Yoga for schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for this population. There is an immediate need for rigorous trials with process evaluations and clearer, detailed intervention descriptions. Cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted alongside future trials.

Role of Antimuscarinics Combined With Alpha-blockers in the Management of Urinary Storage Symptoms in Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

People with schizophrenia often experience long-term psychosocial disabilities and frequent relapse. Family plays a key role in caring for ill relatives, which in turn probably contributes to high levels of distress and burdens for the family. Family-based interventions have been developed and applied to family members and their relatives with schizophrenia to improve their outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was last updated in 2011, which has been split into this review, one on group- versus individual-based family interventions and one on family-based cognitive versus behavioural management interventions. To assess the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families compared with standard care. We searched the following electronic databases from inception until April 2023: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and accessible reviews for additional references. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families and reported at least one patient's and one family member's outcomes. In this update, we only investigated standard care as the comparator. We used standard Cochrane methods. The review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. We pooled data and estimated effects with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We judged the certainty of evidence using GRADEpro GDT. We divided the outcomes into short-term (≤ 1 month postintervention), medium-term (> 1 to 6 months postintervention), and long-term follow-up (> 6 months postintervention), if available. We identified 26 RCTs in this review, with 1985 people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders, and 2056 family members. Most family-based interventions were conducted on a weekly or biweekly basis, with duration ranging from five weeks to two years. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies given that we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias and several studies at high risk of detection, attrition or reporting bias. Low-certainty evidence indicated that family-based interventions may reduce patients' relapse at one month or less postintervention (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; 4 RCTs, 229 participants). We downgraded the evidence by two levels due to imprecision (small number of participants) and high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. Compared to standard care, family-based interventions probably reduce caregiver burden at one month or less postintervention (MD -5.84, 95% CI -6.77 to -4.92; 8 RCTs, 563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in more family members shifting from high to low expressed emotion (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.11 to 13.71; 2 RCTs, 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Family interventions may result in little to no difference in patients' death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.32; 6 RCTs, 304 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (≤ 1 month postintervention; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence) in comparison with standard care. Due to the heterogeneous measures and various follow-up periods, we were unable to provide pooled effect estimates for patients' compliance with medication and quality of life. We were very uncertain whether family interventions resulted in enhanced compliance with medication and improved quality of life for patients. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to high risk of bias across studies, inconsistency (different directions of effects across studies), and imprecision (small number of participants or CIs of most studies including the possibility of no effect). This review synthesised the latest evidence on family interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families. This review suggests that family interventions might improve patients' outcomes (e.g. relapse) and families' outcomes (e.g. caregiver burden and expressed emotion), with little to no difference in patients' hospital admission and adverse effects in terms of death. However, evidence on patients' compliance with medication and quality of life was very uncertain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low certainty. Future large and well-designed RCTs are needed to provide more reliable evaluation of effects of family interventions in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families.

There was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.

High-quality evidence indicates that land-based therapeutic exercise provides short-term benefit that is sustained for at least two to six months after cessation of formal treatment in terms of reduced knee pain, and moderate-quality evidence shows improvement in physical function among people with knee OA. The magnitude of the treatment effect would be considered moderate (immediate) to small (two to six months) but comparable with estimates reported for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Confidence intervals around demonstrated pooled results for pain reduction and improvement in physical function do not exclude a minimal clinically important treatment effect. Since the participants in most trials were aware of their treatment, this may have contributed to their improvement. Despite the lack of blinding we did not downgrade the quality of evidence for risk of performance or detection bias. This reflects our belief that further research in this area is unlikely to change the findings of our review.

