-
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Jun 2023Bioenergy therapies are among the popular alternative treatment options for many diseases, including cancer. Many studies deal with the advantages and disadvantages of... (Review)
Review
Bioenergy therapies as a complementary treatment: a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of bioenergy therapies in relieving treatment toxicities in patients with cancer.
PURPOSE
Bioenergy therapies are among the popular alternative treatment options for many diseases, including cancer. Many studies deal with the advantages and disadvantages of bioenergy therapies as an addition to established treatments such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation in the treatment of cancer. However, a systematic overview of this evidence is thus far lacking. For this reason, the available evidence should be reviewed and critically examined to determine what benefits the treatments have for patients.
METHODS
In June 2022, a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases (Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Medline) to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness and potential harm of bioenergy therapies including Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch and Polarity Therapy on cancer patients.
RESULTS
From all 2477 search results, 21 publications with 1375 patients were included in this systematic review. The patients treated with bioenergy therapies were mainly diagnosed with breast cancer. The main outcomes measured were anxiety, depression, mood, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), comfort, well-being, neurotoxicity, pain, and nausea. The studies were predominantly of moderate quality and for the most part found no effect. In terms of QoL, pain and nausea, there were improved short-term effects of the interventions, but no long-term differences were detectable. The risk of side effects from bioenergy therapies appears to be relatively small.
CONCLUSION
Considering the methodical limitations of the included studies, studies with high study quality could not find any difference between bioenergy therapies and active (placebo, massage, RRT, yoga, meditation, relaxation training, companionship, friendly visit) and passive control groups (usual care, resting, education). Only studies with a low study quality were able to show significant effects.
Topics: Humans; Female; Quality of Life; Breast Neoplasms; Mind-Body Therapies; Pain; Nausea
PubMed: 36166091
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-022-04362-x -
Nature Human Behaviour Jun 2024Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO:... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review (n = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges' g = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.
Topics: Humans; Mental Health; Touch; Therapeutic Touch; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 38589702
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8 -
Optimal nonpharmacological management of agitation in Alzheimer's disease: challenges and solutions.Clinical Interventions in Aging 2016Many patients with Alzheimer's disease will develop agitation at later stages of the disease, which constitutes one of the most challenging and distressing aspects of... (Review)
Review
Many patients with Alzheimer's disease will develop agitation at later stages of the disease, which constitutes one of the most challenging and distressing aspects of dementia. Recently, nonpharmacological therapies have become increasingly popular and have been proven to be effective in managing the behavioral symptoms (including agitation) that are common in the middle or later stages of dementia. These therapies seem to be a good alternative to pharmacological treatment to avoid unpleasant side effects. We present a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the nonpharmacological management of agitation in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients aged 65 years and above. Of the 754 studies found, eight met the inclusion criteria. This review suggests that music therapy is optimal for the management of agitation in institutionalized patients with moderately severe and severe AD, particularly when the intervention includes individualized and interactive music. Bright light therapy has little and possibly no clinically significant effects with respect to observational ratings of agitation but decreases caregiver ratings of physical and verbal agitation. Therapeutic touch is effective for reducing physical nonaggressive behaviors but is not superior to simulated therapeutic touch or usual care for reducing physically aggressive and verbally agitated behaviors. Melissa oil aromatherapy and behavioral management techniques are not superior to placebo or pharmacological therapies for managing agitation in AD. Further research in clinical trials is required to confirm the effectiveness and long-term effects of nonpharmacological interventions for managing agitation in AD. These types of studies may lead to the development of future intervention protocols to improve the well-being and daily functioning of these patients, thereby avoiding residential care placement.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Behavioral Symptoms; Disease Management; Humans; Music Therapy; Phototherapy; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26955265
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S69484 -
BMJ Open Mar 2021Residents in long-term care exhibit diminishing senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell or touch). The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Residents in long-term care exhibit diminishing senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell or touch). The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of residents living in long-term care settings.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Seven databases (Medline (Ovid), PubMed (non-Medline-Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Ageline, PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 1 December 2020) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for sensory interventions using a two-step process. Eligible studies underwent data extraction and results were synthesised descriptively.
