Systematic Review of Music Therapy and Musical Interventions for Patients with Moderate and Severe Mental Disorders.

Objective: This systematic review aims to assess the impact of music therapy and musical interventions on neuropsychiatric outcomes among patients with moderate and severe mental disorders, in comparison with conventional treatment in isolation. Methods: The review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted on November 16, 2021, using the following databases and search interfaces: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science; PubMed, PsycINFO, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, and Scientific Electronic Library Online. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies using critical appraisal tools. Results: In total, 17 studies were included, 9 of which were randomized controlled trials. The experimental studies involved 5,082 adult and elderly patients. The most prevalent symptoms assessed in the studies were anxiety, depression, and positive and negative symptoms of psychotic disorders. Music interventions were predominantly conducted by music therapists and nurses, providing passive interventions with the selection of musical repertoire by therapists and patients. The frequency with which musical interventions occurred varied greatly in terms of session duration, number of times per week, and number of times during the day. The identified study designs included clinical and quasi-experimental studies. In terms of methodological quality, clinical studies showed weaknesses regarding deviations from intended interventions. Conclusion: The effectiveness of music therapy and musical interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with moderate and severe mental disorders was evident in quasi-experimental and clinical studies with satisfactory methodological quality. Musical interventions, in various forms of application, represent an interdisciplinary therapeutic tool that complements and enhances conventional treatment. Unlike conventional treatments, the immersive and integrative nature of music interventions allows access to both intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions during periods of psychic suffering. These findings highlight the importance of researchers addressing methodological limitations, such as deviations from intended interventions, and advocate for the expansion the use of music in community treatment settings.

Efficacy of photobiomodulation in the treatment of oral mucositis in patients undergoing antineoplastic therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of photobiomodulation in the treatment of oral mucositis. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing in the electronic databases: LILACS, MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CINAHL and in http://clinicaltrials.gov . Eligibility criteria were randomized, non-randomized, and observational studies that used photobiomodulation for the treatment of oral mucositis. The endpoints were reduction in the severity of oral mucositis, duration of lesions, and pain reduction. For data analysis, the Review Manager 5.4 program was used. RESULTS: A total of 316 studies were identified, 297 in the electronic databases and 19 in http://clinicaltrials.gov . After removing duplicates, 260 studies were selected for title and abstract reading, of which 223 were excluded. A total of 37 studies were chosen for full reading, of which 6 were included in the review, totaling 299 patients. The treatment used was photobiomodulation. The patients were divided into two groups: the laser group used only photobiomodulation or associated with other therapies, and the control group did not use photobiomodulation. For the endpoint reduction in the severity of oral mucositis (OM), the chance of reduction of the OM was greater in the laser group as compared to the control group. For the endpoints duration of OM lesions and pain reduction, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis due to the high heterogeneity between studies. In the interpretation of the meta-analysis, the reduction in the severity of oral mucositis was greater in the group that received photobiomodulation. CONCLUSION: Photobiomodulation was effective in the treatment of oral mucositis.

Global anaesthesia-related cardiac arrest rates in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neonates and infants have a higher perioperative risk of cardiac arrest and mortality than adults. The Human Development Index (HDI) ranges from 0 to 1, representing the lowest and highest levels of development, respectively. The relation between anaesthesia safety and country HDI has been described previously. We examined the relationship among the anaesthesia-related cardiac arrest rate (ARCAR), country HDI, and time in a mixed paediatric patient population. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2022 for studies reporting 24-h postoperative ARCARs in children. ARCARs (per 10,000 anaesthetic procedures) were analysed in low-HDI (HDI<0.8) vs high-HDI countries (HDI≥0.8) and over time (pre-2001 vs 2001-22). The magnitude of these associations was studied using systematic review methods with meta-regression analysis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 38 studies with 5,493,489 anaesthetic procedures and 1001 anaesthesia-related cardiac arrests. ARCARs were inversely correlated with country HDI (P<0.0001) but were not correlated with time (P=0.82). ARCARs did not change between the periods in either high-HDI or low-HDI countries (P=0.71 and P=0.62, respectively), but were higher in low-HDI countries than in high-HDI countries (9.6 vs 2.0; P<0.0001) in 2001-22. ARCARs were higher in children aged <1 yr than in those ≥1 yr in high-HDI (10.69 vs 1.48; odds ratio [OR] 8.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.96-10.81; P<0.0001) and low-HDI countries (36.02 vs 2.86; OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.48-15.39; P<0.0001) in 2001-22. CONCLUSIONS: The high and alarming anaesthesia-related cardiac arrest rates among children younger than 1 yr of age in high-HDI and low-HDI countries, respectively, reflect an ongoing challenge for anaesthesiologists. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021229919.