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation has been implicated in the development and relapse of psychotic disorders. Elevated cortisol secretion has been positively linked with symptom severity in people with psychosis. Antiglucocorticoid and related drugs that target the HPA axis may be useful for the treatment of individuals with psychosis. 1. To determine the effects of antiglucocorticoid and related drugs for the treatment of psychosis, when used alone or in combination with antipsychotic medication.2. To determine whether the effects of these medications differs between those in a prodromal phase or first episode of psychosis, and those with more established illness. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 2009 and April 2014). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiglucocorticoid and related drugs compared to placebo (either as a sole treatment or as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotics, typical antipsychotics, antidepressants or other combination treatment) for people with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, or for individuals at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder. Review authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous measures. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table. We included 11 studies that randomly assigned 509 people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or psychotic depression. No trials were conducted in patients at their first episode of psychotic illness and none included populations at high risk for developing psychosis. Our pre-stated outcomes of interest were mental state, global state, general functioning, adverse effects and quality of life.Two trials compared antiglucocorticoid drugs (mifepristone) versus placebo as sole treatment. Limited data from one trial showed no difference in the proportion responding to mifepristone when mental state was assessed immediately post intervention using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD -5.20, 95% CI -17.91 to 7.51; very low-quality evidence); depressive symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) total) were also similar between groups (n = 5, 1 RCT, MD 1.67, 95% CI -16.44 to 19.78; very low-quality evidence). However, a significant difference favoured treatment at short-term follow-up for global state (30% reduction in total BPRS, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; low-grade quality evidence). This effect was also seen for short-term positive psychotic symptoms (50% reduction in BPRS positive symptom subscale, n = 221, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.84; low-grade quality evidence). Participants receiving mifepristone experienced a similar overall number of adverse effects as those receiving placebo (n = 226, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09; moderate-quality evidence). No data on general functioning or quality of life were available.One trial compared an antiglucocorticoid, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotic treatment to adjunctive placebo. Data for main outcomes of interest were of low quality, and analysis of useable data showed no significant effects of treatment on mental state or adverse effects. Data on global state, general functioning and quality of life were not available.Data from six trials comparing antiglucocorticoid drugs as an adjunct to combination treatment versus adjunctive placebo showed no significant differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for overall psychotic symptoms (n = 171, 6 RCTs, SMD 0.01, 95% CI - 0.29 to 0.32) or positive psychotic symptoms (n = 151, 5 RCTs, SMD -0.07, 95% CI - 0.40 to 0.25). Data from three trials showed no differences between groups in mean endpoint scores for negative symptoms (n = 94, 3 RCTs, MD 2.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 4.55). One study found improvements in global state that were similar between groups (n = 30, 1 RCT, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.06; very low-quality evidence). In this comparison, pooled results showed that antiglucorticoids caused a greater overall number of adverse events (n = 199, 7 RCTs, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.32; moderate quality evidence), but no quality of life data were available. Good evidence is insufficient to conclude whether antiglucocorticoid drugs provide effective treatment for psychosis. Some global state findings suggest a favourable effect for mifepristone, and a few overall adverse effect findings favour placebo. Additional large randomised controlled trials are needed to justify findings.

Introduction: The efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) versus placebo and conservative treatment (CT) in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) has been debated in recent years. The aim of this study was to conduct an updated systematic review with a meta-analysis on the efficacy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PV versus placebo and CT in pain relief, functionality and quality of life in patients with OVFs. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, resulting in a total of 15 RCTs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias v.2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the weighted inverse variance method to analyze the standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain (VAS/NRS scales), functionality (RMDQ/ODI scales) and quality of life (QUALEFFO scale) in the short (<1 month), medium (1–6 months) and long terms (≥6 months). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and τ2. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of control, geographic region, number of institutions, fracture chronicity, and risk of bias. In addition, sensitivity (leave-one-out) and publication bias (funnel plots and Egger’s tests) analyses were performed. Results: Overall, PV showed benefits over the combined control groups in pain relief in the short (SMD: −0.68; 95%CI: −1.28–−0.07), medium (SMD: −0.63; 95%CI: −1.18–−0.07), and long terms (SMD: −0.59; 95%CI: −1.02–−0.15). No statistically significant differences were found in functionality and quality of life, although several trends toward significance were observed favoring PV. Subgroup analyses showed greater advantages of PV at several time intervals in acute (<8 weeks) OVFs, multicentric trials and studies with a low risk of bias. There were cues suggestive of potential publication bias in functionality, but not in pain or quality of life. Conclusions: PV shows significant benefits in pain relief, particularly in acute OVFs, but its efficacy in terms of functionality and quality of life remains unclear. These results support the use of PV in appropriately selected patients. However, given the high heterogeneity found, more controlled, multicenter trials are still required.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults.

