-
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023There is ongoing interest in glucocorticoid treatment during oocyte stimulation to treat infertility in women who have undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing interest in glucocorticoid treatment during oocyte stimulation to treat infertility in women who have undergone Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy on pregnancy outcomes in infertile women undergoing ART cycles.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2022. To assess the efficacy and safety of additional glucocorticoid treatment during ovulation induction in women who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment, only randomized controlled trials were included.
RESULTS
Overall, glucocorticoid therapy during ovulation showed a nonsignificant effect of prednisolone improving the live birth rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI [.75, 1.43], I = .0%, = .84), abortion rate (OR = 1.14, 95% CI [.62, 2.08], I = 31%, = .68), and implantation rate (OR = 1.1, 95% CI [.82, 1.5], I = 8%, = .52) of infertile women compared to the control group. The present meta-analysis revealed that the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle tended to increase after glucocorticoid treatment (OR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.02, 1.63], I = 8%, = .52).
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis suggested that ovarian stimulation prednisolone therapy does not significantly improve clinical outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Although the results indicated that adjuvant glucocorticoid therapy during ovarian stimulation may increase the clinical pregnancy rate, subgroup analysis showed that it was affected by infertility factors, dose schedules, and length of treatment. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Glucocorticoids; Infertility, Female; Ovulation Induction; Prednisolone; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37385781
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2227310 -
The British Journal of Surgery Mar 2015Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common cause of secondary hypertension. The main aims of this paper were to review outcome after surgical versus medical treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common cause of secondary hypertension. The main aims of this paper were to review outcome after surgical versus medical treatment of PA and partial versus total adrenalectomy in patients with PA.
METHODS
Relevant medical literature from PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase OvidSP from 1985 to June 2014 was reviewed.
RESULTS
Of 2036 records, 43 articles were included in the final analysis. Twenty-one addressed surgical versus medical treatment of PA, four considered partial versus total adrenalectomy for unilateral PA, and 18 series reported on surgical outcomes. Owing to the heterogeneity of protocols and reported outcomes, only a qualitative analysis was performed. In six studies, surgical and medical treatment had comparable outcomes concerning blood pressure, whereas six showed better outcome after surgery. No differences were seen in cardiovascular complications, but surgery was associated with the use of fewer antihypertensive medications after surgery, improved quality of life, and (possibly) lower all-cause mortality compared with medical treatment. Randomized studies indicate a role for partial adrenalectomy in PA, but the high rate of multiple adenomas or adenoma combined with hyperplasia in localized disease is disconcerting. Surgery for unilateral dominant PA normalized BP in a mean of 42 (range 20-72) per cent and the biochemical profile in 96-100 per cent of patients. The mean complication rate in 1056 patients was 4·7 per cent.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations for treatment of PA are hampered by the lack of randomized trials, but support surgical resection of unilateral disease. Partial adrenalectomy may be an option in selected patients.
