Presentation, Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Stroke in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: We performed a systematic review to evaluate stroke presentation, evaluation, management, and outcomes among studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), and the Global Health (EBSCOhost) databases between January 2005 and June 2017 for studies conducted in LMICs defined by the World Bank. We pooled prevalence estimates using an inverse-variance weighting method and stratified by the country income group. RESULTS: The search identified 36 hospital-based studies (64,256 participants) in LMICs. Mean (SD) age ranged from 51 (14) to 72 (12) years, and 29-56% of patients were women. Hypertension was the most commonly reported risk factor (64% [95% CI 59-69]). In settings where MRI was not used, head CT scans were reported among 90% patients (95% CI 79-97). Overall, 3% (95% CI 2-4) of patients were treated with tissue plasminogen activator, and 78% (95% CI 66-88) were treated with antiplatelet therapy. Overall, the rate of in-hospital mortality was 14% (95% CI 10-19), and the rate of in-hospital pneumonia was 17% (95% CI 14-20). CONCLUSIONS: Our review revealed the low use of evidence-based practices for acute stroke care in LMIC. The true use in hospitals that do not conduct this research is probably even lower. Strategies to evaluate and improve health system performance for acute stroke care, including implantation of stroke units and making thrombolysis more available and affordable are needed in LMIC. Registration in Prospero: CRD42017069325.

Radiotherapy for cranial and brain metastases from prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Intracranial metastasis from prostate cancer is rare. As treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer improves, the incidence of men with intracranial metastasis from prostate cancer is increasing. Radiation therapy for treatment of intracranial metastasis from prostate cancer is systematically reviewed. A comprehensive review examining peer-reviewed, English language articles from 1990 to 2015 was performed on multiple databases, yielding 1274 articles. These articles were reviewed and selected for studies that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients with intracranial metastases from prostate cancer; (2) patients underwent radiation therapy as primary or adjuvant therapy; (3) the sample size of patients was larger than 2. All studies that met inclusion criteria utilized whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in at least one patient. Other treatment regimens included stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection followed by WBRT, as well as concurrent cabazitaxel and WBRT. The range of average time from initial diagnosis of prostate cancer to diagnosis of brain metastasis was 29-45 months. The range of reported median survival time after WBRT was 4-9 months, whereas median survivals after SRS ranged from 9 to 13 months. Intracranial metastases from prostate cancer occur late in the disease process, and are increasing as novel therapies for metastatic disease prolong survival. The reviewed literature suggests that outcomes of patients with prostate cancer intracranial metastases appear similar to those of intracranial metastases from other histologies. Prospective examinations of systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier in conjunction with targeted radiotherapy appear warranted for this increasingly common clinical problem.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

Concomitant atrial fibrillation surgery for people undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with atrial fibrillation (AF) often undergo cardiac surgery for other underlying reasons and are frequently offered concomitant AF surgery to reduce the frequency of short- and long-term AF and improve short- and long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of concomitant AF surgery among people with AF who are undergoing cardiac surgery on short-term and long-term (12 months or greater) health-related outcomes, health-related quality of life, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: Starting from the year when the first "maze" AF surgery was reported (1987), we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (March 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (March 2016), Embase Ovid (March 2016), Web of Science (March 2016), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, April 2015), and Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA, March 2016). We searched trial registers in April 2016. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any concomitant AF surgery compared with no AF surgery among adults with preoperative AF, regardless of symptoms, who were undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality, freedom from atrial fibrillation, flutter, or tachycardia off antiarrhythmic medications, as measured by patient electrocardiographic monitoring greater than three months after the procedure, procedural safety, 30-day rehospitalisation, need for post-discharge direct current cardioversion, health-related quality of life, and direct costs. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model when heterogeneity was low (I² ≤ 50%) and random-effects model when heterogeneity was high (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 reports of 22 trials (1899 participants) with five additional ongoing studies and three studies awaiting classification. All included studies were assessed as having high risk of bias across at least one domain. The effect of concomitant AF surgery on all-cause mortality was uncertain when compared with no concomitant AF surgery (7.0% versus 6.6%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.59, I² = 0%, 20 trials, 1829 participants, low-quality evidence), but the intervention increased freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia off antiarrhythmic medications > three months (51.0% versus 24.1%, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.55, I² = 0%, eight trials, 649 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of concomitant AF surgery on 30-day mortality was uncertain (2.3% versus 3.1%, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20, I² = 0%, 18 trials, 1566 participants, low-quality evidence), but the intervention increased the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (6.0% versus 4.1%, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.54, I² = 0%, 18 trials, 1726 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Investigator-defined adverse events, including but limited to, need for surgical re-exploration or mediastinitis, were not routinely reported but were not different between the two groups (other adverse events: 24.8% versus 23.6%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.34, I² = 45%, nine trials, 858 participants), but the quality of this evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery, there is moderate-quality evidence that concomitant AF surgery approximately doubles the risk of freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia off anti-arrhythmic drugs while increasing the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation. The effects on mortality are uncertain. Future, high-quality and adequately powered trials will likely affect the confidence on the effect estimates of AF surgery on clinical outcomes.

