-
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2015The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of using an intraoperatively placed perineural catheter (PNC) with a postoperative local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of using an intraoperatively placed perineural catheter (PNC) with a postoperative local anaesthetic infusion on immediate and long-term outcomes after lower limb amputation.
METHODS
A systematic review of key electronic journal databases was undertaken from inception to January 2015. Studies comparing PNC use with either a control, or no PNC, were included. Meta-analysis was performed for postoperative opioid use, pain scores, mortality, and long-term incidence of stump and phantom limb pain. Sensitivity analysis was performed for opioid use. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting on 416 patients undergoing lower limb amputation with PNC usage (n = 199) or not (n = 217) were included. Approximately 60% were transtibial amputations PNC use reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised mean difference: -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.07, p = .03), maintained on sensitivity analysis for large (p = .03) and high-quality (p = .003) studies, but was marginally lost (p = .06) on studies enrolling patients with peripheral arterial disease only. PNC treatment did not affect postoperative pain scores (p = .48), in-hospital mortality (p = .77), phantom limb pain (p = .28) or stump pain (p = .37). GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.
CONCLUSION
There is poor-quality evidence that PNC usage significantly reduces opioid consumption following lower limb amputation, without affecting other short- or long-term outcomes. Well-performed randomised studies are required.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Catheterization; Catheters, Indwelling; Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Lower Extremity; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Phantom Limb; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26067167
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.04.030 -
Journal of the American Psychiatric... 2020Neurocognitive and social cognitive impairments are core characteristics of psychotic disorders, which are present in the first episode of psychosis (FEP) and strongly...
Neurocognitive and social cognitive impairments are core characteristics of psychotic disorders, which are present in the first episode of psychosis (FEP) and strongly predict poor social functioning. Addressing cognitive impairments through cognitive training and remediation (CTR) may be a crucial component of recovery-oriented treatment. The objectives of this review were to (1) evaluate the CTR theoretical basis and intervention components and (2) examine the effects of CTR on cognition and social functioning in FEP. A combined search of Ovid Medline, Embase, and Psych Info databases was conducted using keywords. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using established instruments. Ten randomized controlled trials were included in this review and had an overall fair to poor quality. CTR interventions in FEP utilize a range of theoretical backgrounds, with most including a focus on higher order cognitive processes. Varied doses and intervention components are used. All but one study found improvements in at least one cognitive domain. Global cognition, verbal learning, and memory and executive function were most commonly improved. Three studies found an effect on a range of functional outcomes. A broad range of CTR interventions have promising effects for addressing cognitive impairments in FEP. Evidence of functional impact is less consistent. Further research is needed in FEP on CTR targeting sensory and perceptual processes, and to identify CTR intervention targets and treatment components that will lead to robust improvements in cognition and functioning.
Topics: Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Memory; Psychotic Disorders; Verbal Learning
PubMed: 31578909
DOI: 10.1177/1078390319877952 -
Neural Plasticity 2018Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is the most frequent perceptual disorder after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Unilateral spatial neglect (USN) is the most frequent perceptual disorder after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the rehabilitation process to modify cortical excitability and improve perception and functional capacity.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of NIBS on USN after stroke.
METHODS
An extensive search was conducted up to July 2016. Studies were selected if they were controlled and noncontrolled trials examining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and theta burst stimulation (TBS) in USN after stroke, with outcomes measured by standardized USN and functional tests.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (273 participants) and 4 non-RCTs (94 participants) proved eligible. We observed a benefit in overall USN measured by the line bisection test with NIBS in comparison to sham (SMD -2.35, 95% CI -3.72, -0.98; = 0.0001); the rTMS yielded results that were consistent with the overall meta-analysis (SMD -2.82, 95% CI -3.66, -1.98; = 0.09). The rTMS compared with sham also suggested a benefit in overall USN measured by Motor-Free Visual Perception Test at both 1 Hz (SMD 1.46, 95% CI 0.73, 2.20; < 0.0001) and 10 Hz (SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.48, 1.89; = 0.54). There was also a benefit in overall USN measured by Albert's test and the line crossing test with 1 Hz rTMS compared to sham (SMD 2.04, 95% CI 1.14, 2.95; < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest a benefit of NIBS on overall USN, and we conclude that rTMS is more efficacious compared to sham for USN after stroke.
