Agony of akathisia: a case of sodium valproate-induced akathisia.

Akathisia is a subjective feeling of restlessness that often results in a compulsion to move. Drug-related causes are the most common aetiologies. It can often be confused with restless legs syndrome (RLS). We describe a case of valproate-induced akathisia that improved with drug cessation. This case reports a rare but treatable adverse effect of sodium valproate and highlights the importance of differentiating akathisia from RLS.

Cognitive Biases in Cannabis, Opioid, and Stimulant Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Background: Opiates, cannabis, and stimulants are highly abused and are prevalent disorders. Psychological interventions are crucial given that they help individuals maintain abstinence following a lapse or relapse into substance use. The dual-process theory has posited that while the repeated use of a substance leads to increased automatic processing and increased automatic tendencies to approach substance-specific cues, in addition to the inhibition of other normal cognitive processes. Prior reviews are limited, as they failed to include trials involving participants with these prevalent addictive disorders or have not reviewed the published literature extensively. Objectives: The primary aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence for cognitive biases in opioid use, cannabis use, and stimulant use disorders. The secondary aim of the review is to determine if cognitive bias could be consistently detected using the different methods. Lastly, this review will narratively synthesize the evidence of possible associations between cognitive biases and other addiction-related outcomes. Methods: A search was conducted from November 2017 to January 2018 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. Articles were included if participants had a primary diagnosis of opioid use, cannabis use, or stimulant use disorder. The selection process of the articles was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A qualitative synthesis was undertaken. Results: A total of 38 studies were identified. The main finding is the evidence that cognitive biases are present in the 38 studies identified, except for a single study on opioid use and stimulant use disorders. Cognitive biases were reported despite a variety of different methods being utilized. Synthesis of secondary outcome was not feasible, due to the varied outcomes reported. Conclusions: Cognitive biases have been consistently observed in opioid use, cannabis use, and stimulant use disorders, despite a range of assessment tools being utilized in the assessment for these biases.

A Systematic Review of Attention Biases in Opioid, Cannabis, Stimulant Use Disorders.

Background: Opiates, cannabis, and amphetamines are highly abused, and use of these substances are prevalent disorders. Psychological interventions are crucial given that they help individuals maintain abstinence following a lapse or relapse into substance use. Advances in experimental psychology have suggested that automatic attention biases might be responsible for relapse. Prior reviews have provided evidence for the presence of these biases in addictive disorders and the effectiveness of bias modification. However, the prior studies are limited, as they failed to include trials involving participants with these prevalent addictive disorders or have failed to adopt a systematic approach in evidence synthesis. Objectives: The primary aim of this current systematic review is to synthesise the current evidence for attention biases amongst opioid use, cannabis use, and stimulant use disorders. The secondary aim is to determine the efficacy of attention bias modification interventions and other addictions related outcomes. Methods: A search was conducted from November 2017 to January 2018 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. The selection process of the articles was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A qualitative synthesis was undertaken. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Six randomised trials were identified. The evidence synthesized from these trials have provided strong evidence that attentional biases are present in opioid and stimulant use disorders. Evidence synthesis for other secondary outcome measures could not be performed given the heterogeneity in the measures reported and the limited number of trials. The risk of bias assessment for the included trials revealed a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Conclusions: This review demonstrates the potential need for interventions targeting attention biases in opiate and cocaine use disorders.

Enhancing the Quality and Utility of Content Analyses for Addictive Disorders.

The advances in Mobile Health (M-health) technologies has led to an increase in the numbers of alcohol and drugs applications on the commercial stores. Content analyses and reviews of applications to date have demonstrated that most of these applications are for entertainment or information purposes. More recent content analyses have identified common behavioural change techniques in substance applications. Nevertheless, there remain several limitations of existing content analyses and reviews of applications. There is an increasing prevalence of other substance-related disorders, such as that of stimulants and opioids, but the existing content analyses are limited to an analysis of alcohol and cannabis applications. Only two of the content analyses performed to date have attempted to identify applications that have their basis on a theoretical approach, based on the identification of behavioural change techniques or motivational techniques. There is a need to identify applications on the commercial stores that replicate conventional psychological interventions, or at least provide elements of conventional psychological interventions using behavioural change techniques that are integrated into the application. Further evaluative research could be done on these applications to determine if they are efficacious before using them for patient care. To address the limitation that existing content analyses have only focused on reviews of alcohol and cannabis applications, we propose for there to be updated content analyses for alcohol and cannabis, and new content analyses for other substances of abuse (such as opioids and stimulants). We like to suggest that future reviews consider keywords such as abstinence or recovery, and ones that relate to psychological therapies, such as self-determination or attention bias retraining, as commercial applications that have an underlying psychological basis might be categorised differently, under different keyword terms. We have evidence of how a better search strategy identifies previously unrecognised applications for attentional bias modification.

Current status of postnatal depression smartphone applications available on application stores: an information quality analysis.

OBJECTIVES: It is the aim of the current research to identify some common functionalities of postnatal application, and to determine the quality of the information content of postnatal depression application using validated scales that have been applied for applications in other specialties. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: To determine the information quality of the postnatal depression smartphone applications, the two most widely used smartphone application stores, namely Apple iTunes as well as Google Android Play store, were searched between 20May and 31 May. No participants were involved. The inclusion criteria for the application were that it must have been searchable using the keywords 'postnatal', 'pregnancy', 'perinatal', 'postpartum' and 'depression', and must be in English language. INTERVENTION: The Silberg Scale was used in the assessment of the information quality of the smartphone applications. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURE: The information quality score was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Our current results highlighted that while there is currently a myriad of applications, only 14 applications are specifically focused on postnatal depression. In addition, the majority of the currently available applications on the store have only disclosed their last date of modification as well as ownership. There remain very limited disclosures about the information of the authors, as well as the references for the information included in the application itself. The average score for the Silberg Scale for the postnatal applications we have analysed is 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a need for healthcare professionals and developers to jointly conceptualise new applications with better information quality and evidence base.

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations.

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.