The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for pain relief of burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Five databases and gray literature were searched. Independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was pain relief or burning sensation, and the secondary outcomes were side effects, quality of life, salivary flow, and TNF-α and interleukin 6 levels. Four comparable interventions were grouped into different network geometries to ensure the transitivity assumption for pain: photobiomodulation therapy, alpha-lipoic acid, phytotherapics, and anxiolytics/antidepressants. Mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcomes. The minimal important difference to consider a therapy beneficial against placebo was an MD of at least -1 for relief of pain. To interpret the results, the GRADE approach for NMA was used with a minimally contextualized framework and the magnitude of the effect. Forty-four trials were included (24 in the NMA). The anxiolytic (clonazepam) probably reduces the pain of BMS when compared with placebo (MD, -1.88; 95% CI, -2.61 to -1.16; moderate certainty). Photobiomodulation therapy (MD, -1.90; 95% CI, -3.58 to -0.21) and pregabalin (MD, -2.40; 95% CI, -3.49 to -1.32) achieved the minimal important difference of a beneficial effect with low or very low certainty. Among all tested treatments, only clonazepam is likely to reduce the pain of BMS when compared with placebo. The majority of the other treatments had low and very low certainty, mainly due to imprecision, indirectness, and intransitivity. More randomized controlled trials comparing treatments against placebo are encouraged to confirm the evidence and test possible alternative treatments (PROSPERO CRD42021255039).

Background: At the inter of old age and illness, older adults with life-threatening illnesses (LTI) are a group who often show resilience and seek validation of life, acceptance, and integration of past and now, even under the fear of loss, suffering, and dying evoked by life adversities. Life review has been widely conducted to help older adults enhance well-being and cope with burdens. Spirituality is an important part of an older adult' overall well-being, especially for those with LTI. However, few review studies examined the effectiveness of life review interventions on psychospiritual outcomes among this population. The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of life review on psychospiritual well-being among older adults with LTI.Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted. Database searches included PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, the Campbell Library, EBSCO, CNKI, and the Airiti Library up to March 2020. Gray literature and reference lists from relevant articles were also searched and reviewed.Results: In total, 34 studies were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis for outcomes of depression (n = 24), quality-of-life (QOL) (n = 10), anxiety (n = 5), life satisfaction (n = 3), mood (n = 3), apathy (n = 2), and general well-being (n = 2). Other psychospiritual outcome measures included spirituality, self-esteem, meaning in life, hope, and some multi-dimensional instruments. The studies greatly varied in program design, content, format, length, and more. Although with high heterogeneity, meta-analysis results demonstrated standardized mean differences in favor of life review in decreasing depression, anxiety, negative mood, and increasing positive mood and QOL compared with the control group.Conclusion: This review calls for including more psycho-spiritual well-being measures among interventions for older adults with LTI, as well as studies with rigorous designs in future research.

Background Dignity is a vitally important aspect of the lives of advanced cancer patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of dignity therapy in this patient population. Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing dignity therapy versus standard care for patients with advanced cancer in five comprehensive databases (March 2019), two clinical trial registries and one gray literature database (August 2019). The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0. We used GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.3. Outcomes of interest included anxiety, depression, dignity-related distress and quality of life (QoL). Results Ten trials evaluating 904 patients (control, 449; experimental, 455) were identified. Six trials included patients with different types of advanced cancer, and four trials included patients with a single advanced cancer (lung cancer [20%], breast cancer [10%], and hepatocellular carcinoma [10%]). Compared with the standard care, dignity therapy decreased the score of anxiety, depression, and dignity-related distress of the advanced cancer patients (SMD = -1.07, 95% CI: [-1.57, -0.58], p .05). Conclusion Very low certainty evidence demonstrated that dignity therapy might be a promising treatment, especially in reducing anxiety and depression in advanced cancer patients.

Objective: The cost of implementing professionally-led psychosocial interventions has limited their integration into routine care. To enhance the translation of effective psychosocial interventions in routine care, a self-administered format is sometimes used. The meta-analysis examined the efficacy of written self-administered, psychosocial interventions to improve outcomes among individuals with a physical illness. Methods: Studies comparing a written self-administered intervention to a control group were identified through electronic databases searching. Pooled effect sizes were calculated across follow-up time points using random-effects models. Studies were also categorised according to three levels of guidance (self-administered, minimal contact, or guided) to examine the effect of this variable on outcomes. Results: Forty manuscripts were retained for the descriptive review and 28 for the meta-analysis. Findings were significant for anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Results were not significant for quality of life and related domains as well as coping. Purely self-administered interventions were efficacious for depression, distress, and self-efficacy; only guided interventions had an impact on anxiety. Conclusions: Findings showed that written self-administered interventions show promise across a number of outcomes. Practice implications: Self-administered interventions are a potentially efficacious and cost-effective approach to address some of the most common needs of patients with a physical illness.