A eficácia terapêutica da Cannabis no tratamento da Epilepsia: uma revisão sistemática/ The therapeutic efficacy of Cannabis in the treatment of Epilepsy: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 70956-70963
Author(s):  
Walterley de Souza Paiva Júnior ◽  
Márcio Ribeiro Farias
2020 ◽  
pp. 070674372096642
Author(s):  
Aditya Nrusimha Vaidyam ◽  
Danny Linggonegoro ◽  
John Torous

Objective: The need for digital tools in mental health is clear, with insufficient access to mental health services. Conversational agents, also known as chatbots or voice assistants, are digital tools capable of holding natural language conversations. Since our last review in 2018, many new conversational agents and research have emerged, and we aimed to reassess the conversational agent landscape in this updated systematic review. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2020 using the PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane databases. Studies included were those that involved a conversational agent assessing serious mental illness: major depressive disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, or anxiety disorder. Results: Of the 247 references identified from selected databases, 7 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, there were generally positive experiences with conversational agents in regard to diagnostic quality, therapeutic efficacy, or acceptability. There continues to be, however, a lack of standard measures that allow ease of comparison of studies in this space. There were several populations that lacked representation such as the pediatric population and those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. While comparing 2018 to 2020 research offers useful insight into changes and growth, the high degree of heterogeneity between all studies in this space makes direct comparison challenging. Conclusions: This review revealed few but generally positive outcomes regarding conversational agents’ diagnostic quality, therapeutic efficacy, and acceptability, which may augment mental health care. Despite this increase in research activity, there continues to be a lack of standard measures for evaluating conversational agents as well as several neglected populations. We recommend that the standardization of conversational agent studies should include patient adherence and engagement, therapeutic efficacy, and clinician perspectives.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 342-348
Author(s):  
Sergiu Scobioala ◽  
Angela Brentrup ◽  
Khaled Elsayad ◽  
Hans Theodor Eich

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-15
Author(s):  
Dong Geun Lee ◽  
Dong Hwa Heo ◽  
Choon Keun Park

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 335-347
Author(s):  
N.A. Geppe ◽  
◽  
A.L. Zaplatnikov ◽  
E.G. Kondyurina ◽  
O.I. Afanasieva ◽  
...  

Aim: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the prevention and treatment of of acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI)/influenza using meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: the meta-analysis included data from 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 3079 patients aged 1 month to 69 years, of which: 1729 people were included in the meta-analysis of the preventive drugs efficacy, 1550 patients — in the meta-analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children. The evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy was conducted according to the criteria "disease duration" and/or "fever duration", the evaluation of the preventive efficacy was conducted according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza". The safety was evaluated taking into account the number of adverse events (AEs). Statistical methods included the exact Fisher criterion, the Student criterion, fixed and random effects models, the Z-test, the Cochrane-Mantel-Hensel criterion, Cochrane Q-statistics and the I2 coefficient, the Breslow-Day test, the calculation of relative risk (RR), odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza", the RR of Anaferon for children was 1.2 [95% CI 1.2; 1.3] with an OR of 2.2 [95% CI 1.7; 2.9], while for Anaferon, the RR was 6.7 [95% CI 3.8; 11.8] with an OR of 20.1 [95% CI 9.2; 44.0]. At the same time, the proportion of patients without ARVI/influenza during Anaferon intake exceeded that in the absence of preventive intervention by almost 8 times, and during Anaferon for children intake — 1.3 times vs. placebo. When evaluating the therapeutic effect of Anaferon for children, it was found that the average disease duration was 1.4 times shorter than during placebo intake, and was 4.71±2.53 days (p<0,001). The average fever duration was 2.19±1.21 days vs. 3.22±1.81 days during placebo intake (p<0,001). According to the criterion "disease duration", the weighted average effect value was 1.05 [95% CI 0.44; 1.67], according to the criterion "fever duration" — 0.97 [95% CI 0.61; 1.33] (p<0.001, p-value of the two-tailed Z-test; random effects model). The therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children did not depend on the etiology of ARVI, the symptoms, and the presence of comorbidity (asthma). The total number of AEs is similar to those in the comparison group. Conclusion: the conducted review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the treatment and prevention of ARVI/influenza allow us to conclude the following: 1) Anaferon for children is effective and safe for the treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory infections, regardless of the pathogen and the presence of comorbidity (asthma); 2) Anaferon and Anaferon for children are effective and safe for the prevention of acute respiratory infections/influenza, including patients with concomitant bronchopulmonary pathology and frequently ill children. KEYWORDS: ARVI, influenza, prevention, treatment, meta-analysis, Anaferon, Anaferon for children. FOR CITATION: Geppe N.A., Zaplatnikov A.L., Kondyurina E.G. et al. Efficacy and safety of Anaferon for children and Anaferon for the prevention and treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory viral infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2021;5(5):335–347 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2021-5-5-335-347.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document