Implantable defibrillators versus medical therapy for cardiac channelopathies.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death is a significant cause of mortality in both the US and globally. However, 5% to 15% of people with sudden cardiac death have no structural abnormalities, and most of these events are attributed to underlying cardiac ion channelopathies. Rates of cardiac ion channelopathy diagnosis are increasing. However, the optimal treatment for such people is poorly understood and current guidelines rely primarily on expert opinion. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) with antiarrhythmic drugs or usual care in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse events in people with cardiac ion channelopathies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), EMBASE, MEDLINE, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in July 2015. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials of people aged 18 years and older with ion channelopathies, including congenital long QT syndrome, congenital short QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Participants must have been randomized to ICD implantation and compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We included all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse events for our primary outcome analyses and non-fatal cardiovascular events, rates of inappropriate ICD firing, quality of life, and cost for our secondary outcome analyses. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, both for independent and pooled study analyses. MAIN RESULTS: From the 468 references identified after removing duplicates, we found two trials comprising 86 participants that met our inclusion criteria. Both trials included participants with Brugada syndrome who were randomized to ICD versus ß-blocker therapy for secondary prevention for sudden cardiac death. Both studies were small, were performed by the same investigators, and exhibited a high risk of bias across multiple domains. In the group randomized to ICD therapy, there was a nine-fold lower risk of mortality compared with people randomized to medical therapy (0% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.83; 2 trials, 86 participants). There was low quality evidence of a difference in the rates of combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and the results were imprecise (26% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.34; 2 trials, 86 participants). The rates of adverse events were higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise (28% with ICD versus 10% with medical therapy; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.44; 2 trials, 86 participants). For secondary outcomes, the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events was higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise and were driven entirely by appropriate ICD-termination of cardiac arrhythmias (26% with ICD versus 0% with medical therapy; RR 11.4, 95% CI 1.57 to 83.3; 2 trials, 86 participants). Approximately 25% of the ICD group experienced inappropriate ICD firing, all of which was corrected by device reprogramming. No data were available for quality of life or cost. We considered the quality of evidence low using the GRADE methodology, due to study limitations and imprecision of effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among people with Brugada syndrome who have survived a prior episode of sudden cardiac death, ICD therapy appeared to reduce mortality when compared to ß-blocker therapy, but the true magnitude may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect because of study limitations and imprecision. Due to the large magnitude of effect, it is unlikely that there will be additional studies evaluating the role of ICDs for secondary prevention in this population. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal treatment, if any, to prevent an initial episode of sudden cardiac death in people with cardiac ion channelopathies.

