The efficacy of herbal medicines on anxiety and depression in peri- and postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afshar Shahmohammadi ◽  
Negar Ramezanpour ◽  
Mahsa Mahdavi Siuki ◽  
Fathemeh Dizavandi ◽  
Masumeh Ghazanfarpour ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Shu Wang ◽  
Xiang Li ◽  
Yue Yang ◽  
Jingping Xie ◽  
Mingyue Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: We aimed to evaluate the association between coffee and/or tea consumption and breast cancer (BC) risk among premenopausal and postmenopausal women and to conduct a network meta-analysis. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Setting: We conducted a systematic review of electronic publications in the last 30 years to identify case–control studies or prospective cohort studies that evaluated the effects of coffee and tea intake. Results: Forty-five studies that included more than 3 323 288 participants were eligible for analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of coffee and/or tea consumption on reducing BC risk in a dose-dependent manner and differences in coffee/tea type, menopause status, hormone receptor and the BMI in subgroup and meta-regression analyses. According to the first pairwise meta-analysis, low-dose coffee intake and high-dose tea intake may exhibit efficacy in preventing ER(estrogen receptor)− BC, particularly in postmenopausal women. Then, we performed another pairwise and network meta-analysis and determined that the recommended daily doses were 2–3 cups/d of coffee or ≥5 cups/d of tea, which contained a high concentration of caffeine, particularly in postmenopausal women. Conclusions: Coffee and tea consumption is not associated with a reduction in the overall BC risk in postmenopausal women and is associated with a potentially lower risk of ER− BC. And the highest recommended dose is 2–3 cups of coffee/d or ≥5 cups of tea/d. They are potentially useful dietary protectants for preventing BC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Zhang ◽  
Xin Yin ◽  
Jingcheng Wang ◽  
Daolinag Xu ◽  
Yongxiang Wang ◽  
...  

Editor's Note: this Article has been retracted; the Retraction Note is available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88654-1.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 673-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Andersen ◽  
Paul Toner ◽  
Martin Bland ◽  
Dean McMillan

Background: Transdiagnostic Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) seeks to identify core cognitive-behavioural processes hypothesized to be important across a range of disorders and to develop a treatment that targets these. This contrasts with standard CBT approaches that are disorder-specific. Proponents of transdiagnostic CBT suggest that it may offer advantages over disorder-specific CBT, but little is known about the effectiveness of this approach. Aims: The review aimed to summarize trial-based clinical and cost-effectiveness data on transdiagnostic CBT for anxiety and depression. Method: A systematic review of electronic databases, including peer-reviewed and grey literature sources, was conducted (n = 1167 unique citations). Results: Eight trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. There was evidence of an effect for transdiagnostic CBT when compared to a control condition. There were no differences between transdiagnostic CBT and active treatments in two studies. We found no evidence of cost-effectiveness data. Conclusions: Quality assessment of the primary studies indicated a number of methodological concerns that may serve to inflate the observed effects of transdiagnostic approaches. Although there are positive signs of the value of transdiagnostic CBT, there is as yet insufficient evidence to recommend its use in place of disorder-specific CBT.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhaskar Thakur ◽  
Mona Pathak

ABSTRACTAimPresent systematic review and meta-analysis examined the burden of psychological reactions predominantly anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia during novel COVID-19 pandemic phase among the frontline healthcare, non-frontline healthcare and general.MethodologyPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched for studies between Jan 1, 2020 to May 25, 2020. Brief protocol of the systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO database, (CRD42020186229).Any study that reported the burden of at least one of psychological reactions including anxiety or depression or stress or insomnia was eligible. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic and results were synthesized using random effect meta-analysis.ResultsOut of 52eligible studies, 43 reported anxiety, 43 reported depression, 20 reported stress and 11 reported insomnia. Overall prevalence for anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were 26.6%, 26.2%,26.2% and 34.4% respectively. Anxiety and depression were found highest among the COVID-19 patients (43.3% and 51.75 respectively). Apart from COVID-19 patients, prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were found highest among the frontline healthcare (27.2%, 32.1%,55.6% and 34.4% respectively) as compared to general healthcare workers (26.9%, 15.7%, 7.0% and 34.0% respectively) and general population (25.9%, 25.9%,25.4% and 29.4% respectively).ConclusionAnxiety and depression were found highest among the COVID-19 patients. Apart from COVID-19 patients, the anxiety, depression, stress and insomnia were more prevalent among frontline healthcare workers compared to general. Such increased prevalence is prompting towards the global mental health emergency. Therefore a call of urgent attention and pan-region effective mental-health intervention are required to mitigate these psychological reactions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document