Topics: Adrenalectomy; Epidemiologic Methods; Eplerenone; Humans; Hyperaldosteronism; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Spironolactone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25605481
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9744 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, resolution of proteinuria may be incomplete with these therapies and the addition of an aldosterone antagonist may be added to further prevent progression of CKD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of aldosterone antagonists (selective (eplerenone), non-selective (spironolactone or canrenone), or non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists (finerenone)) in adults who have CKD with proteinuria (nephrotic and non-nephrotic range) on: patient-centred endpoints including kidney failure (previously know as end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)), major cardiovascular events, and death (any cause); kidney function (proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and doubling of serum creatinine); blood pressure; and adverse events (including hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury, and gynaecomastia).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 January 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared aldosterone antagonists in combination with ACEi or ARB (or both) to other anti-hypertensive strategies or placebo in participants with proteinuric CKD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. We expressed summary treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were used together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-four studies (5745 participants) were included. Risk of bias in the evaluated methodological domains were unclear or high risk in most studies. Adequate random sequence generation was present in 12 studies, allocation concealment in five studies, blinding of participant and investigators in 18 studies, blinding of outcome assessment in 15 studies, and complete outcome reporting in 24 studies. All studies comparing aldosterone antagonists to placebo or standard care were used in addition to an ACEi or ARB (or both). None of the studies were powered to detect differences in patient-level outcomes including kidney failure, major cardiovascular events or death. Aldosterone antagonists had uncertain effects on kidney failure (2 studies, 84 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.65, I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), death (3 studies, 421 participants: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.50, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and cardiovascular events (3 studies, 1067 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.56; I² = 42%; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce protein excretion (14 studies, 1193 participants: SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.20, I² = 82%; very low certainty evidence), eGFR (13 studies, 1165 participants, MD -3.00 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -5.51 to -0.49, I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) and systolic blood pressure (14 studies, 911 participants: MD -4.98 mmHg, 95% CI -8.22 to -1.75, I² = 87%; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists probably increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (17 studies, 3001 participants: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.22, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), acute kidney injury (5 studies, 1446 participants: RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.97, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and gynaecomastia (4 studies, 281 participants: RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.14 to 23.23, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Non-selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB had uncertain effects on protein excretion (2 studies, 139 participants: SMD -1.59, 95% CI -3.80 to 0.62, I² = 93%; very low certainty evidence) but may increase serum potassium (2 studies, 121 participants: MD 0.31 mEq/L, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared to diuretics plus ACEi or ARB. Selective aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 500 participants: RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.95, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared ACEi or ARB (or both). There were insufficient studies to perform meta-analyses for the comparison between non-selective aldosterone antagonists and calcium channel blockers, selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB (or both) and nitrate plus ACEi or ARB (or both), and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists and selective aldosterone antagonists.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of aldosterone antagonists when added to ACEi or ARB (or both) on the risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and kidney failure in people with proteinuric CKD are uncertain. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce proteinuria, eGFR, and systolic blood pressure in adults who have mild to moderate CKD but may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury and gynaecomastia when added to ACEi and/or ARB.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Canrenone; Disease Progression; Eplerenone; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Naphthyridines; Proteinuria; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spironolactone
PubMed: 33107592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007004.pub4 -
Dexamethasone versus betamethasone for preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.American Journal of Obstetrics &... May 2021This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone vs betamethasone for preterm birth. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone vs betamethasone for preterm birth.
DATA SOURCES
The sources searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform without language restrictions until October 2019 in addition to the reference lists of included studies. Field experts were also contacted.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing any corticosteroids against each other or against placebo at any dose for preterm birth were included in the study.
METHODS
Three researchers independently selected and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies by using Early Review Organizing Software and Covidence software. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were chorioamnionitis, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, and neurodevelopmental disability.
RESULTS
A total of 45 trials (11,227 women and 11,878 infants) were included in the study. No clinical or statistical difference was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in neonatal death (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.84; moderate-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence), intraventricular hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.78); low-certainty evidence), or birthweight (+5.29 g; 95% confidence interval, -49.79 to 58.97; high-certainty evidence). There was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially clinically important effect was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in chorioamnionitis (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.06; moderate-certainty evidence), fetal death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-2.41; low-certainty evidence), puerperal sepsis (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-6.06; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses did not reveal important changes regarding the main analysis.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids have proven effective for most neonatal and child-relevant outcomes compared with placebo or no treatment for women at risk of preterm birth. No important difference was found on neonatal death, neurodevelopmental disability, intraventricular hemorrhage, and birthweight between corticosteroids, and there was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially important difference was found in chorioamnionitis, fetal death, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, and respiratory distress syndrome. Further research is warranted to improve the certainty of evidence and inform health policies.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Betamethasone; Child; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Premature Birth
PubMed: 33482400
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100312 -
Psychoneuroendocrinology Apr 2023Alterations in prolactin and cortisol levels have been reported in antipsychotic naïve patients with first episode psychosis (FEP). However, it has been studied in very... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Alterations in prolactin and cortisol levels have been reported in antipsychotic naïve patients with first episode psychosis (FEP). However, it has been studied in very small samples, and inter-group variability has never been studied before.