Hospital-Based Quality Improvement Interventions for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement initiatives have been developed to improve acute coronary syndrome care largely in high-income country settings. We sought to synthesize the effect size and quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies for hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions on clinical outcomes and process of care measures for their potential implementation in low- and middle-income country settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a bibliometric search of databases and trial registers and a hand search in 2016 and performed an updated search in May 2018 and May 2019. We performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence assessments in duplicate. We assessed differences in outcomes by study design comparing RCTs to nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies and by country income status. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial, unexplained heterogeneity among the included studies, and thus, we present a qualitative synthesis. We screened 5858 records and included 32 studies (14 RCTs [n=109 763] and 18 nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies [n=54-423]). In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.1% to 4.8% in the intervention groups versus 3.3% to 5.1% in the control groups in 5 RCTs (n=55 942). Five RCTs (n=64 313) reported 3.0% to 31.0% higher rates of reperfusion for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the intervention groups. The effect sizes for in-hospital and discharge medical therapies in a majority of RCTs were 3.0% to 10.0% higher in the intervention groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality evaluated by 4 RCTs (n=42 384), which reported 2.5% to 15.0% versus 5.9% to 22% 30-day mortality rates in the intervention versus control groups. In contrast, nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies reported larger effect sizes compared to RCTs. There were no significant consistent differences in outcomes between high-income and middle-income countries. Low-income countries were not represented in any of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions have a modest effect on process of care measures but not on clinical outcomes with expected differences by study design. Although quality improvement programs have an ongoing and important role for acute coronary syndrome quality of care in high-income country settings, further research will help to identify key components for contextualizing and implementing such interventions to new settings to achieve their desired effects. Systematic Review Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Unique identifier: CRD42016047604.

Hospital-based quality improvement interventions for patients with heart failure: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direction and magnitude of effect and quality of evidence for hospital-based heart failure (HF) quality improvement interventions on process of care measures and clinical outcomes among patients with acute HF. REVIEW METHODS: We performed a structured search to identify relevant randomised trials evaluating the effect of in-hospital quality improvement interventions for patients hospitalised with HF through February 2017. Studies were independently reviewed in duplicate for key characteristics, outcomes were summarised and a qualitative synthesis was performed due to substantial heterogeneity. RESULTS: From 3615 records, 14 randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion with multifaceted interventions. There was a trend towards higher in-hospital use of ACE inhibitors (ACE-I; 57.9%vs40.0%) and beta-blockers (BBs; 46.7%vs10.2%) in the intervention than the comparator in one trial (n=429 participants). Five trials (n=78 727 participants) demonstrated no effect of the intervention on use of ACE-I or angiotensin receptor blocker at discharge. Three trials (n=89 660 participants) reported no effect on use of BB at discharge. Two trials (n=419 participants) demonstrated a trend towards lower hospital readmission up to 90 days after discharge. There was no consistent effect of the quality improvement intervention on 30-day all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay and patient-level health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials of hospital-based HF quality improvement interventions do not show a consistent effect on most process of care measures and clinical outcomes. The overall quality of evidence for the prespecified primary and key secondary outcomes was very low to moderate, suggesting that future research will likely influence these estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016049545.

Feeling validated yet? A scoping review of the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile technology to measure and improve sleep.

The objectives of this review were to evaluate the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile sleep monitoring technology, identify gaps in the literature and determine the potential for use in behavioral interventions. We undertook a scoping review of studies conducted in adult populations using consumer-targeted wearable technology or mobile devices designed to measure and/or improve sleep. After screening for inclusion/exclusion criteria, data were extracted from the articles by two co-authors. Articles included in the search were using wearable or mobile technology to estimate or evaluate sleep, published in English and conducted in adult populations. Our search returned 3897 articles and 43 met our inclusion criteria. Results indicated that the majority of studies focused on validating technology to measure sleep (n = 23) or were observational studies (n = 10). Few studies were used to identify sleep disorders (n = 2), evaluate response to interventions (n = 3) or deliver interventions (n = 5). In conclusion, the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile sleep monitoring technology has largely focused on validation of devices and applications compared with polysomnography (PSG) but opportunities exist for observational research and for delivery of behavioral interventions. Multidisciplinary research is needed to determine the uses of these technologies in interventions as well as the use in more diverse populations including sleep disorders and other patient populations.

Natural Language Processing for EHR-Based Pharmacovigilance: A Structured Review.

