in the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S716-S716
Author(s):  
Koray K Demir ◽  
Guillaume Butler-Laporte ◽  
Todd C Lee ◽  
Matthew P Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Invasive Candidiasis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend the use of echinocandins, amphotericin B or fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. The objective of our study was to compare these agents through a systematic review of the literature and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods Three electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched from database inception to January 1 2019. Randomized controlled trials that compared triazoles, echinocandins and/or amphotericin B (either in lipid formulation or deoxycholate form) for the treatment of invasive candidiasis or candidemia were included. Among included studies, treatment success was collected as the primary outcome and was assessed by a random effect network meta-analysis using Bayesian estimation methods. A sensitivity analysis was performed for all patients with candidemia. Results Eleven randomized controlled trials met the study inclusion criteria. Of the 2,475 patients included from these trials, 684 received an echinocandin, 855 received amphotericin B and 936 received a triazole. Echinocandins were associated with the highest rate of treatment success when compared with amphotericin B (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02–1.93) and the triazoles (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.32–2.51). Similarly, in the pre-specified analysis of candidemic patients, echinocandins were also more effective overall than amphotericin B (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84–1.87) and triazoles (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16–2.44). Patients treated with triazoles had a lower rate of treatment success than amphotericin B in the overall (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.01) and candidemia sensitivity analyses (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56–1.01) Rank probability analysis favored echinocandins as the most effective treatment choice 98% of the time. Conclusion In our meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies for severe Candida infections, the echinocandins had the highest rate of treatment success compared with both amphotericin B and triazoles. Echinocandins should be considered as first-line agents in the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia. Further research is needed to determine the minimum duration of echinocandin treatment prior to using step-down therapy. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Effects of the Small-Sided Soccer Games on Blood Pressure in Untrained Hypertensive Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 345
Author(s):  
Filipe Manuel Clemente ◽  
Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo ◽  
Hugo Sarmento
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Diastolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of small-sided games (SSGs)-based programs on the systolic and diastolic blood pressure of untrained hypertensive adults. The data sources utilized were Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. The eligibility criteria were: (i) randomized controlled trials including a control group and an intervention group exclusively using soccer SSGs; (ii) intervention and control groups including an untrained hypertensive adult population; (iii) articles written in English; and (iv) only full-text and original articles. The database search initially identified 241 titles. From those, five articles were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The included randomized controlled studies involved five individual experimental groups and 88 participants, and 68 participants in the five control groups. The results showed a large and beneficial effect of SSG on systolic (ES = 1.69; 95% CI = 0.71 to 2.66; p = 0.001; I2 = 85.2%; Egger’s test p = 0.101) and diastolic blood pressure (ES = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.44 to 3.06; p < 0.001; I2 = 74.8%; Egger’s test p = 0.118) when compared to the control groups. The findings of the current systematic review and meta-analysis revealed consistent beneficial effects of recreational soccer SSGs on untrained men and women from the hypertensive population, although high levels of heterogeneity.

scholarly journals The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Negin Hesam-Shariati ◽  
Wei-Ju Chang ◽  
James H McAuley ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Zina Trost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BACKGROUND Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review. METHODS We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table. RESULTS Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. CLINICALTRIAL International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/22821

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document