Topics: Humans; Perceptual Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Rehabilitation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 30050569
DOI: 10.1155/2018/1638763 -
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental... Jun 2022WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is no qualitative systematic review of nurses' perceptions of their interactions with people hearing voices. There are some studies... (Review)
Review
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is no qualitative systematic review of nurses' perceptions of their interactions with people hearing voices. There are some studies exploring the interventions provided by community psychiatric nurses to people hearing voices; these give a sense of what interactions may contain. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO THE EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Nurses across both community and inpatient mental healthcare settings feel uncertain about how to interact with people hearing voices, sometimes feeling like they can do little to help. Their interactions are affected by the workplace culture, education and training and concern for their own safety. Nurses rely on a therapeutic relationship for all interactions. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This is an under investigated area of mental healthcare. None the less this qualitative systematic review highlights that nurses are unclear about how to interact with service users hearing voices with the resultant outcome that service users in great distress may only be receiving minimal benefit from their interactions with the nurses caring for them. ABSTRACT: Aims and Objectives The aim of this qualitative systematic review and thematic analysis was to identify and synthesize results from studies that explored psychiatric nurses' perceptions of their interactions with service users experiencing auditory hallucinations (hearing voices). Method Qualitative systematic review and thematic analysis. Results Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Nurses reported that they felt uncertain about what to do for service users hearing voices, struggled to have interactions with voice hearers, but greatly valued the therapeutic relationship with service users. Nurses also reported that they required more education and training on how to interact effectively with people hearing voices. Finally, various workplace challenges were identified as an important factor mediating nurse interaction with service users hearing voices. Discussion Existing evidence shows that nurses lack clarity about how they can interact effectively and in a way that helps service users who are hearing voices. Significant barriers that they must overcome in order to be more certain of their role in caring for people hearing voices are difficult to engage service users and workplace challenges that were not conducive to helpful interactions and conversations. Implications for Practice Nurses caring for people hearing voices require more and better education and training with a view to them becoming more confident and competent when interacting with this service user group. Furthermore, healthy workplace cultures and maintaining a safe environment are necessary for effective caring interactions with people hearing voices.
Topics: Communication; Hallucinations; Hearing; Humans; Psychiatric Nursing; Workplace
PubMed: 35394099
DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12829 -
Neuropsychology Review Mar 2016The aim of this systematic review was to integrate and assess evidence for the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation (i.e., stimulating at least two of the following... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to integrate and assess evidence for the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation (i.e., stimulating at least two of the following sensory systems: visual, auditory, and somatosensory) as a possible rehabilitation method after stroke. Evidence was considered with a focus on low-level, perceptual (visual, auditory and somatosensory deficits), as well as higher-level, cognitive, sensory deficits. We referred to the electronic databases Scopus and PubMed to search for articles that were published before May 2015. Studies were included which evaluated the effects of multisensory stimulation on patients with low- or higher-level sensory deficits caused by stroke. Twenty-one studies were included in this review and the quality of these studies was assessed (based on eight elements: randomization, inclusion of control patient group, blinding of participants, blinding of researchers, follow-up, group size, reporting effect sizes, and reporting time post-stroke). Twenty of the twenty-one included studies demonstrate beneficial effects on low- and/or higher-level sensory deficits after stroke. Notwithstanding these beneficial effects, the quality of the studies is insufficient for valid conclusion that multisensory stimulation can be successfully applied as an effective intervention. A valuable and necessary next step would be to set up well-designed randomized controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation as an intervention for low- and/or higher-level sensory deficits after stroke. Finally, we consider the potential mechanisms of multisensory stimulation for rehabilitation to guide this future research.
Topics: Acoustic Stimulation; Brain; Cognition Disorders; Humans; Perceptual Disorders; Photic Stimulation; Physical Stimulation; Sensation Disorders; Stroke Rehabilitation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26490254
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-015-9301-1 -
Journal of Neural Engineering Sep 2022Electrical stimulation can induce sensation in the phantom limb of individuals with amputation. It is difficult to generalize existing findings as there are many... (Review)
Review
Electrical stimulation can induce sensation in the phantom limb of individuals with amputation. It is difficult to generalize existing findings as there are many approaches to delivering stimulation and to assessing the characteristics and benefits of sensation. Therefore, the goal of this systematic review was to explore the stimulation parameters that effectively elicited referred sensation, the qualities of elicited sensation, and how the utility of referred sensation was assessed.We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Engineering Village through January of 2022 to identify relevant papers. We included papers which electrically induced referred sensation in individuals with limb loss and excluded papers that did not contain stimulation parameters or outcome measures pertaining to stimulation. We extracted information on participant demographics, stimulation approaches, and participant outcomes.After applying exclusion criteria, 49 papers were included covering nine stimulation methods. Amplitude was the most commonly adjusted parameter (= 25), followed by frequency (= 22), and pulse width (= 15). Of the 63 reports of sensation quality, most reported feelings of pressure (= 52), paresthesia (= 48), or vibration (= 40) while less than half (= 29) reported a sense of position or movement. Most papers evaluated the functional benefits of sensation (= 33) using force matching or object identification tasks, while fewer papers quantified subjective measures (= 16) such as pain or embodiment. Only 15 studies (36%) observed percept intensity, quality, or location over multiple sessions.Most studies that measured functional performance demonstrated some benefit to providing participants with sensory feedback. However, few studies could experimentally manipulate sensation location or quality. Direct comparisons between studies were limited by variability in methodologies and outcome measures. As such, we offer recommendations to aid in more standardized reporting for future research.
