Search

Aims and Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of different nonpharmacological treatments for severe radiation‐induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. Background: Radiation‐induced oral mucositis is highly prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer. Current medications for radiation‐induced oral mucositis are limited in effectiveness and susceptible to side effects, and while there is an increasing adoption of nonpharmacological interventions, the optimal one remains unclear. Design: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis based on the PRISMA‐NMA guidelines. Methods: Six databases were searched. Two authors independently performed the literature screening, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Traditional pairwise meta‐analysis was performed by R Studio. A network meta‐analysis was then conducted to assess the effects of nonpharmacological interventions for severe radiation‐induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. Results: Fifty‐two studies involving seven types of nonpharmacological interventions were enrolled. The network meta‐analysis indicated that natural plant‐based therapies might be the most effective, health education interventions might be the second most effective, and honey might be the third most effective interventions for reducing the incidence of severe radiation‐induced oral mucositis. For reducing the incidence of severe oral mucositis‐related pain, the pairwise meta‐analysis showed that only natural plant‐based therapies and health education interventions were effective. Conclusions: Nonpharmacological interventions are effective in the management of severe radiation‐induced oral mucositis among patients with head and neck cancer. Relevance to clinical practice: Nonpharmacological interventions are a category of safe and effective adjunctive therapies that should be encouraged in clinical practice. Trial registration details: CRD42023400745. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD) are an important part of PD. In recent years, more and more non-drug interventions have been applied to alleviate the non-motor symptoms of PD, but the relevant evidence is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy of non-drug interventions in patients with non-motor symptoms in patients with PD. Methods: Seven databases, including Pubmed, Embease, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database (WANFANG), VIP database (VIP), and China Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM) were searched from the establishment of the database to December 2023. Non-drug interventions such as acupuncture, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), exercise, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease were selected as search words, and two independent evaluators evaluated the included literature's bias risk and data extraction. The therapeutic efficacy was evaluated by the Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Minimum Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39). RevMan 5.4.1 (Reviewer Manager Software 5.4.1). Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom analyzed the data and estimated the average effect and the 95% confidence interval (CI). A heterogeneity test is used to assess differences in the efficacy of different non-drug treatments. Results: We selected 36 from 4,027 articles to participate in this meta-analysis, involving 2,158 participants. Our combined results show that: PDSS: [mean difference (MD) =-19.35, 95% CI (-30.4 to -8.28), p<0.0006]; HAMD: [MD = -2.98, 95% CI (-4.29 to -1.67), p<0.00001]; BDI: [MD = -2.69, 95% CI (-4.24 to 4.80), p = 0.006]; HAMA: [MD=-2.00, 95% CI (-2.83 to -1.17), p<0.00001]; MMSE: [MD = 1.20, 95% CI (0.71 to 1.68), p< 0.00001]; CoMA: [MD = 2.10, 95% CI (-0.97 to 3.23), p = 0.0003]; PDQ-39: [MD = -4.03, 95% CI (-5.96 to -1.57), p < 0.00001]. Conclusion: The four non-drug measures used in our review showed significant improvements in sleep, depression, anxiety, cognition, constipation, and quality of life compared with the control group, and no serious adverse events were reported in the included research evidence, and we found that there were some differences among the subgroups of different intervention methods, but due to the less literature included in the subgroup, and the comparison was more indirect. So, we should interpret these results carefully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the recognised high prevalence of migraines among bank employees, yet their healthcare utilisation patterns and the economic burden of migraines remain underexplored. Aim: To examine migraine-related healthcare utilisation among bank employees in China, and to estimate the economic burden of migraines. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Guizhou province, China between May and October 2022. The HARDSHIP questionnaire was used to identify migraine-positive individuals and enquire about their healthcare utilisation and productivity losses. A probabilistic decision-analytic model with a micro-costing approach was used to estimate the economic burden from the perspectives of the healthcare system, employers, and society. All costs were expressed in 2022 United States dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Nearly half of individuals with migraines reported not seeking medical care. Only 21.8% reported seeking outpatient consultations, 52.5% reported taking medicines, and 27.1% reported using complementary therapies. Chronic migraine patients had significantly higher healthcare utilisation than episodic migraine patients. Among individuals with a monthly migraine frequency of 15 days or more, 63.6% took inappropriate treatments by excessively using acute medications. Migraines in the banking sector in Guizhou cost the healthcare system a median of $7,578.0 thousand (25th to 75th percentile $4,509.2–$16,434.9 thousand) per year, employers $89,750.3 thousand (25th to 75th percentile $53,211.6–$151,162.2 thousand), and society $108,850.3 thousand (25th to 75th percentile $67,370.1–$181,048.6 thousand). The median societal cost per patient-year is $3,078.1. Migraine prevalence and productivity losses were identified as key cost drivers. Conclusions: The study points to the need to raise awareness of migraines across all stakeholders and to improve the organisation of the migraine care system. A substantial economic burden of migraines on the healthcare system, employers, and society at large was highlighted. These cost estimates offer evidence-based benchmarks for assessing economic savings from improved migraine management, and can also draw the attention of Chinese policymakers to prioritise migraine policies within the banking and other office-based occupations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]