EFFICACY OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY AND POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Adrian V. Hernandez ◽  
Laura Casado ◽  
Ines Magan ◽  
Maria Rosa Jurado ◽  
Haley Barnum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Positive Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychological Outcomes ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Artery Disease

349 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Patients with Chronic Pain - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A139-A140
Author(s):  
Janannii Selvanathan ◽  
Chi Pham ◽  
Mahesh Nagappa ◽  
Philip Peng ◽  
Marina Englesakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Comorbid Insomnia ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction Patients with chronic non-cancer pain often report insomnia as a significant comorbidity. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recommended as the first line of treatment for insomnia, and several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of CBT-I on various health outcomes in patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT-I on sleep, pain, depression, anxiety and fatigue in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Methods A systematic search was conducted using ten electronic databases. The duration of the search was set between database inception to April 2020. Included studies must be RCTs assessing the effects of CBT-I on at least patient-reported sleep outcomes in adults with chronic non-cancer pain. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and Yates quality rating scale. Continuous data were extracted and summarized using standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The literature search resulted in 7,772 articles, of which 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of these articles were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis comprised 762 participants. CBT-I demonstrated a large significant effect on patient-reported sleep (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI [0.55–1.20], p < 0.00001) at post-treatment and final follow-up (up to 9 months) (0.59 [0.31–0.86], p < 0.0001); and moderate effects on pain (SMD = 0.20 [0.06, 0.34], p = 0.006) and depression (0.44 [0.09–0.79], p= 0.01) at post-treatment. The probability of improving sleep and pain following CBT-I at post-treatment was 81% and 58%, respectively. The probability of improving sleep and pain at final follow-up was 73% and 57%, respectively. There were no statistically significant effects on anxiety and fatigue. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT-I is effective for improving sleep in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Further, CBT-I may lead to short-term moderate improvements in pain and depression. However, there is a need for further RCTs with adequate power, longer follow-up periods, CBT for both insomnia and pain, and consistent scoring systems for assessing patient outcomes. Support (if any):

scholarly journals Discrimination capability of pretest probability of stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting how to improve validation procedures

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e047677
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Mincarone ◽  
Antonella Bodini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Tumolo ◽  
Federico Vozzi ◽  
Silvia Rocchiccioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
First Line ◽  
Discrimination Capability ◽  
Artery Disease

ObjectiveExternally validated pretest probability models for risk stratification of subjects with chest pain and suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), determined through invasive coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography, are analysed to characterise the best validation procedures in terms of discriminatory ability, predictive variables and method completeness.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesGlobal Health (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid) and MEDLINE (Ovid) searched on 22 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies validating pretest models for the first-line assessment of patients with chest pain and suspected stable CAD. Reasons for exclusion: acute coronary syndrome, unstable chest pain, a history of myocardial infarction or previous revascularisation; models referring to diagnostic procedures different from the usual practices of the first-line assessment; univariable models; lack of quantitative discrimination capability.MethodsEligibility screening and review were performed independently by all the authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among all the authors. The quality assessment of studies conforms to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A random effects meta-analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for each validated model was performed.Results27 studies were included for a total of 15 models. Besides age, sex and symptom typicality, other risk factors are smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia. Only one model considers genetic profile. AUC values range from 0.51 to 0.81. Significant heterogeneity (p<0.003) was found in all but two cases (p>0.12). Values of I2 >90% for most analyses and not significant meta-regression results undermined relevant interpretations. A detailed discussion of individual results was then carried out.ConclusionsWe recommend a clearer statement of endpoints, their consistent measurement both in the derivation and validation phases, more comprehensive validation analyses and the enhancement of threshold validations to assess the effects of pretest models on clinical management.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139388.

scholarly journals Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽  
Ranak B. Trivedi ◽  
Jennifer McDuffie ◽  
Ian Kronish ◽  
Dinesh Benjamin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brief Psychotherapy ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document