The effect of oil pulling in comparison with chlorhexidine and other mouthwash interventions in promoting oral health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A meta-analytic review was performed to critically synthesize the evidence of oil pulling on improving the parameters of gingival health, plaque control and bacteria counts against chlorhexidine and other mouthwash or oral hygiene practices. METHODS: Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: There was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.

A qualitative study of lived experiences and needs of advanced cancer patients in Malaysia: Gaps and steps forward.

PURPOSE: Due to the high burden of cancer-related suffering, it is paramount to understand the gaps in cancer care that lead to suffering. Advanced cancer patients have unmet needs and challenges that differ from those with early-stage cancer due to the rapid disease progression. By exploring advanced cancer patients' lived experiences and needs from the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects, this study aims to identify gaps in the Malaysian health system and propose contextualised measures to improve cancer care. METHODS: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted to explore advanced cancer patients' lived experiences and needs from the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects. The interviews were then transcribed and coded. Themes were developed from the codes using iterative thematic approach. RESULTS: The lived experiences and needs of nineteen patients converged into four major themes: disruption to daily lives, psychosocial and spiritual support system, information needs, and financial needs. This study described predominantly how cancer impacted patients' lives and livelihood, how patients coped with their psychological conditions after diagnosis, the need for effective communication and trust in a multicultural society, and how finance affected access to and experience of cancer care. CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer patients had different needs beyond receiving medical treatments. A concerted effort is required from clinicians, allied health professionals, social workers, support groups, and family members to understand and fulfil these needs.

Music-based Intervention for Improving Sleep Quality of Adults without Sleep Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Listening to music is often used as a self-help intervention to improve sleep quality, but its efficacy among individuals without sleep disorder remains unclear. METHODS: A search was performed on five databases to identify for studies that examined the use of music-based intervention to improve sleep quality among individuals without sleep disorder. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: Twenty-two articles which recruited 1,514 participants were included for review. Meta-analysis of six studies including 424 participants did not find an improvement in sleep quality among recipients of music-based intervention compared to those with standard care (mean difference: -0.80; 95% CI: -2.15 to 0.54, low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed a clear improvement in sleep quality when interventions were administered for at least 3 weeks (-2.09; -3.84 to -0.34, n = 3). No difference in terms of sleep onset latency (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.32; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.25, n = 4, very-low quality evidence) and sleep efficiency (SMD: -0.59; 95% CI -3.15 to 1.97, n = 2, very-low quality evidence) were observed. The effect of music-based intervention on anxiety, depression and quality of life were mixed with suggestions of possible benefits. CONCLUSION: Music-based intervention in addition to standard care appears to be a promising strategy to improve sleep quality when delivered for 3 week or longer. However, effects are inconsistent across studies and larger randomized controlled studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed before it can be recommended for routine use. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018081193.

Can Mindfulness Help to Alleviate Loneliness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) has been proposed to alleviate loneliness and improve social connectedness. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of MBI. This study aimed to critically evaluate and determine the effectiveness and safety of MBI in alleviating the feeling of loneliness. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane CENTRAL, and AMED for publications from inception to May 2020. We included RCTs with human subjects who were enrolled in MBI with loneliness as an outcome. The quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: Out of 92 articles identified, eight studies involving 815 participants were included in this study. Most (7/8) trials conducted a minimum of 8 weeks of MBI. Most of the trials (5/8) used UCLA-Loneliness Scale. A pooled analysis combining three trials and compared with wait-list showed significant improvement in loneliness score reduction using the UCLA-R scale with MD of -6.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.39, -3.26]. Subgroup analysis with only two Cognitively-Based Compassion Training (CBCT) trials also showed similar MD of -6.05 (95% CI: -9.53, 2.58). The overall quality of evidence (GRADE) was low. Conclusions: Mindfulness intervention with an average length of 8-week duration significantly improved the population's loneliness level with no mental health issue. However, this evidence had a low GRADE level.

Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Nutraceuticals: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Globally, nutraceuticals have been increasingly used. Nevertheless, the consumer preferences for nutraceuticals have not been quantitatively investigated. This study used discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine consumer preferences and willingness to pay for nutraceuticals. METHODS: Four attributes (ie, the scientific proof of effectiveness, the scientific proof of safety, the source of recommendation, and cost) were identified from a systematic review and focus group interviews. They were used to develop a DCE questionnaire. Consumers at community pharmacies in Malaysia were asked to respond to 8 DCE choice sets. A conditional logit model was employed to obtain the relative importance of each attribute and to estimate respondents' WTP for nutraceuticals. RESULTS: A total of 111 valid responses were analyzed. A negative constant term in the developed model indicated that generally the respondents preferred not to use nutraceuticals before they considered the study attributes. The respondents preferred nutraceuticals with no side effect, clear evidence of effectiveness, and recommendation of a healthcare professional. The respondents were willing to pay $252/month more for nutraceuticals proven with no side effect than for those without proof of safety, and $102/month more for nutraceuticals proven with clear effectiveness than for those without proof of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers weighed relatively high on the availability of safety and effectiveness proofs when they chose nutraceuticals. The study highlights on the crucial need to inform consumers using clinical evidences of nutraceuticals as the information is highly preferred by consumers.

Factors affecting consumers' decisions on the use of nutraceuticals: a systematic review.

There is a high and increasing global prevalence of nutraceuticals use. This study aims to systematically review and critically appraise all available evidence to identify the factors affecting consumers' decisions in taking nutraceuticals. Questionnaire, interview or focus group studies which directly reported factors affecting consumers' decisions in using nutraceuticals were included. A thematic synthesis method was employed to synthesis the findings from the included studies. Out of the 76 studies included, the key factors identified as the most important factors motivating consumers to take nutraceuticals were the perceived health benefits and safety of nutraceuticals, as well as the advice from healthcare professionals, friends and family. The identified barriers to take nutraceuticals were a lack of belief in the health benefit of nutraceuticals, the high cost of nutraceuticals and consumers' lack of knowledge about nutraceuticals. As a chief course of recommendation for the use of nutraceuticals, healthcare professionals should strive to utilise reliable information from clinical evidence to help consumers in making an informed decision in using nutraceuticals. Future studies should explore the possible ways to improve channelling clinical evidence information of nutraceuticals to the public.

Clinical evidence on dietary supplementation with chia seed (Salvia hispanica L.): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Context: Chia seed is a popular dietary supplement, taken mainly for its high content of alpha-linolenic acid, vegetable protein, and dietary fiber, yet information about its clinical effects is lacking. Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions. Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes. Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42015029990.