RESULTS
We screened 5551 titles and abstracts. A total of 52 articles met our inclusion criteria. Some interventions involved only one sense: hearing (n=3), sight (n=12), smell (n=4) and touch (n=15). Other interventions involved multiple senses (n=18). We grouped the interventions into 16 categories (music programmes, environmental white noise, bright light interventions, visual stimulations, olfactory stimulations, massages, therapeutic touch, tactile stimulations, physical activity plus night-time programmes, pet therapies, various stimuli interventions, Snoezelen rooms, motor and multisensory based strategies, Namaste care, environmental modifications and expressive touch activities).
CONCLUSION
This preliminary review summarised some of the available sensory interventions that will help inform a series of future systematic reviews on each of the specific interventions. The evidence-based knowledge for sensory interventions will also inform a future audit programme for assessing the presence of sensory interventions in long-term care.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Exercise; Humans; Long-Term Care; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33762231
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042466 -
Cells Apr 2022The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoVCOVID-19) belongs to the Beta coronavirus family, which contains MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus) and SARS-CoV...
The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoVCOVID-19) belongs to the Beta coronavirus family, which contains MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus) and SARS-CoV (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus). SARS-CoV-2 activates the innate immune system, thereby activating the inflammatory mechanism, causing the release of inflammatory cytokines. Moreover, it has been suggested that COVID-19 may penetrate the central nervous system, and release inflammatory cytokines in the brains, inducing neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration. Several links connect COVID-19 with Alzheimer's disease (AD), such as elevated oxidative stress, uncontrolled release of the inflammatory cytokines, and mitochondrial apoptosis. There are severe concerns that excessive immune cell activation in COVID-19 may aggravate the neurodegeneration and amyloid-beta pathology of AD. Here, we have collected the evidence, showing the links between the two diseases. The focus has been made to collect the information on the activation of the inflammation, its contributors, and shared therapeutic targets. Furthermore, we have given future perspectives, research gaps, and overlapping pathological bases of the two diseases. Lastly, we have given the short touch to the drugs that have equally shown rescuing effects against both diseases. Although there is limited information available regarding the exact links between COVID-19 and neuroinflammation, we have insight into the pathological contributors of the diseases. Based on the shared pathological features and therapeutic targets, we hypothesize that the activation of the immune system may induce neurological disorders by triggering oxidative stress and neuroinflammation.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Antioxidants; COVID-19; Cytokines; Humans; Neuroinflammatory Diseases; Oxidative Stress; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35455977
DOI: 10.3390/cells11081298 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2021Alzheimer's disease is a lifelong progressive neurological disorder. It is associated with high disease management and caregiver costs. Intelligent sensing systems have... (Review)
Review
Alzheimer's disease is a lifelong progressive neurological disorder. It is associated with high disease management and caregiver costs. Intelligent sensing systems have the capability to provide context-aware adaptive feedback. These can assist Alzheimer's patients with, continuous monitoring, functional support and timely therapeutic interventions for whom these are of paramount importance. This review aims to present a summary of such systems reported in the extant literature for the management of Alzheimer's disease. Four databases were searched, and 253 English language articles were identified published between the years 2015 to 2020. Through a series of filtering mechanisms, 20 articles were found suitable to be included in this review. This study gives an overview of the depth and breadth of the efficacy as well as the limitations of these intelligent systems proposed for Alzheimer's. Results indicate two broad categories of intelligent technologies, distributed systems and self-contained devices. Distributed systems base their outcomes mostly on long-term monitoring activity patterns of individuals whereas handheld devices give quick assessments through touch, vision and voice. The review concludes by discussing the potential of these intelligent technologies for clinical practice while highlighting future considerations for improvements in the design of these solutions for Alzheimer's disease.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Caregivers; Humans; Technology
PubMed: 34205793
DOI: 10.3390/s21124249 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2013This review is out of date and has been withdrawn. The content of the review may be of historical interest to readers. The editorial group responsible for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This review is out of date and has been withdrawn. The content of the review may be of historical interest to readers. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutic Touch