Physical activity interventions for treatment of social isolation, loneliness or low social support in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

A diagnosis of head and neck cancer, like many other cancers, can lead to significant psychosocial distress. Patients with head and neck cancer can have very specific needs, due to both the location of their disease and the impact of treatment, which can interfere with basic day-to-day activities such as eating, speaking and breathing.There is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of the interventions developed to address the psychosocial distress experienced by patients living with head and neck cancer. To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and psychosocial well-being for patients with head and neck cancer. We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 17 December 2012. We selected randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for adults with head and neck cancer. For trials to be included the psychosocial intervention had to involve a supportive relationship between a trained helper and individuals diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Outcomes had to be assessed using a validated quality of life or psychological distress measure, or both. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, we extracted outcome measures for combining in meta-analyses. We compared continuous outcomes using either mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with a random-effects model. We conducted meta-analyses for the primary outcome measure of quality of life and secondary outcome measures of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. We subjected the remaining outcome measures (self esteem, coping, adjustment to cancer, body image) to a narrative synthesis, due to the limited number of studies evaluating these specific outcomes and the wide divergence of assessment tools used. Seven trials, totaling 542 participants, met the eligibility criteria. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, interventions used and outcome measures reported. From these studies, there was no evidence to suggest that psychosocial intervention promotes global quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer at end of intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI -5.82 to 8.27) as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This quality of life tool includes five functional scales, namely cognitive, physical, emotional, social and role. There was no evidence to demonstrate that psychosocial intervention provides an immediate or medium-term improvement on any of these five functional scales. From the data available, there was no significant change in levels of anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.23) or depression following intervention (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19). At present, there is insufficient evidence to refute or support the effectiveness of psychosocial intervention for patients with head and neck cancer. The evidence for psychosocial intervention is limited by the small number of studies, methodological shortcomings such as lack of power, difficulties with comparability between types of interventions and a wide divergence in outcome measures used. Future research should be targeted at patients who screen positive for distress and use validated outcome measures, such as the EORTC scale, as a measure of quality of life. These studies should implement interventions that are theoretically derived. Other shortcomings should be addressed in future studies, including using power calculations that may encourage multi-centred collaboration to ensure adequate sample sizes are recruited.

At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.

