Mobile apps to reduce depressive symptoms and alcohol use in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis: A systematic review.

Among youth, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and alcohol use are associated with considerable illness and disability. Youth face many personal and health system barriers in accessing mental health care. Mobile applications (apps) offer youth potentially accessible, scalable, and anonymous therapy and other support. Recent systematic reviews on apps to reduce mental health symptoms among youth have reported uncertain effectiveness, but analyses based on the type of app-delivered therapy are limited. We conducted this systematic review with youth co-researchers to ensure that this review addressed the questions that were most important to them. The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of mobile apps for the reduction of depressive symptoms (depression, generalized anxiety, psychological distress) and alcohol use among youth. We conducted electronic searches of the following bibliographic databases for studies published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2022: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), and CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library). The search used a combination of indexed terms, free text words, and MeSH headings. We manually screened the references of relevant systematic reviews and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for additional eligible studies, and contacted authors for full reports of identified trial registries or protocols. We included RCTs conducted among youth aged 15-24 years from any setting. We did not exclude populations on the basis of gender, socioeconomic status, geographic location or other personal characteristics. We included studies which assessed the effectiveness of app-delivered mental health support or therapy interventions that targeted the management of depressive disorders and/or alcohol use disorders. We excluded apps that targeted general wellness, apps which focused on prevention of psychological disorders and apps that targeted bipolar disorder, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders (aside from alcohol), and sleep disorders. Eligible comparisons included usual care, no intervention, wait-list control, alternative or controlled mobile applications. We included studies which reported outcomes on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, alcohol use and psychological distress over any follow-up period. We standardized the PICO definitions (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) of each included study and grouped studies by the type of therapy or support offered by the app. Whenever app design and clinical homogeneity allowed, we meta-analyzed outcomes using a random-effects model. Outcome data measured using categorical scales were synthesized using odds ratios. Outcome data measured using continuous scales were synthesized as the standardized mean difference. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and we assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. From 5280 unique citations, we included 36 RCTs published in 37 reports and conducted in 15 different countries (7984 participants). Among the 36 included trials, we assessed two with an overall low risk of bias, 8 trials with some concern regarding risk of bias, and 26 trials with a high risk of bias. Interventions varied in the type of therapy or supports offered. The most common intervention designs employed mindfulness training, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), or a combination of the two (mindfulness + CBT). However, other interventions also included self-monitoring, medication reminders, cognitive bias modification or positive stimulation, dialectical behavioral therapy, gamified health promotion, or social skill building. Mindfulness apps led to short term improvements in depressive symptoms when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI [-0.63, -0.10]; p = 0.007, n = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low certainty) and when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI [-0.53, -0.01]; p = 0.04, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Apps delivering this type of support also significantly improved symptoms of anxiety when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI [-0.60, -0.09]; p = 0.008, n = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low) but not when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI [-0.50, 0.02]; p = 0.07, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Mindfulness apps showed improvements in psychological stress that approached statistical significance among participants receiving the mindfulness mobile apps compared to those in the withheld control (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI [-0.56, 0.03]; p = .07, n = 4 RCTs, GRADE: very low). CBT apps also led to short-term improvements in depressive symptoms when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI [-0.80, 0.01]; p = 0.05, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low) and when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.59; 95% CI [-0.98, -0.19]; p = 0.003, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). CBT-based apps also improved symptoms of anxiety compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI [-0.94, -0.09]; p = 0.02, n = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low) but not when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI [-1.11, 0.59]; p = 0.55, n = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Apps which combined mindfulness and CBT did not significantly improve symptoms of depression (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI [-0.42, 0.02]; p = 0.07, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low) or anxiety (SMD = -0.21; 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07]; p = 0.14, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). However, these apps did improve psychological distress (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.74, -0.12]; p = 0.006, n = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). The results of trials on apps to reduce alcohol use were inconsistent. We did not identify any harms associated with the use of apps to manage mental health concerns. All effectiveness results had a very low certainty of evidence rating using the GRADE approach, meaning that apps which deliver therapy or other mental health support may reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety and psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain. We reviewed evidence from 36 trials conducted among youth. According to our meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of apps on depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and alcohol use. Very few effects were interpreted to be of clinical importance. Most of the RCTs were small studies focusing on efficacy for youth at risk for depressive symptoms. Larger trials are needed to evaluate effectiveness and allow for further analysis of subgroup differences. Longer trials are also needed to better estimate the clinical importance of these apps over the long term.

Magwood O ，Saad A ，Ranger D ，Volpini K ，Rukikamirera F ，Haridas R ，Sayfi S ，Alexander J ，Tan Y ，Pottie K ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Larun L ，Brurberg KG ，Odgaard-Jensen J ，Price JR ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Mobile phone text messaging for medication adherence in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Redfern J ，Tu Q ，Hyun K ，Hollings MA ，Hafiz N ，Zwack C ，Free C ，Perel P ，Chow CK ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》