Topics: Amputees; Artificial Limbs; Feedback, Sensory; Humans; Phantom Limb; Sensation
PubMed: 36001115
DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac8c38 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a new treatment for people with schizophrenia, especially those who experience persistent auditory hallucinations.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of TMS alone, compared with sham TMS or with 'standard management' and any other comparison interventions in reducing psychotic symptoms associated with schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2006, June 2008, April 2013). This register is compiled by methodical searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, LILACS, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, and Sociofile, and is supplemented with handsearching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials recruiting at least five participants and comparing TMS with sham TMS or any other treatment for people with schizophrenia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 studies with 1473 participants in the review. We found significant differences in favour of temporoparietal TMS compared to sham TMS for global state measured on the CGI scale (7 RCTs, n = 224, MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.23, very low-quality evidence) and positive symptoms measured on the PANSS scale (5 RCTs, n = 127, MD -6.09, 95% CI -10.95 to -1.22, very low-quality evidence). Participants experienced significantly more headaches in the temporoparietal TMS group (10 RCTs, n = 392, RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.50, very low-quality evidence). However, no more participants left the study early from the TMS group than from the sham group (very low-quality evidence). Cognitive state was assessed using 39 different measures, and all were equivocal (very low-quality evidence).We included only two trials which compared temporoparietal TMS with standard treatment. In both trials the participants received first- and second-generation antipsychotic medication in both treatment groups, therefore TMS was used an adjunctive therapy to medication. We found no significant differences in the number of participants that showed clinical improvement in global state (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.57) or left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 140, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.46) (both very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on global state score, mental state, cognitive state and adverse effects.For prefrontal TMS compared to sham TMS, global state was measured on three different scales, all of which presented equivocal results (very low quality evidence). We could not pool data for mental state on the PANSS scale due to high heterogeneity. Cognitive state was assessed using 19 different measures, with 15/19 being equivocal (very low-quality evidence). Prefrontal TMS caused more headaches (6 RCTs, n = 164, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.26, very low-quality evidence) but there was no difference in the number of participants leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). No studies reported data for clinical improvement.We found a significant difference in favour of prefrontal theta burst stimulation TMS compared to sham TMS for mental state on the PANNS scale (3 RCTs, n = 108, MD -5.71, 95% CI -9.32 to -2.10, very low evidence). We found no difference for clinical improvement, cognitive state, number of headaches, and leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported satisfaction with care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of TMS to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. Although some evidence suggests that TMS, and in particular temporoparietal TMS, may improve certain symptoms (such as auditory hallucinations and positive symptoms of schizophrenia) compared to sham TMS, the results were not robust enough to be unequivocal across the assessment measures used. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any added benefit with TMS used as an adjunctive therapy to antipsychotic medication.The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low due to risk of bias, and this was accompanied by an imprecision in estimates due to the relatively small number of participants in the studies. Thus, consideration is required in improving the quality of trial processes, as well as the quality of reporting of ongoing and future TMS trials, so as to facilitate accurate future judgements in assessing risk of bias. Differences in TMS techniques in relation to stimulation intensity, stimulation length, brain areas stimulated and variations in the design of sham TMS all contributed to the heterogeneity of study findings and limited the interpretation and applicability of the results. In addition, the trials assessed their outcomes with a variety of scales, and usable data were limited. Therefore, to better evaluate the treatment effects of TMS in people with schizophrenia, we favour the use of standardised treatment protocols and outcome measures.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Hallucinations; Headache; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 26289586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006081.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2012.Ketamine is a commonly used anaesthetic agent, and in subanaesthetic doses is also given as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2012.Ketamine is a commonly used anaesthetic agent, and in subanaesthetic doses is also given as an adjuvant to opioids for the treatment of refractory cancer pain, when opioids alone or in combination with appropriate adjuvant analgesics prove to be ineffective. Ketamine is known to have psychomimetic (including hallucinogenic), urological, and hepatic adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and adverse effects of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioids for refractory cancer pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched MEDLINE (OVID) to December 2016. We searched CENTRAL (CRSO), Embase (OVID) and two clinical trial registries to January 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The intervention considered by this review was the addition of ketamine, given by any route of administration, in any dose, to pre-existing opioid treatment given by any route and in any dose, compared with placebo or active control. We included studies with a group size of at least 10 participants who completed the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the search results and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We aimed to extract data on patient-reported pain intensity, total opioid consumption over the study period; use of rescue medication; adverse events; measures of patient satisfaction/preference; function; and distress. We also assessed participant withdrawal (dropout) from trial. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