'Fast-track surgery' or 'enhanced recovery protocol' or 'fast-track rehabilitation', incorporating one or more elements of preoperative education, pain relief, early mobilisation, enteral nutrition and growth factors, may improve health-related quality of life and reduce length of hospital stay and costs. The role of enhanced recovery protocols in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery is unclear. To assess the benefits and harms of enhanced recovery protocols compared with standard care (or usual practice) in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status for inclusion in the review. Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5, based on available case analysis. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and nine studies provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1014 participants were randomly assigned to the enhanced recovery protocol (499 participants) or standard care (515 participants) in the nine RCTs. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants with high performance status undergoing different upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. Eight trials incorporated more than one element of the enhanced recovery protocol. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term health-related quality of life(three months to one year), time to return to normal activity, or time to return to work. The difference between the enhanced recovery protocol and standard care were imprecise for short-term mortality (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/425 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 1/443 (0.2%); seven trials; 868 participants; RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.44 to 17.73; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/157 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 0/184 (0.0%); two trials; 341 participants; RR 5.57; 95% CI 0.68 to 45.89; very low quality evidence), number of serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 34/421 (8 per 100 participants); standard care: 46/438 (11 per 100 participants); seven trials; 859 participants; rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; very low quality evidence), health-related quality of life (four trials; 373 participants; SMD 0.29; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.62; very low quality evidence) and hospital readmissions (enhanced recovery protocol: 14/355 (adjusted proportion = 3.3%); standard care: 9/378 (2.4%); seven trials; 733 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.87; very low quality evidence). The enhanced recovery protocol group had a lower proportion of people with mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 31/254 (adjusted proportion = 10.9%); standard care: 51/271 (18.8%); four trials; 525 participants; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85; low quality evidence), fewer number of mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 69/499 (13 per 100 participants); standard care: 128/515 (25 per 100 participants); nine trials; 1014 participants; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; low quality evidence), shorter length of hospital stay (nine trials; 1014 participants; MD -2.19 days; 95% CI -2.53 to -1.85; low quality evidence) and lower costs (four trials; 282 participants; MD USD -6300; 95% CI -8400 to -4200; low quality evidence) than standard care group. Based on low quality evidence, enhanced recovery protocols may reduce length of hospital stay and costs (primarily because of reduction in hospital stay) in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. However, the validity of the results is uncertain because of the risk of bias in the trials and the way the outcomes were measured. Future RCTs should be conducted with low risk of bias, and measure clinically important outcomes for including the three months to one year period.