Herpes simplex Virus Pneumonitis in an Acute/Subacute Paracoccidioidomycosis Patient With Malabsorption Syndrome. Case-Report and Literature Review.

Paracoccidioides sp.-Herpes simplex virus (HSV) co-infection was not reported until now and malabsorption syndrome is a rare complication of the acute/subacute form (AF) of paracoccidioidomycosis (PCM), characterized by life-threatening abnormalities, such as fat and protein loss, lymphopenia, ascites, and intense immunosuppression. A 21-year-old woman presented the PCM AF with intense involvement of the abdominal and intestinal lymphoid organs, which leads to the malabsorption syndrome and severe immunosuppression. This patient developed a fatal-disseminated HSV infection associated with the paracoccidioidal disease. This case demonstrates that, in addition to the antigen-specific immunosuppression, some PCM patients can present a generalized cell-mediated immune depression and endogenous infection of latent microorganisms. On the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an association between PCM and HSV infection.

Strategies to optimize MEDLINE and EMBASE search strategies for anesthesiology systematic reviews. An experimental study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: A high-quality electronic search is essential for ensuring accuracy and comprehensiveness among the records retrieved when conducting systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most efficient method for searching in both MEDLINE (through PubMed) and EMBASE, covering search terms with variant spellings, direct and indirect orders, and associations with MeSH and EMTREE terms (or lack thereof). DESIGN AND SETTING: Experimental study. UNESP, Brazil. METHODS: We selected and analyzed 37 search strategies that had specifically been developed for the field of anesthesiology. These search strategies were adapted in order to cover all potentially relevant search terms, with regard to variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, in the most efficient manner. RESULTS: When the strategies included variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, these adapted versions of the search strategies selected retrieved the same number of search results in MEDLINE (mean of 61.3%) and a higher number in EMBASE (mean of 63.9%) in the sample analyzed. The numbers of results retrieved through the searches analyzed here were not identical with and without associated use of MeSH and EMTREE terms. However, association of these terms from both controlled vocabularies retrieved a larger number of records than did the use of either one of them. CONCLUSIONS: In view of these results, we recommend that the search terms used should include both preferred and non-preferred terms (i.e. variant spellings and direct/indirect order of the same term) and associated MeSH and EMTREE terms, in order to develop highly-sensitive search strategies for systematic reviews.

Strategies to optimize MEDLINE and EMBASE search strategies for anesthesiology systematic reviews. An experimental study.

BACKGROUND: A high-quality electronic search is essential for ensuring accuracy and comprehensiveness among the records retrieved when conducting systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most efficient method for searching in both MEDLINE (through PubMed) and EMBASE, covering search terms with variant spellings, direct and indirect orders, and associations with MeSH and EMTREE terms (or lack thereof). DESIGN AND SETTING: Experimental study. UNESP, Brazil. METHODS: We selected and analyzed 37 search strategies that had specifically been developed for the field of anesthesiology. These search strategies were adapted in order to cover all potentially relevant search terms, with regard to variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, in the most efficient manner. RESULTS: When the strategies included variant spellings and direct and indirect orders, these adapted versions of the search strategies selected retrieved the same number of search results in MEDLINE (mean of 61.3%) and a higher number in EMBASE (mean of 63.9%) in the sample analyzed. The numbers of results retrieved through the searches analyzed here were not identical with and without associated use of MeSH and EMTREE terms. However, association of these terms from both controlled vocabularies retrieved a larger number of records than did the use of either one of them. CONCLUSIONS: In view of these results, we recommend that the search terms used should include both preferred and non-preferred terms (i.e. variant spellings and direct/indirect order of the same term) and associated MeSH and EMTREE terms, in order to develop highly-sensitive search strategies for systematic reviews.

