Suppr超能文献

正念减压疗法治疗慢性头痛:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Mindfulness-based stress reduction for treating chronic headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

1 Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Faculty of Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

2 Department of Rural Health, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

出版信息

Cephalalgia. 2019 Apr;39(4):544-555. doi: 10.1177/0333102418781795. Epub 2018 Jun 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy are frequently used for pain-related conditions, but their effects on headache remain uncertain. This review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy in reducing the symptoms of chronic headache.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and PsychINFO were searched to 16 June 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy with usual care or active comparators for migraine and/or tension-type headache, which assessed headache frequency, duration or intensity as a primary outcome, were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials (two on tension-type headache; one on migraine; two with mixed samples) with a total of 185 participants were included. Compared to usual care, mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy did not improve headache frequency (three randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = 0.00; 95% confidence interval = -0.33,0.32) or headache duration (three randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = -0.08; 95% confidence interval = -1.03,0.87). Similarly, no significant difference between groups was found for pain intensity (five randomized controlled trials; standardized mean difference = -0.78; 95% confidence interval = -1.72,0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the low number, small scale and often high or unclear risk of bias of included randomized controlled trials, the results are imprecise; this may be consistent with either an important or negligible effect. Therefore, more rigorous trials with larger sample sizes are needed.

摘要

背景

基于正念的压力减轻/认知疗法常用于治疗与疼痛相关的疾病,但它们对头痛的疗效仍不确定。本综述旨在评估基于正念的压力减轻/认知疗法对缓解慢性头痛症状的疗效和安全性。

资料来源和研究选择

截至 2017 年 6 月 16 日,检索了 MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus、CENTRAL 和 PsychINFO,以纳入比较基于正念的压力减轻/认知疗法与常规护理或活性对照药物治疗偏头痛和/或紧张型头痛的随机对照试验,主要结局为评估头痛频率、持续时间或强度。使用 Cochrane 工具评估偏倚风险。

结果

纳入了五项随机对照试验(两项紧张型头痛;一项偏头痛;两项混合样本),共 185 名参与者。与常规护理相比,基于正念的压力减轻/认知疗法并未改善头痛频率(三项随机对照试验;标准化均数差=0.00;95%置信区间=-0.33,0.32)或头痛持续时间(三项随机对照试验;标准化均数差=-0.08;95%置信区间=-1.03,0.87)。同样,两组之间的疼痛强度也没有显著差异(五项随机对照试验;标准化均数差=-0.78;95%置信区间=-1.72,0.16)。

结论

由于纳入的随机对照试验数量少、规模小,且往往存在高偏倚或偏倚不确定风险,因此结果不精确;这可能与重要或可忽略的疗效一致。因此,需要进行更多严格的、具有更大样本量的试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验