PubMed: 24271739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006535.pub3 -
Cancer Jul 2015The widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer survivors is well known despite a paucity of scientific evidence to support its use. The... (Review)
Review
The widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer survivors is well known despite a paucity of scientific evidence to support its use. The number of survivors of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) is growing rapidly and HCT clinicians are aware that many of their patients use CAM therapies consistently. However, due to a paucity of data regarding the benefits and harms of CAM therapies in these survivors, clinicians are reluctant to provide specific recommendations for or against particular CAM therapies. A systematic literature review was conducted with a search using PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid online for each CAM therapy as defined by the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The search generated 462 references, of which 26 articles were deemed to be relevant for the review. Due to extensive heterogeneity in data and limited randomized trials, a meta-analysis could not be performed but a comprehensive systematic review was conducted with specified outcomes for each CAM therapy. In randomized controlled trials, certain mind and body interventions such as relaxation were observed to be effective in alleviating psychological symptoms in patients undergoing HCT, whereas the majority of the other CAM treatments were found to have mixed results. CAM use is an understudied area in HCT survivorship and clinicians should convey the benefits and uncertainties concerning the role of CAM therapies to their patients.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Aromatherapy; Complementary Therapies; Exercise Movement Techniques; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Hypnosis; Manipulation, Spinal; Massage; Materia Medica; Meditation; Mind-Body Therapies; Minerals; Music Therapy; Plants, Medicinal; Probiotics; Qigong; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Stress, Psychological; Survivors; Tai Ji; Therapeutic Touch; Uncertainty; Vitamins; Yoga
PubMed: 25872879
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29382 -
Ageing Research Reviews Feb 2024Positron emission tomography (PET) with radiotracers that bind to synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2 A (SV2A) enables quantification of synaptic density in the living...
Positron emission tomography (PET) with radiotracers that bind to synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2 A (SV2A) enables quantification of synaptic density in the living human brain. Assessing the regional distribution and severity of synaptic density loss will contribute to our understanding of the pathological processes that precede atrophy in neurodegeneration. In this systematic review, we provide a discussion of in vivo SV2A PET imaging research for quantitative assessment of synaptic density in various dementia conditions: amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's disease, Frontotemporal dementia, Progressive supranuclear palsy and Corticobasal degeneration, Parkinson's disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies, Huntington's disease, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia. We discuss the main findings concerning group differences and clinical-cognitive correlations, and explore relations between SV2A PET and other markers of pathology. Additionally, we touch upon synaptic density in healthy ageing and outcomes of radiotracer validation studies. Studies were identified on PubMed and Embase between 2018 and 2023; last searched on the 3rd of July 2023. A total of 36 studies were included, comprising 5 on normal ageing, 21 clinical studies, and 10 validation studies. Extracted study characteristics were participant details, methodological aspects, and critical findings. In summary, the small but growing literature on in vivo SV2A PET has revealed different spatial patterns of synaptic density loss among various neurodegenerative disorders that correlate with cognitive functioning, supporting the potential role of SV2A PET imaging for differential diagnosis. SV2A PET imaging shows tremendous capability to provide novel insights into the aetiology of neurodegenerative disorders and great promise as a biomarker for synaptic density reduction. Novel directions for future synaptic density research are proposed, including (a) longitudinal imaging in larger patient cohorts of preclinical dementias, (b) multi-modal mapping of synaptic density loss onto other pathological processes, and (c) monitoring therapeutic responses and assessing drug efficacy in clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Brain; Cognitive Dysfunction; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Positron-Emission Tomography
PubMed: 38266660
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102197 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Chronic Disease; Exercise; Health Behavior; Health Communication; Humans; Immunization; Patient Compliance; Preventive Health Services; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reminder Systems; Speech Recognition Software; Telephone
PubMed: 27960229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009921.pub2