The objective of our overview of systematic reviews was to critically analyze the evidence from existing systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in patients with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). In addition, an updated and comprehensive systematic review was conducted, which aimed to provide updated evidence about this topic. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness and safety of LLLT in patients with BCRL. The methodological quality for each of included systematic reviews or RCTs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool or Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. The updated systematic review separately compared the effectiveness of LLLT to each of active or negative interventions. Data were pooled with random-effects models for each outcome per comparison. The evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) for quantitative studies and qualitative studies, respectively. Seven systematic reviews and ten RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of LLLT were presented by the overview of systematic reviews. The AMSTAR 2 showed that the methodological quality of included systematic reviews was low or critically low quality due to one or more critical weaknesses. The GRADE and GRADE-CERQual showed that the evidence quality was low to very low for most outcomes. The updated systematic review showed that LLLT may offer additional benefits as compared to compression therapies (pneumatic compression or compression bandage), placebo laser, or no treatment for patients with BCRL. However, when compared to other types of active interventions, LLLT did not improve outcomes significantly. None of the treatment-related adverse event was reported. Many trials had a high or unclear risk of bias for two or more items, and our updated systematic review showed low quality of evidence per outcome using GRADE approach. Due to insufficient data and poor quality of evidence, there is uncertain to reach these conclusions that LLLT is superior to another active or negative intervention and is safe. More RCTs of high methodological quality, with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up, are needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.

Background An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials have begun to investigate the effects of virtual reality (VR) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). The aim of this overview was to systematically summarize the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR therapy for the rehabilitation of people with PD. Methods We searched SR-MAs based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for relevant literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for systematic reviews from inception to December 5, 2020, and updated to January 26, 2022. The methodological quality of included SR-MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the certainty of evidence for outcomes with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We created an evidence map using a bubble plot format to represent the evidence base in 5 dimensions: effect size of VR therapy versus active intervention (AT), clinical outcome area, number of trials, statistical significance, and certainty of evidence. Results From a total of 585 reports, 12 reviews were identified, of which only one was rated moderate quality, three were rated low quality, and eight were rated critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. Compared with AT, VR therapy induced increased benefits on stride/step length, balance, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Compared with passive intervention (PT), VR therapy had greater effects on gait speed, stride/step length, balance, activities of daily living, and postural control in people with PD. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate. Conclusions We found the methodological quality of the reviews was poor, and certainty of the most evidence within them was low to very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with PD, VR therapy is harmful or beneficial for gait, balance, motor function, quality of life, activities of daily living, cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and postural control. In the future, rigorous-designed, high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to further verify the effectiveness of VR therapy in the treatment of PD.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by impaired memory and cognitive judgment. It is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly, and its high morbidity and mortality have also brought a significant social burden. So far, there is no method can completely cure Alzheimer's dementia, but there are many non-drug treatments that have been praised by people, especially the cognitive behavioral therapy proposed in recent years. The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the effect of cognitive behavioral therapy on the cognitive function improvement of patients with Alzheimer's dementia. Methods: We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence in relevant studies. A systematic literature search will be performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to October 2020. We extracted the relevant information from these trials with a predefined data extraction sheet and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The outcomes investigated were Mini–Mental State Examination and AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive section scores. We did a pair-wise meta-analysis using the fixed-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. The = the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 scale, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were used to assess the quality and evidence grade of the literature. General characteristics of the eligible randomized controlled trials will be summarized and described. Meanwhile, The ADDIS software will be used to perform the network meta-analysis, and the result figures will be generated by STATA 15.0 software. Results: Using the draft search strategy of databases and after screening,7 randomized controlled trials met the a priori criteria and were included. This network mate-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: Our study will provide evidence for cognitive behavioral intervention in AD patients. And provide recommendations and guidelines for the clinic. Protocol Registration: INPLASY2020110052.

No abstract