ABSTRACT
Background: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (TACS) is a non-invasive method of brain stimulation that is hypothesised to alter cortical excitability and brain electrical activity, modulating functional connectivity within the brain. Several trials have demonstrated its potential in treating psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. Objectives: To study the efficacy of TACS in ameliorating symptoms of depression and schizophrenia in patients and its effects on cognition in patients and healthy subjects compared to sham stimulation. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data Sources and Methods: This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42022331149) is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to March 2022. Only randomised-controlled trials were included. Results: A total of 12 randomised-controlled trials are reviewed for meta-analysis, with three randomised-controlled trials reporting only effects on cognition in psychiatric and cognitively impaired patients, three trials on cognition in healthy subjects, one trial on cognition in both patients and healthy subjects, one trial on only depression, two on both cognition and depression in patients and two on schizophrenia symptoms. No studies were at significant risk of bias. For cognition, TACS showed significant improvement [positive standardised mean differences (SMD) denoting improvement] over sham stimulation in those with psychiatric disorders with an SMD of 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 1.06). Similarly, among patients with depression, an SMD of 1.14 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.18) was found significantly favouring TACS over sham stimulation. Two studies assessed the effect of TACS on schizophrenia symptoms with mixed results. Conclusion: TACS has shown promise in ameliorating symptoms of both schizophrenia and depression in patients. TACS also improves cognition in both patients and healthy subjects. However, these findings are limited by the sample size of included studies, and future studies may be required to better our understanding of the potential of TACS. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022331149).
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Colorectal cancer screening when done early can significantly reduce mortality. However, screening compliance is still lower than expected even in countries with established screening programs. Motivational interviewing is an approach that has been explored to promote behavioral change including screening compliance. This review synthesizes the efficacy of motivational interviewing in promoting uptake of colorectal screening modalities and is the only review so far that examines motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening alone. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effects of motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to identify eligible studies from inception to June 2021 and selection criteria was defined. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used in the statistical analysis for studies included in the meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen studies from 14 randomized-controlled trials with a low to moderate risk of bias were analyzed. 8 studies in the systematic review showed that motivational interviewing is superior to a control group. Meta-analysis was conducted on 11 studies and showed that motivational interviewing is statistically significant in increasing colorectal cancer screening rates in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Timing of data collection of colorectal cancer screening rates did not make a significant difference to the efficacy of motivational interviewing. Studies that offered and accepted a mixture of colorectal screening modalities such as colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests were significantly more likely to have favorable colorectal screening outcomes. Heterogeneity in intervention was noted between studies, specifically differences in the training of interventionists, intervention delivery and comparator components. Conclusion: Motivational interviewing is a tailored intervention demonstrating mixed evidence in improving colorectal cancer screening attendance amongst individuals. More research is needed to rigorously compare the effect of motivational interviewing alone vs. in combination with other screening promotion strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening compliance.