Effects of different fresh gas flows with or without a heat and moisture exchanger on inhaled gas humidity in adults undergoing general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The minimum inhaled gas absolute humidity level is 20 mgH2O l for short-duration use in general anaesthesia and 30 mgH2O l for long-duration use in intensive care to avoid respiratory tract dehydration. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to compare the effects of different fresh gas flows (FGFs) through a circle rebreathing system with or without a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) on inhaled gas absolute humidity in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. We defined FGF (l min) as minimal (0.25 to 0.5), low (0.6 to 1.0) or high (≥2). We extracted the inhaled gas absolute humidity data at 60 and 120 min after connection of the patient to the breathing circuit. The effect size is expressed as the mean differences and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, LILACS and CENTRAL until January 2017. RESULTS: We included 10 studies. The inhaled gas absolute humidity was higher with minimal flow compared with low flow at 120 min [mean differences 2.51 (95%CI: 0.32 to 4.70); P = 0.02] but not at 60 min [mean differences 2.95 (95%CI: -0.95 to 6.84); P = 0.14], and higher with low flow compared with high flow at 120 min [mean differences 7.19 (95%CI: 4.53 to 9.86); P < 0.001]. An inhaled gas absolute humidity minimum of 20 mgH2O l was attained with minimal flow at all times but not with low or high flows. An HME increased the inhaled gas absolute humidity: with minimal flow at 120 min [mean differences 8.49 (95%CI: 1.15 to 15.84); P = 0.02]; with low flow at 60 min [mean differences 9.87 (95%CI: 3.18 to 16.57); P = 0.04] and 120 min [mean differences 7.19 (95%CI: 3.29 to 11.10); P = 0.003]; and with high flow of 2 l min at 60 min [mean differences 6.46 (95%CI: 4.05 to 8.86); P < 0.001] and of 3 l min at 120 min [mean differences 12.18 (95%CI: 6.89 to 17.47); P < 0.001]. The inhaled gas absolute humidity data attained or were near 30 mgH2O l when an HME was used at all FGFs and times. CONCLUSION: All intubated patients should receive a HME with low or high flows. With minimal flow, a HME adds cost and is not needed to achieve an appropriate inhaled gas absolute humidity.

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification. METHOD: A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75). RESULTS: A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinical trials used the term "efficacy" to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator's own experiences and knowledge.

Differences between the real and the desired worlds in the results of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE:We refer to the effectiveness (known as pragmatic or real world) and efficacy (known as explanatory or desired or ideal world) of interventions. However, these terms seem to be randomly chosen by investigators who design clinical trials and do not always reflect the true purpose of the study. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool was thus developed with the aim of identifying the characteristics of clinical trials that distinguish between effectiveness and efficacy issues. We verified whether clinical trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool, and we categorized these clinical trials according to a new classification.METHOD:A systematic survey of randomized clinical trials was performed. We added a score ranging from 0 (more efficacious) to 10 (more effective) to each domain of the indicator summary tool and proposed the following classifications: high efficacy (<25), moderate efficacy (25-50), moderate effectiveness (51-75), and high effectiveness (<75).RESULTS:A total of 844 randomized trials were analyzed. No analyzed trials used the criteria proposed by the indicator summary tool. Approximately 44% of the trials were classified as having moderate effectiveness, and 43.82% were classified as having moderate efficacy.CONCLUSIONS:Most clinical trials used the term “efficacy” to illustrate the application of results in clinical practice, but the majority of those were classified as having moderate effectiveness according to our proposed score. The classification based on the 0-100 score is still highly subjective and can be easily misunderstood in all domains based on each investigator’s own experiences and knowledge.

Choosing the right journal for your systematic review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses. METHODS: In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63. RESULTS: We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication.