No abstract

Background Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a widely used treatment for depression. However, limited resource availability poses several barriers to patients seeking access to care, including lengthy wait times and geographical limitations. This has prompted health care services to introduce electronically delivered CBT (eCBT) to facilitate access. Although previous reviews have compared the effects of eCBT to face-to-face CBT, there is an overall lack of adequately powered and up-to-date evidence in the literature to provide a reliable comparison between the two modes of administration. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT through a systematic review of the literature. Methods To be eligible for this review, studies needed to be randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of any form of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT. These encompassed studies evaluating a wide range of outcomes including severity of symptoms, adverse outcomes, clinically relevant outcomes, global functionality, participant satisfaction, quality of life, and affordability. There were no restrictions on participant age or sex. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL databases from inception to February 20th, 2020 using a comprehensive search strategy. All stages of literature screening and data extraction were completed independently in duplicate. Data extraction and risk of bias analyses, including GRADE ratings, were conducted on studies meeting inclusion criteria. Qualitative measures are reported in a narrative summary. We pooled quantitative data in meta-analyses to provide an estimated summary effect. This review adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Findings In total, we included 17 studies in our analyses. Our results demonstrated that eCBT was more effective than face-to-face CBT at reducing depression symptom severity (Standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.72, −0.74; GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). There were no significant differences between the two interventions on participant satisfaction (SMD 0.13 95%; CI −0.32, 0.59; GRADE: low quality of evidence). One RCT reported eCBT to be less costly than face-to-face CBT (GRADE: low quality of evidence). Results did not differ when stratified by subgroups such as participant age and study location. Interpretation Although we found eCBT to have moderate evidence of effectiveness in reducing symptoms of depression, high heterogeneity among studies precludes definitive conclusions for all outcomes. With the current reliance and accessibility of technology to increasing number of people worldwide, serious consideration in utilizing technology should be given to maximize accessibility for depression treatments. Our results found eCBT is at least as effective as face to face CBT, thus eCBT should be offered if preferred by p...

BackgroundPreclinical evidence suggests statins may have anti-tumor properties. Large observational studies are also consistent with improved survival and cancer-specific outcomes among cancer patients on statins. We sought to evaluate the randomized controlled trials of statins in addition to usual anti-cancer therapy.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Papers First and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception through to July 4, 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials that investigated statin therapy in cancer patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival and our secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We calculated summary hazard ratio’s (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects models using aggregate data. PROSPERO (CRD42017065503).ResultsTen studies with 1,881 individuals were included with 1,572 deaths and a median follow-up of 23 months. All trials included patients with advanced (stage 3 or higher) disease. There was minimal between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 1.8%, for OS; I2 = 0%, for PFS). The pooled HR for overall survival in patients randomized to statins plus standard anti-cancer therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04). In the 9 studies that reported progression-free survival (1,798 participants), the pooled HR for statin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07).ConclusionsIn patients with advanced cancer and a prognosis <2 years, the addition of statins to standard anti-cancer therapy does not appear to improve overall survival or progression-free survival. Future research should assess if cancer patients with better prognosis benefit from longer-term statin therapy.

IntroductionThe current COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in high rates of infection and death, as well as widespread social disruption and a reduction in access to healthcare services and support. There is growing concern over how the pandemic, as well as measures put in place to curb the pandemic, will impact people with mental disorders. We aim to study the effect of pandemics and epidemics on mental health outcomes for people with premorbid mental disorders.Methods and analysisWith our predefined search strategy, we will search five databases for studies reporting on mental health outcomes in people with pre-existing mental disorders during pandemic and epidemic settings. Search dates are planned as follows: 5 May 2020 and 23 July 2020. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MedRxiv and EMBASE. Data will be screened and extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Studies involving non-clinical populations or patients diagnosed with a mental disorder during a pandemic/epidemic will be excluded. We will include data collected from all pandemics and epidemics throughout history, including the present COVID-19 pandemic. If possible, study findings will be combined in meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses will be performed. We hope that this review will shed light on the impact of pandemics and epidemics on those with pre-existing mental disorders. Knowledge generated may inform future intervention studies as well as healthcare policies. Given the potential implications of the current pandemic measures (ie, disruption of healthcare services) on mental health, we will also compile a list of existing mental health resources.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this protocol and proposed systematic review as we will only use data from previously published papers that have themselves received ethics clearance and used proper informed consent procedures.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020179611.

No abstract