Effectiveness of Body Psychotherapy. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the growing relevance and applicability of elements based on and derived from the embodied mind paradigm, body psychotherapy (BPT) appears not to be a well-established treatment option. This might be due to a lack of proof for its efficacy. We searched electronic databases (Pubmed MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and PSYNDEX) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining predefined BPT interventions. A total of 2,180 references were screened, of which 113 studies were scrutinized in detail and 18 RCTs finally included. The observed effect size (ES) demonstrated medium effects of BPT on primary outcomes psychopathology and psychological distress. In case of significant statistical heterogeneity, exploratory subgroup analyses revealed diagnosis and the degree of control group activity as noteworthy moderators. For secondary outcomes, evidence was scarce, and an improvement could be demonstrated only for coping abilities. The identified evidence indicates that BPT is beneficial for a wide spectrum of psychic suffering. There is a strong need for high-quality studies with bigger samples and for well-defined diagnostic entities to underpin its effectiveness.

Impact of extended lymphadenectomy on morbidity, mortality, recurrence and 5-year survival after gastrectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE: To compare morbidity, mortality, recurrence and 5-year survival between D1 and D2 or D3 for treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Metaview in RevMan 4.2.8 for analysis; statistical heterogeneity by Cochran's Q test (P<0.1) and I² test (P>50%). Estimates of effect were calculated using random effects model. RESULTS: D2 or D3 was associated with higher in-hospital mortality, with RR = 2.13, p=0.0004, 95% CI, 1.40 to 3.25, I²=0%, P=0.63; overall morbidity showed higher incidence in D2 or D3, RR = 1.98, p<0.00001, 95% CI, 1.64 to 2.38, I² = 33.9%, P=0.20; operating time showed longer duration in D2 or D3, weighted mean difference of 1.05, p<0.00001, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.38, I² = 78.7%, P=0.03, with significant statistical heterogeneity; reoperation showed higher rate in D2 or D3, with RR = 2.33, p<0.0001, 95% CI, 1.58 to 3.44, I² = 0%, P=0.99; hospital stay showed longer duration in the D2 or D3, with weighted mean difference of 4.72, p<0.00001, 95% CI, 3.80 to 5.65, I² = 89.9%, P<0.00001; recurrence was analyzed showed lower rate in D2 or D3, with RR = 0.89, p=0.02, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98, I² = 71.0%, P = 0.03, with significant statistical heterogeneity; mortality with recurrent disease showed higher incidence in D1, with RR = 0.88, p=0.04, 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99, I² =51.8%, P=0.10; 5-year survival showed no significant difference, with RR = 1.05, p=0.40, 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.19, I² = 49.1% and P=0.12. CONCLUSIONS: D2 or D3 lymphadenectomy procedure is followed by higher overall morbidity and higher in-hospital mortality; D2 or D3 lymphadenectomy shows lower incidence of recurrence and lower mortality with recurrent disease, when analysed altogether with statistical heterogeneity; D2 or D3 lymphadenectomy has no significant impact on 5-year survival.