Rehabilitation, exercise, and related non-pharmacological interventions for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

Author(s):  
Stefano Tamburin ◽  
Susanna B. Park ◽  
Angelo Schenone ◽  
Elisa Mantovani ◽  
Mehrnaz Hamedani ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S168-S168
Author(s):  
Dan Siskind ◽  
Brian Wu ◽  
Tommy Wong ◽  
Steve Kisely

Abstract Background People living with schizophrenia are 3 times more likely to smoke than the general population, and have fewer and less successful quitting attempts. In concert with psychosocial quit interventions, there is a need for evidence based pharmacological interventions to assist people living with schizophrenia achieve smoking abstinence. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane for randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for reducing smoking among people living with schizophrenia. We conducted pairwise and network meta-analyses of effectiveness of interventions for achieving abstinence and reduction in smoking. We also examined psychiatric and physical adverse events of interventions. Results Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Data was available for buproprion, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Buproprion (RR 3.4, 95%CI 1.6–7.3, p=0.002), varenicline (RR 3.8, 95%CI 2.0–7.2, p<0.001) and NRT (RR 4.3, 95%CI 1.7–10.7, p=0.002) were all associated with increased rates of abstinence in pairwise meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis varenicline was superior to buproprion (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0–3.9), however there was no statistically significant difference between varenicline and NRT or buproprion and NRT. Varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than placebo. Discussion Buproprion, varenicline and NRT were all superior to placebo for achieving abstinence. Varenicline appears to be superior to buproprion for achieving abstinence, however varenicline is associated with higher rates of nausea.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Sally Bennett ◽  
Kate Laver ◽  
Margaret MacAndrew ◽  
Elizabeth Beattie ◽  
Lindy Clemson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to identify the nature and effects of implementation strategies to increase the use of evidence-based, non-pharmacological interventions designed to reduce the frequency and/or severity of behavioral and psychological symptoms associated with dementia, for people living in the community. Design This was a systematic review of implementation studies. We searched six databases (in January 2019) and hand-searched reference lists of reports. Studies were included if they used quantitative methods evaluating the use of implementation strategies to increase the use of non-pharmacological interventions. These interventions had to have been tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and found to reduce behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, for those living in the community. Studies needed to report the effect of the implementation on clinical practice, for example, a change in practice or the adoption of the intervention in community settings. Results Twelve studies were included: 11 one-group pre-post design studies and 1 cluster RCT. All studies reported practice change – the majority implementing a new intervention, with six different types of interventions implemented. All studies reported including using partnerships, new funding, educational strategies, and ongoing support and consultation. Seven implementation studies reported positive outcomes for clients on some aspect of behavior or depression for the person with dementia. Conclusions Implementation studies using multiple implementation strategies to increase the use of non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated improvements in behavioral and psychological symptoms common in people with dementia, when provided by clinicians as part of their everyday work routines.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Van Rooyen ◽  
Ruth Stewart ◽  
Thea De Wet

Big international development donors such as the UK’s Department for International Development and USAID have recently started using systematic review as a methodology to assess the effectiveness of various development interventions to help them decide what is the ‘best’ intervention to spend money on. Such an approach to evidence-based decision-making has long been practiced in the health sector in the US, UK, and elsewhere but it is relatively new in the development field. In this article we use the case of a systematic review of the impact of microfinance on the poor in sub-Saharan African to indicate how systematic review as a methodology can be used to assess the impact of specific development interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document