The goal of pharmacovigilance is to detect, monitor, characterize and prevent adverse drug events (ADEs) with pharmaceutical products. This article is a comprehensive structured review of recent advances in applying natural language processing (NLP) to electronic health record (EHR) narratives for pharmacovigilance. We review methods of varying complexity and problem focus, summarize the current state-of-the-art in methodology advancement, discuss limitations and point out several promising future directions. The ability to accurately capture both semantic and syntactic structures in clinical narratives becomes increasingly critical to enable efficient and accurate ADE detection. Significant progress has been made in algorithm development and resource construction since 2000. Since 2012, statistical analysis and machine learning methods have gained traction in automation of ADE mining from EHR narratives. Current state-of-the-art methods for NLP-based ADE detection from EHRs show promise regarding their integration into production pharmacovigilance systems. In addition, integrating multifaceted, heterogeneous data sources has shown promise in improving ADE detection and has become increasingly adopted. On the other hand, challenges and opportunities remain across the frontier of NLP application to EHR-based pharmacovigilance, including proper characterization of ADE context, differentiation between off- and on-label drug-use ADEs, recognition of the importance of polypharmacy-induced ADEs, better integration of heterogeneous data sources, creation of shared corpora, and organization of shared-task challenges to advance the state-of-the-art.

Drugs for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: The Million Hearts initiative emphasizes ABCS (aspirin for high-risk patients, blood pressure [BP] control, cholesterol level management, and smoking cessation). Evidence of the effects of drugs used to achieve ABCS has not been synthesized comprehensively in the prevention of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statins, and tobacco cessation drugs for fatal and nonfatal ASCVD outcomes in primary ASCVD prevention. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Structured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PROSPERO International Prospective Systematic Review Trial Register to identify systematic reviews published from January 1, 2005, to June 17, 2015, that reported the effect of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statin, or tobacco cessation drugs on ASCVD events in individuals without prevalent ASCVD. Additional studies were identified by searching the reference lists of included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessment reports. Reviews were selected according to predefined criteria and appraised for methodologic quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool (range, 0-11). Studies were independently reviewed for key participant and intervention characteristics. Outcomes that were meta-analyzed in each included review were extracted. Qualitative synthesis was performed, and data were analyzed from July 2 to August 13, 2015. FINDINGS: From a total of 1967 reports, 35 systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials were identified, including 15 reviews of aspirin, 4 reviews of BP-lowering therapy, 12 reviews of statins, and 4 reviews of tobacco cessation drugs. Methodologic quality varied, but 30 reviews had AMSTAR ratings of 5 or higher. Compared with placebo, aspirin (relative risk [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and statins (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81) reduced the risk for ASCVD. Compared with placebo, BP-lowering therapy reduced the risk for coronary heart disease (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90) and stroke (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73). Tobacco cessation drugs increased the odds of continued abstinence at 6 months (odds ratio range, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.60-2.06] to 2.88 [95% CI, 2.40-3.47]), but the direct effects on ASCVD were poorly reported. Aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30-1.82), and statins did not increase overall risk for adverse effects (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03). Adverse effects of BP-lowering therapy and tobacco cessation drugs were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This overview demonstrates high-quality evidence to support aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, and statins for primary ASCVD prevention and tobacco cessation drugs for smoking cessation. Treatment effects of each drug can be used to enrich discussions between health care professionals and patients in primary ASCVD prevention.

Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions to reduce pain in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Pain is one of the most common, burdensome, and feared symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. American Pain Society standards for pain management in cancer recommend both pharmacologic and psychosocial approaches. To obtain a current, stable, and comprehensive estimate of the effect of psychosocial interventions on pain-an important clinical topic-we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies among adult patients with cancer published between 1966 and 2010. METHODS: Three pairs of raters independently reviewed 1,681 abstracts, with a systematic process for reconciling disagreement, yielding 42 papers, of which 37 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. Studies were assessed for quality using a modified seven-item Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) coding scheme. Pain severity and interference were primary outcome measures. RESULTS: Study participants (N = 4,199) were primarily women (66%) and white (72%). The weighted averaged effect size across studies for pain severity (38 comparisons) was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46; P < .001), and the effect size for pain interference (four comparisons) was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.60; P < .001). Studies that monitored whether treatment was delivered as intended had larger effects than those that did not (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Psychosocial interventions had medium-size effects on both pain severity and interference. These robust findings support the systematic implementation of quality-controlled psychosocial interventions as part of a multimodal approach to the management of pain in patients with cancer.