Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of intensive care unit (ICU)–initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families on elements of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and/or PICS-family (PICS–F). Review method used: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis Sources: The authors searched in biomedical bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase (OVID), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and included studies written in English conducted up to October 8, 2020. Review methods: We included (non)randomised controlled trials focussing on ICU-initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families. Two authors conducted selection, quality assessment, and data extraction and synthesis independently. Outcomes were described using the three elements of PICS, which were categorised into (i) physical impairments (pulmonary, neuromuscular, and physical function), (ii) cognitive impairments (executive function, memory, attention, visuo-spatial and mental processing speed), and (iii) psychological health (anxiety, depression, acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression). Results: From the initially identified 5052 articles, five studies were included (i.e., two randomised controlled trials and three nonrandomised controlled trials) with varied transitional care interventions. Quality among the studies differs from moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from the studies shows no significant differences in favour of transitional care interventions on physical or psychological aspects of PICS-(F). One study with a nurse-led structured follow-up program showed a significant difference in physical function at 3 months. Conclusions: Our review revealed that there is a paucity of research about the effectiveness of transitional care interventions for ICU patients with PICS. All, except one of the identified studies, failed to show a significant effect on the elements of PICS. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to variety and scarcity of data. Prospero registration: CRD42020136589 (available via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020136589).
Background: An effective and tolerable bowel preparation is important to secure quality of colonoscopies. It remains unclear if sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), which is considered a tolerable bowel preparation agent, is also an effective alternative for polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP). Aim: The aim of this article is to compare effectiveness of SPMC to PEG and NaP through assessment of quality of bowel cleansing measured by validated tools. Methods: We searched electronic databases up to January 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently performed selection of studies, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Results: Thirteen RCTs were included, with overall good quality, but large heterogeneity. SPMC had slightly better quality of bowel cleansing than PEG (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11). In most trials SPMC was significantly better tolerated than PEG. There were no significant differences in effectiveness or tolerability between SPMC and NaP. Side effects were similar between agents, except for dizziness (pooled RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21 in favour of PEG vs. SPMC) and vomiting (pooled RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95 in favour of single-dose SPMC vs. split-dose). Conclusions: SPMC is equally effective to NaP and little superior to PEG in terms of bowel cleansing. SPMC preparations were better tolerated than PEG preparations. SPMC may be considered as standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
PURPOSE: Fatigue is a common and potentially disabling symptom in patients with cancer. It can often be effectively reduced by exercise. Yet, effects of exercise interventions might differ across subgroups. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual patient data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate moderators of exercise intervention effects on cancer-related fatigue.METHODS: We used individual patient data from 31 exercise RCTs worldwide, representing 4,366 patients, of whom 3,846 had complete fatigue data. We performed a one-step individual patient data meta-analysis, using linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effects of exercise interventions on fatigue (z-score) and to identify demographic, clinical, intervention- and exercise-related moderators. Models were adjusted for baseline fatigue and included a random intercept on study level to account for clustering of patients within studies. We identified potential moderators by testing their interaction with group allocation, using a likelihood ratio test.RESULTS: Exercise interventions had statistically significant beneficial effects on fatigue (β= -0.17 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.22;-0.12]). There was no evidence of moderation by demographic or clinical characteristics. Supervised exercise interventions had significantly larger effects on fatigue than unsupervised exercise interventions (βdifference= -0.18 [95%CI -0.28;-0.08]). Supervised interventions with a duration ≤12 weeks showed larger effects on fatigue (β= -0.29 [95% CI -0.39;-0.20]) than supervised interventions with a longer duration. CONCLUSIONS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we found statistically significant beneficial effects of exercise interventions on fatigue, irrespective of demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings support a role for exercise, preferably supervised exercise interventions, in clinical practice. Reasons for differential effects in duration require further exploration.
