School of Nursing, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, People's Republic of China; The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, People's Republic of China.
School of Nursing, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, People's Republic of China.
J Affect Disord. 2022 Jul 15;309:471-481. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.152. Epub 2022 Apr 30.
The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effect of several psychosocial therapies on CRF critically.
We applied systematic strategies based on eight databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wan Fang database, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database to preliminary literature retrieval to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies, including adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with cancer, were eligible regardless of cancer stage and current treatment. We carried out an expression analysis for comparing the efficacy of various psychosocial therapies using Bayesian NMA. A battery of analyses and assessments, such as conventional meta-analysis and risk of bias, were performed concurrently.
We identified 41 RCTs including six different psychosocial interventions (4422 participants), namely cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy (MBSR), psychoeducational therapy (PE), stress management therapy (SMT), meditation therapy (MT) and comprehensive therapy (CT). Our NMA results showed that three psychosocial intervention therapies were effective for CRF in cancer patients. The most effective psychosocial intervention was MBSR (SMD = -1.23, CrI: -1.88, -0.59, SUCRA = 83.33%), followed by PE (SMD = -0.86, CrI: -1.53, -0.18, SUCRA = 58.51%) and CBT (SMD = -0.84, CrI: -1.31, -0.37, SUCRA = 57.67%).
Our study showed that MBSR was most likely to be the best psychosocial intervention to relieve CRF in cancer patients. Medical staff should pay attention to applying MBSR to cancer patients in future clinical care.
本网络荟萃分析（NMA）旨在深入比较几种心理社会疗法对 CRF 的疗效。
我们应用了基于 8 个数据库的系统策略，包括 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、万方数据库、维普数据库和中国知网（CNKI）数据库，以初步检索相关随机对照试验（RCT）。研究对象为成年癌症患者（≥18 岁），无论癌症分期和当前治疗如何，均符合纳入标准。我们采用贝叶斯 NMA 对比较各种心理社会疗法疗效的表达进行分析。同时进行了一系列分析和评估，如常规荟萃分析和偏倚风险评估。
我们共纳入 41 项 RCT，包括 6 种不同的心理社会干预措施（4422 名参与者），分别为认知行为疗法（CBT）、正念减压疗法（MBSR）、心理教育疗法（PE）、应激管理疗法（SMT）、冥想疗法（MT）和综合疗法（CT）。我们的 NMA 结果显示，三种心理社会干预疗法对癌症患者的 CRF 有效。最有效的心理社会干预措施是 MBSR（SMD=-1.23，CrI：-1.88，-0.59，SUCRA=83.33%），其次是 PE（SMD=-0.86，CrI：-1.53，-0.18，SUCRA=58.51%）和 CBT（SMD=-0.84，CrI：-1.31，-0.37，SUCRA=57.67%）。
我们的研究表明，MBSR 最有可能成为缓解癌症患者 CRF 的最佳心理社会干预措施。未来临床护理中，医务人员应注意将 MBSR 应用于癌症患者。