Several rehabilitation programmes are available for individuals after lumbar disc surgery. To determine whether active rehabilitation after lumbar disc surgery is more effective than no treatment, and to describe which type of active rehabilitation is most effective. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002.First, we clustered treatments according to the start of treatment.1. Active rehabilitation that starts immediately postsurgery.2. Active rehabilitation that starts four to six weeks postsurgery.3. Active rehabilitation that starts longer than 12 months postsurgery.For every cluster, the following comparisons were investigated.A. Active rehabilitation versus no treatment, placebo or waiting list control.B. Active rehabilitation versus other kinds of active rehabilitation.C. Specific intervention in addition to active rehabilitation versus active rehabilitation alone. We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO to May 2013. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed if studies were clinically homogeneous. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall quality of evidence. In this update, we identified eight new studies, thereby including a total of 22 trials (2503 participants), 10 of which had a low risk of bias. Most rehabilitation programmes were assessed in only one study. Both men and women were included, and overall mean age was 41.4 years. All participants had received standard discectomy, microdiscectomy and in one study standard laminectomy and (micro)discectomy. Mean duration of the rehabilitation intervention was 12 weeks; eight studies assessed six to eight-week exercise programmes, and eight studies assessed 12 to 13-week exercise programmes. Programmes were provided in primary and secondary care facilities and were started immediately after surgery (n = 4) or four to six weeks (n = 16) or one year after surgery (n = 2). In general, the overall quality of the evidence is low to very low. Rehabilitation programmes that started immediately after surgery were not more effective than their control interventions, which included exercise. Low- to very low-quality evidence suggests that there were no differences between specific rehabilitation programmes (multidisciplinary care, behavioural graded activity, strength and stretching) that started four to six weeks postsurgery and their comparators, which included some form of exercise. Low-quality evidence shows that physiotherapy from four to six weeks postsurgery onward led to better function than no treatment or education only, and that multidisciplinary rehabilitation co-ordinated by medical advisors led to faster return to work than usual care. Statistical pooling was performed only for three comparisons in which the rehabilitation programmes started four to six weeks postsurgery: exercise programmes versus no treatment, high- versus low-intensity exercise programmes and supervised versus home exercise programmes. Very low-quality evidence (five RCTs, N = 272) shows that exercises are more effective than no treatment for pain at short-term follow-up (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.24), and low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 252) suggests that exercises are more effective for functional status on short-term follow-up (SMD -0.67; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12) and that no difference in functional status was noted on long-term follow-up (three RCTs, N = 226; SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.04). None of these studies reported that exercise increased the reoperation rate. Very low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that high-intensity exercise programmes are more effective than low-intensity exercise programmes for pain in the short term (weighted mean difference (WMD) -10.67; 95% CI -17.04 to -4.30), and low-quality evidence (two RCTs, N = 103) shows that they are more effective for functional status in the short term (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.36). Very low-quality evidence (four RCTs, N = 154) suggests no significant differences between supervised and home exercise programmes for short-term pain relief (SMD -0.76; 95% CI -2.04 to 0.53) or functional status (four RCTs, N = 154; SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.15). Considerable variation was noted in the content, duration and intensity of the rehabilitation programmes included in this review, and for none of them was high- or moderate-quality evidence identified. Exercise programmes starting four to six weeks postsurgery seem to lead to a faster decrease in pain and disability than no treatment, with small to medium effect sizes, and high-intensity exercise programmes seem to lead to a slightly faster decrease in pain and disability than is seen with low-intensity programmes, but the overall quality of the evidence is only low to very low. No significant differences were noted between supervised and home exercise programmes for pain relief, disability or global perceived effect. None of the trials reported an increase in reoperation rate after first-time lumbar surgery. High-quality randomised controlled trials are strongly needed.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Diagnosis and treatment may drastically affect quality of life, causing symptoms such as sleep disorders, depression and anxiety. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is a programme that aims to reduce stress by developing mindfulness, meaning a non-judgmental, accepting moment-by-moment awareness. MBSR seems to benefit patients with mood disorders and chronic pain, and it may also benefit women with breast cancer. To assess the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in women diagnosed with breast cancer. In April 2018, we conducted a comprehensive electronic search for studies of MBSR in women with breast cancer, in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MBSR versus no intervention in women with breast cancer. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Using a standardised data form, the review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (quality of life, fatigue, depression, anxiety, quality of sleep, overall survival and adverse events). For outcomes assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD) as a summary statistic for meta-analysis; for those assessed with different instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD). The effect of MBSR was assessed in the short term (end of intervention), medium term (up to 6 months after intervention) and long term (up to 24 months after intervention). Fourteen RCTs fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with most studies reporting that they included women with early breast cancer. Ten RCTs involving 1571 participants were eligible for meta-analysis, while four studies involving 185 participants did not report usable results. Queries to the authors of these four studies were unsuccessful. All studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias since participants could not be blinded, and only 3 of 14 studies were at low risk of selection bias. Eight of 10 studies included in the meta-analysis recruited participants with early breast cancer (the remaining 2 trials did not restrict inclusion to a certain cancer type). Most trials considered only women who had completed cancer treatment.MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies with a total of 339 participants) but may result in little to no difference up to 6 months (based on low-certainty evidence from three studies involving 428 participants). Long-term data on quality of life (up to two years after completing MBSR) were available for one study in 97 participants (MD 0.00 on questionnaire FACT-B, 95% CI -5.82 to 5.82; low-certainty evidence).In the short term, MBSR probably reduces fatigue (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 studies; 693 participants). It also probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 749 participants), and it reduces depression (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.22; high-certainty evidence; 6 studies; 745 participants). It probably slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.04; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 475 participants). However, these confidence intervals (except for short-term depression) are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference.In the medium term, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in medium-term fatigue (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 607 participants). The intervention probably slightly reduces anxiety (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.07; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1094 participants), depression (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.06; moderate-certainty evidence; 7 studies; 1097 participants) and slightly improves quality of sleep (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.08; moderate-certainty evidence; 4 studies; 654 participants). However, these confidence intervals are compatible with both an improvement and little to no difference.In the long term, moderate-certainty evidence shows that MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.16; 2 studies; 360 participants) or depression (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.05; 2 studies; 352 participants). No long-term data were available for fatigue or quality of sleep.No study reported data on survival or adverse events. MBSR may improve quality of life slightly at the end of the intervention but may result in little to no difference later on. MBSR probably slightly reduces anxiety, depression and slightly improves quality of sleep at both the end of the intervention and up to six months later. A beneficial effect on fatigue was apparent at the end of the intervention but not up to six months later. Up to two years after the intervention, MBSR probably results in little to no difference in anxiety and depression; there were no data available for fatigue or quality of sleep.

