Author: Zeng Y1, Dong J2, Huang M3, Zhang JE4, Zhang X5, Xie M6, Wefel JS7
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup>Department of Nursing, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
<sup>2</sup>Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
<sup>3</sup>Department of Nursing, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: chloezengyc@hotmail.co.uk.
<sup>4</sup>School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: 596830447@qq.com.
<sup>5</sup>The Affiliated Baoan Hospital of Southern Medical University, The People's Hospital of Baoan Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
<sup>6</sup>Jieyang People's Hospital, Jieyang, Guangdong Province, China.
<sup>7</sup>Departments of Neuro-Oncology and Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, US.
Conference/Journal: Int J Nurs Stud.
Date published: 2020 Jan 3
Other:
Volume ID: 104 , Pages: 103514 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103514. [Epub ahead of print] , Word Count: 284
BACKGROUND: Conventional meta-analyses can only provide direct comparison evidence, and the best options of nonpharmacological interventions for cancer-related cognitive impairment remain largely unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effects of all known nonpharmacological interventions for cancer-related cognitive impairment, and to rank the best intervention options for adult non- central nervous system cancer patients with cancer-related cognitive impairment.
DESIGN: Systematic review with a new analytic approach of network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials from January 2010 to July 2019.
REVIEW METHODS: Literature screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken systematically by two independent reviewers. Quantitative network meta-analysis performed to analyze key study outcomes. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of interventions on subjective cognitive function, and the secondary outcome was the safety of nonpharmacological interventions for cancer-related cognitive impairment.
RESULTS: There were 29 eligible randomized controlled trials searched, and a total of 10 interventions identified. All 29 randomized controlled trials that were included had no reported significant adverse events, therefore, these 10 nonpharmacological interventions are safe for cancer-related cognitive impairment management. In terms of effectiveness, the pooled overall effects were in favor of these 10 nonpharmacological interventions. The most effective interventions included meditation, cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation, and exercise interventions, with a mean difference of effective size plus 95% confidence interval 10.26 (1.53, 19.00), 5.02 (1.41, 8.63), 4.88 (0.65, 9.11), and 3.82 (0.52, 7.13), respectively. Other treatment effects did not show statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis found that meditation interventions, cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation, and exercise were the most effective interventions for adult non-central nervous system cancer patients to manage cancer-related cognitive impairment. Results of this network meta-analysis contribute evidence-based data to inform medical decision-making.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
KEYWORDS: Adult cancer patients; Cancer-related cognitive impairment; Network meta-analysis; Nonpharmacological interventions
PMID: 32004776 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103514