One new study (185 participants) was identified by the updated search and included in the review. We included a total of three studies in this update.Two small studies, both with cross-over design, with 20 and 10 participants respectively, were eligible for inclusion in the original review. One study with 20 participants examined the addition of intrathecal ketamine to intrathecal morphine, compared with intrathecal morphine alone. The second study with 10 participants examined the addition of intravenous ketamine bolus in two different doses to ongoing morphine therapy, compared with placebo. Both of these studies reported reduction in pain intensity and reduction in morphine requirements when ketamine was added to opioid for refractory cancer pain. The new study identified by the updated search had a parallel group design and 185 participants. This placebo-controlled study examined rapid titration of subcutaneous ketamine to high dose (500 mg) in participants who were using different opioids. There were no differences between groups for patient-reported pain intensity.Pooling of the data from the three included trials was not appropriate because of clinical heterogeneity.The study examining intrathecal drug administration reported no adverse events related to ketamine. In the study using intravenous bolus administration, ketamine caused hallucinations in four of 10 participants. In the rapid dose escalation/high-dose subcutaneous ketamine study, there was almost twice the incidence of adverse events in the ketamine group, compared to the placebo group, with the most common adverse events being needle site irritation and cognitive disturbance. Two serious adverse events (bradyarrhythmia and cardiac arrest) thought to be related to ketamine were also reported in this trial.For all three studies there was an unclear risk of bias overall. Using GRADE, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low due to study limitations and imprecision due to the small number of participants in all comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioids for the relief of refractory cancer pain. The evidence was of very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is high. Rapid dose escalation of ketamine to high dose (500 mg) does not appear to have clinical benefit and may be associated with serious adverse events. More randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining specific low-dose ketamine clinical regimens in current use are needed.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Hallucinations; Humans; Ketamine; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28657160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003351.pub3 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2017Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen... (Review)
Review
Hallucinogen-persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a syndrome characterized by prolonged or reoccurring perceptual symptoms, reminiscent of acute hallucinogen effects. HPPD was associated with a broader range of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide)-like substances, cannabis, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, mescaline, and psychostimulants. The recent emergence of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) posed a critical concern regarding the new onset of psychiatric symptoms/syndromes, including cases of HPPD. Symptomatology mainly comprises visual disorders (i.e., geometric pseudo-hallucinations, haloes, flashes of colors/lights, motion-perception deficits, afterimages, micropsia, more acute awareness of floaters, etc.), even though depressive symptoms and thought disorders may be comorbidly present. Although HPPD was first described in 1954, it was just established as a fully syndrome in 2000, with the revised fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR). HPPD neural substrates, risk factors, and aetiopathogenesys still largely remain unknown and under investigation, and many questions about its pharmacological targets remain unanswered too. A critical mini review on psychopathological bases, etiological hypothesis, and psychopharmacological approaches toward HPPD, including the association with some novel substances, are provided here, by means of a literature search on PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases without time restrictions, by using a specific set of keywords. Pharmacological and clinical issues are considered, and practical psychopharmacological recommendations and clinical guidelines are suggested.
PubMed: 29209235
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00240 -
Translational Psychiatry Jan 2022Besides the commonly described gray matter (GM) deficits, there is growing evidence of significant white matter (WM) alterations in patients with alcohol use disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Besides the commonly described gray matter (GM) deficits, there is growing evidence of significant white matter (WM) alterations in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). WM changes can be assessed using volumetric and diffusive magnetic resonance imaging methods, such as voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). The aim of the present meta-analysis is to investigate the spatial convergence of the reported findings on WM alterations in AUD.
METHODS
Systematic literature search on PubMed and further databases revealed 18 studies eligible for inclusion, entailing a total of 462 AUD patients and 416 healthy controls (up to January 18, 2021). All studies that had used either VBM or DTI whole-brain analyzing methods and reported results as peak-coordinates in standard reference space were considered for inclusion. We excluded studies using approaches non-concordant with recent guidelines for neuroimaging meta-analyses and studies investigating patient groups with Korsakoff syndrome or other comorbid substance use disorders (except tobacco).
RESULTS
Anatomical likelihood estimation (ALE) revealed four significant clusters of convergent macro- and microstructural WM alterations in AUD patients that were assigned to the genu and body of the corpus callosum, anterior and posterior cingulum, fornix, and the right posterior limb of the internal capsule.
DISCUSSION
The changes in WM could to some extent explain the deteriorations in motor, cognitive, affective, and perceptual functions seen in AUD. Future studies are needed to clarify how WM alterations vary over the course of the disorder and to what extent they are reversible with prolonged abstinence.
Topics: Alcoholism; Brain; Corpus Callosum; Diffusion Tensor Imaging; Gray Matter; Humans; White Matter
PubMed: 35087021
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-022-01809-0