Dysarthria is an acquired speech disorder following neurological injury that reduces intelligibility of speech due to weak, imprecise, slow and/or unco-ordinated muscle control. The impact of dysarthria goes beyond communication and affects psychosocial functioning. This is an update of a review previously published in 2005. The scope has been broadened to include additional interventions, and the title amended accordingly. To assess the effects of interventions to improve dysarthric speech following stroke and other non-progressive adult-acquired brain injury such as trauma, infection, tumour and surgery. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 6 May 2016. We also searched Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts (LLBA) (1976 to November 2016) and PsycINFO (1800 to September 2016). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched major trials registers: WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted academic institutions and other researchers regarding other published, unpublished or ongoing trials. We did not impose any language restrictions. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dysarthria interventions with 1) no intervention, 2) another intervention for dysarthria (this intervention may differ in methodology, timing of delivery, duration, frequency or theory), or 3) an attention control. Three review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We attempted to contact study authors for clarification and missing data as required. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using a random-effects model, and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality. We planned to conduct subgroup analyses for underlying clinical conditions. We included five small trials that randomised a total of 234 participants. Two studies were assessed as low risk of bias; none of the included studies were adequately powered. Two studies used an attention control and three studies compared to an alternative intervention, which in all cases was one intervention versus usual care intervention. The searches we carried out did not find any trials comparing an intervention with no intervention. The searches did not find any trials of an intervention that compared variations in timing, dose, or intensity of treatment using the same intervention. Four studies included only people with stroke; one included mostly people with stroke, but also those with brain injury. Three studies delivered interventions in the first few months after stroke; two recruited people with chronic dysarthria. Three studies evaluated behavioural interventions, one investigated acupuncture and another transcranial magnetic stimulation. One study included people with dysarthria within a broader trial of people with impaired communication.Our primary analysis of a persisting (three to nine months post-intervention) effect at the activity level of measurement found no evidence in favour of dysarthria intervention compared with any control (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.55; 3 trials, 116 participants, GRADE: low quality, I² = 0%). Findings from sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias were similar, with a slightly wider confidence interval and low heterogeneity (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.73, I² = 32%; 2 trials, 92 participants, GRADE: low quality). Subgroup analysis results for stroke were similar to the primary analysis because few non-stroke participants had been recruited to trials (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.54, I² = 0%; 3 trials, 106 participants, GRADE: low quality).Similar results emerged from most of the secondary analyses. There was no evidence of a persisting effect at the impairment (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.91 to 1.06, I² = 70%; 2 trials, 56 participants, GRADE: very low quality) or participation level (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.33, I² = 0%; 2 trials, 79 participants, GRADE: low quality) but substantial heterogeneity on the former. Analyses of immediate post-intervention outcomes provided no evidence of any short-term benefit on activity (SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.66, I² = 0%; 3 trials, 117 participants, GRADE: very low quality); or participation (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.45; 1 study, 32 participants) levels of measurement.There was a statistically significant effect favouring intervention at the immediate, impairment level of measurement (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, P = 0.04, I² = 0%; 4 trials, 99 participants, GRADE: very low quality) but only one of these four trials had a low risk of bias. We found no definitive, adequately powered RCTs of interventions for people with dysarthria. We found limited evidence to suggest there may be an immediate beneficial effect on impairment level measures; more, higher quality research is needed to confirm this finding.Although we evaluated five studies, the benefits and risks of interventions remain unknown and the emerging evidence justifies the need for adequately powered clinical trials into this condition.People with dysarthria after stroke or brain injury should continue to receive rehabilitation according to clinical guidelines.