Mindfulness Ased Stress Reduction Interventions for Cancer Related Fatigue: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the evidence for mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in cancer related fatigue (CRF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In October 2018, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Science Periodical Database (CSPD) were searched for randomized controlled trials on MBSR in CRF patients. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers. Methodological quality evaluation was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Revman 5.3.0 performs data analysis. The trial sequential analysis software estimated the required information size for each outcome indicator. RESULTS: There have been 5 studies included in this research for meta-analysis, 356 cases in the experimental group and 344 cases in the control group. The meta-analysis result indicates that: MBSR can reduce the cancer-related fatigue score of cancer patients, SMD = -0.51,95%CI [-0.81-0.20], P = 0.001, and the difference is statistically significant. The trial sequential analysis indicates that: The RIS required for the indicator to reach the level of significance test should be 1768. The sample size (700 cases) included in the study has not reached the RIS, but it has crossed the traditional threshold and the TSA threshold, indicating that the results tend to be stable. The grading results are shown as low-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This research has used evidence-based medicine to evaluate whether MBSR can alleviate CRF in cancer patients and provide evidence for the comprehensive intervention program for patients with cancer-related fatigue.

Biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is one of the most common diseases that seriously threaten human health. Although a large number of markers related to sepsis have been reported in the last two decades, the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers remains unclear due to the lack of similar baselines among studies. Therefore, we conducted a large systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of biomarkers from studies that included non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome patients as a control group. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and the reference lists of identified studies beginning in April 2014. The last retrieval was updated in September 2016. RESULTS: Ultimately, 86 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixty biomarkers and 10,438 subjects entered the final analysis. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the 7 most common biomarkers, including procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1, presepsin, lipopolysaccharide binding protein and CD64, were 0.85, 0.77, 0.79, 0.85, 0.88, 0.71 and 0.96, respectively. The remaining 53 biomarkers exhibited obvious variances in diagnostic value and methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Although some biomarkers displayed moderate or above moderate diagnostic value for sepsis, the limitations of the methodological quality and sample size may weaken these findings. Currently, we still lack an ideal biomarker to aid in the diagnosis of sepsis. In the future, biomarkers with better diagnostic value as well as a combined diagnosis using multiple biomarkers are expected to solve the challenge of the diagnosis of sepsis.