OBJECTIVE
To provide estimates of standardized mean differences (SMD) and inter-group variability for prolactin, cortisol awakening response (CAR) and morning cortisol concentrations in antipsychotic naïve FEP (AN-FEP) patients and healthy controls (HC).
DATA SOURCES
BIOSIS, KCI, MEDLINE, Russian Science Citation Index, SciELO, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science were searched from inception to February 28, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Peer-reviewed cohort studies that reported on prolactin or cortisol blood concentrations in AN- FEP patients and HC were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study characteristics, means and standard deviations (SD) were extracted from each article. Inter group differences in magnitude of effect were estimated using Hedges g. Inter-group variability was estimated with the coefficient of variation ratio (CVR). In both cases estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using meta-regression. PRISMA guideline was followed (No. CRD42022303555).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prolactin, CAR and morning cortisol blood concentrations in AN-FEP group in relation to HC group.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies for prolactin (N = 761 for AN-FEP group, N = 687 for HC group) and twelve studies for morning cortisol (N = 434 for AN-FEP group, N = 528 for HC group) were included. No studies were found in CAR in AN-FEP patients. Mean SMD for prolactin blood concentration was 0.88 (95% CI 0.57, 1.20) for male and 0.56 (95% CI 0.26, 0.87) for female. As a group, AN-FEP presented greater inter-group variability for prolactin levels than HC (CVR=1.28, 95% CI 1.02, 1.62). SMD for morning cortisol concentrations was non-significant: 0.34 (95% CI -0.01, 0.69) and no inter-group variability significant differences were detected: CVR= 1.05 (95% CI 0.91, 1.20). Meta-regression analyses for age and quality were non-significant. Funnel plots did not suggest a publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Increased prolactin levels were found in AN-FEP patients. A greater inter-group variability in the AN-FEP group suggests the existence of patient subgroups with different prolactin levels. No significant abnormalities were found in morning cortisol levels. Further research is needed to clarify whether prolactin concentrations could be used as an illness biomarker.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Prolactin; Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic Agents; Hydrocortisone; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 36758330
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106049 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Aug 2023This systematic review and narrative synthesis characterized parents' physiological stress responses to child distress and how parents' physiological and behavioural... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and narrative synthesis characterized parents' physiological stress responses to child distress and how parents' physiological and behavioural responses relate. The review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42021252852). In total, 3607 unique records were identified through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Fifty-five studies reported on parents' physiological stress responses during their young child's (0-3 years) distress and were included in the review. Results were synthesized based on the biological outcome and distress context used and risk of bias was evaluated. Most studies examined cortisol or heart rate variability (HRV). Small to moderate decreases in parents' cortisol levels from baseline to post-stressor were reported across studies. Studies of salivary alpha amylase, electrodermal activity, HRV, and other cardiac outcomes reflected weak or inconsistent physiological responses or a paucity of relevant studies. Among the studies that examined associations between parents' physiological and behavioural responses, stronger associations emerged for insensitive parenting behaviours and during dyadic frustration tasks. Risk of bias was a significant limitation across studies and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Parenting; Hydrocortisone; Parents; Heart Rate
PubMed: 37196925
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105229 -
PloS One 2016We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.
METHODS
Literature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23-2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03-1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00-2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76-2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24-1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44-1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Beclomethasone; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Mesalamine; Patient Safety; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27846307
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166455 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Feb 2024The present review aimed to investigate the association between salivary biomarkers and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). TMD is a multifactorial condition... (Review)
Review
Salivary Biomarkers and Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
BACKGROUND
The present review aimed to investigate the association between salivary biomarkers and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). TMD is a multifactorial condition characterised by pain and dysfunction in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and surrounding structures. Salivary biomarkers have emerged as potential diagnostic tools due to their non-invasiveness and easy accessibility. However, the literature on salivary biomarkers in relation to TMD is limited and inconsistent.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Medline were searched using specific search terms and Boolean operators. The search was limited to articles published in English that assessed salivary biomarkers in individuals diagnosed with TMD. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data. ROB-2 was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Eleven clinical papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The findings provided consistent evidence of a clear association between salivary biomarkers and TMD. Various biomarkers, including cortisol, IL-1, glutamate and several others, were assessed. Some studies reported higher levels of cortisol and IL-1 in TMD patients, indicating potential involvement in stress and inflammation. Glutamate levels were found to be elevated, suggesting a role in pain modulation. Other biomarkers also showed alterations in TMD patients compared to controls: CONCLUSION: The findings from the included studies suggest that salivary biomarkers may play a role in TMD pathophysiology. Though a definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the specific salivary biomarkers and their association with TMD, the results must be interpreted with caution considering the heterogeneity of the biomarkers assessed. Further research with larger sample sizes, standardised methodology and rigorous study designs is needed to elucidate the role of salivary biomarkers in TMD.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Pain; Glutamates; Interleukin-1
PubMed: 37731276
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13589 -
Steroids Jul 2022The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing methylprednisolone and no glucocorticoids treatment in patients with COVID-19. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). Thirty-three studies were eligible, including 5 randomized trials and 28 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed that compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients was associated with reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89), less need for ICU admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.84), increased 28-day ventilator-free days (MD 2.81; 95% CI 2.64-2.97), without increasing risk of secondary infections (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82-1.32), but could prolong duration of viral shedding (MD 1.03; 95% CI 0.25-1.82). Subgroup analyses revealed that low-dose (≤2mg/kg/day) methylprednisolone treatment for ≤ 7 days in severe COVID-19 patients was associated with relatively better clinical outcomes, without increasing duration of viral shedding. Compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced short-term mortality and better clinical outcomes, without increasing secondary infections, but could slightly prolong duration of viral shedding. Patients with severe COVID-19 are more likely to benefit from short-term low-dose methylprednisolone treatment (1-2 mg/kg/day for ≤ 7 days).
Topics: Coinfection; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Methylprednisolone; Respiration, Artificial; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35346661
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2022.109022 -
Psychoneuroendocrinology Jan 2024Stress has a damaging impact on our mental and physical health, and as a result, there is an on-going demand for effective stress management interventions. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Stress has a damaging impact on our mental and physical health, and as a result, there is an on-going demand for effective stress management interventions. However, there are no reviews or meta-analyses synthesising the evidence base of randomised controlled trials testing the effectiveness of psychological interventions on changing cortisol levels (the stress hormone) in non-patient groups. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to address this gap. Six databases (Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science) were searched (1171 studies identified) with 58 studies (combined N = 3508) included in the meta-analysis. The interventions were coded into one of four categories; mind body therapies, mindfulness, relaxation or talking therapies. A random effects meta-analysis on cortisol as measured in blood, saliva or hair found that stress management interventions outperformed pooled control conditions with a medium positive effect size (g = 0.282). The studies that utilised cortisol awakening measures (g = 0.644) revealed larger effects of stress management interventions than those that measured diurnal cortisol (g = 0.255). Mindfulness and meditation (g = 0. 345) and relaxation (g = 0. 347) interventions were most effective at changing cortisol levels, while mind body therapies (g = 0. 129) and talking therapies (g = 0.107) were shown to have smaller and non-significant effect sizes. Additionally, studies that utilised an active control group (g = 0. 477) over passive control group (g = 0.129) were found to have stronger effects. Length of the intervention, study quality, risk of bias, age and gender did not influence the effectiveness of interventions and there was no evidence of publication bias. Overall, the current findings confirm that stress management interventions can positively influence cortisol levels. Future research should investigate the longer term implications for health and health outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Meditation; Mindfulness
PubMed: 37879237
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106415