INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women and ranks second in terms of global incidence. Depression, anxiety, and poor quality of life (QoL) are prevalent in women with breast cancer. Supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT) can potentially benefit these patients.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of SEGT for women with breast cancer, by focusing on survival, QoL, anxiety, and depression as outcomes.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adopted. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINHAL, and PsycInfo in English, and Sinomed, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang in Chinese, were searched from inception up to May 2020 for relevant full-text articles using "SEGT," "breast cancer," and related terms as keywords. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEGT with baseline conditions of patients with breast cancer were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 2,879 subjects were analyzed. Overall group differences were found for survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.94; p = 0.004), short-term QoL (mean difference [MD] 8.02, 95% CI 4.85-11.20; p < 0.00001), long-term QoL (MD 11.30, 95% CI 6.75-15.84; p < 0.00001), Profile of Mood States score (POMS) score (MD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.13; p = 0.005), anxiety (standardized MD [SMD] -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10; p = 0.003), and depression (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.29; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: SEGT is effective in improving QoL and psychosocial status in breast cancer patients, but there is no convincing evidence that it has an impact on survival.
BACKGROUND: This is an update of the review published on the Cochrane Library in 2016, Issue 8. Having cancer may result in extensive emotional, physical and social suffering. Music interventions have been used to alleviate symptoms and treatment side effects in people with cancer. This review includes music interventions defined as music therapy offered by trained music therapists, as well as music medicine, which was defined as listening to pre-recorded music offered by medical staff.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of music therapy and music medicine interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, Science Citation Index, CancerLit, CAIRSS, Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/ and the National Research Register. We searched all databases, except for the last two, from their inception to April 2020; the other two are no longer functional, so we searched them until their termination date. We handsearched music therapy journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adults and pediatric patients with cancer. We excluded patients undergoing biopsy and aspiration for diagnostic purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. We used post-test scores. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. We conducted separate meta-analyses for studies with adult participants and those with pediatric participants. Primary outcomes of interest included psychological outcomes and physical symptoms and secondary outcomes included physiological responses, physical functioning, anesthetic and analgesic intake, length of hospitalization, social and spiritual support, communication, and quality of life (QoL) . We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 29 new trials for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence of this review rests on 81 trials with a total of 5576 participants. Of the 81 trials, 74 trials included adult (N = 5306) and seven trials included pediatric (N = 270) oncology patients. We categorized 38 trials as music therapy trials and 43 as music medicine trials. The interventions were compared to standard care. Psychological outcomes The results suggest that music interventions may have a large anxiety-reducing effect in adults with cancer, with a reported average anxiety reduction of 7.73 units (17 studies, 1381 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.02 to -5.44; very low-certainty evidence) on the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scale (range 20 to 80; lower values reflect lower anxiety). Results also suggested a moderately strong, positive impact of music interventions on depression in adults (12 studies, 1021 participants; standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.41, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.15; very low-certainty evidence). We found no support for an effect of music interventions on mood (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.97; 5 studies, 236 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Music interventions may increase hope in adults with cancer, with a reported average increase of 3.19 units (95% CI 0.12 to 6.25) on the Herth Hope Index (range 12 to 48; higher scores reflect greater hope), but this finding was based on only two studies (N = 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Physical outcomes We found a moderate pain-reducing effect of music interventions (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.26; 12 studies, 632 adult participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, music interventions had a small treatment effect on fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10; 10 studies, 498 adult participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest a large effect of music interventions on adult participants' QoL, but the results were highly inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect size was accompanied by a large confidence interval (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.08; 7 studies, 573 participants; evidence is very uncertain). Removal of studies that used improper randomization methods resulted in a moderate effect size that was less heterogeneous (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.02, I2 = 56%). A small number of trials included pediatric oncology participants. The findings suggest that music interventions may reduce anxiety but this finding was based on only two studies (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.9 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the small number of studies, we could not draw conclusions regarding the effects of music interventions on mood, depression, QoL, fatigue or pain in pediatric participants with cancer. The majority of studies included in this review update presented a high risk of bias, and therefore the overall certainty of the evidence is low. For several outcomes (i.e. anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and QoL) the beneficial treatment effects were consistent across studies for music therapy interventions delivered by music therapists. In contrast, music medicine interventions resulted in inconsistent treatment effects across studies for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that music interventions compared to standard care may have beneficial effects on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, and fatigue in adults with cancer. The results of two trials suggest that music interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in children with cancer. Too few trials with pediatric participants were included to draw conclusions about the treatment benefits of music for other outcomes. For several outcomes, music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist led to consistent results across studies and this was not the case for music medicine interventions. Moreover, evidence of effect was found for music therapy interventions for QoL and fatigue but not for music medicine interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias and low or very low certainty of evidence; therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution.
IMPORTANCE: Research into acupuncture and acupressure and their application for cancer pain has been growing, but the findings have been inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for evidence of the association of acupuncture and acupressure with reduction in cancer pain.
DATA SOURCES: Three English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) and 4 Chinese-language biomedical databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang) were searched for RCTs published from database inception through March 31, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care for managing cancer pain were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Random-effects modeling was used to calculate the effect sizes of included RCTs. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, Numerical Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, or Verbal Rating Scale.
RESULTS: A total of 17 RCTs (with 1111 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 14 RCTs (with 920 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Seven sham-controlled RCTs (35%) were notable for their high quality, being judged to have a low risk of bias for all of their domains, and showed that real (compared with sham) acupuncture was associated with reduced pain intensity (mean difference [MD], -1.38 points; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.64 points; I2 = 81%). A favorable association was also seen when acupuncture and acupressure were combined with analgesic therapy in 6 RCTs for reducing pain intensity (MD, -1.44 points; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.89; I2 = 92%) and in 2 RCTs for reducing opioid dose (MD, -30.00 mg morphine equivalent daily dose; 95% CI, -37.5 mg to -22.5 mg). The evidence grade was moderate because of the substantial heterogeneity among studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture and/or acupressure was significantly associated with reduced cancer pain and decreased use of analgesics, although the evidence level was moderate. This finding suggests that more rigorous trials are needed to identify the association of acupuncture and acupressure with specific types of cancer pain and to integrate such evidence into clinical care to reduce opioid use.
Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-Analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD =-1.45; 95% CI-2.80,-0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-Analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.
BACKGROUND: Disturbances in sleep and circadian rhythms are common among residents of long-term care facilities. In this systematic review, we aim to identify and evaluate the literature documenting the outcomes associated with non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among long-term care residents.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided searches of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for articles reporting results of experimental or quasi-experimental studies conducted in long-term care settings (nursing homes, assisted-living facilities, or group homes) in which nighttime sleep was subjectively or objectively measured as a primary outcome. We categorized each intervention by its intended use and how it was administered.
RESULTS: Of the 54 included studies evaluating the effects of 25 different non-pharmacological interventions, more than half employed a randomized controlled trial design (n = 30); the others used a pre-post design with (n = 11) or without (n = 13) a comparison group. The majority of randomized controlled trials were at low risk for most types of bias, and most other studies met the standard quality criteria. The interventions were categorized as environmental interventions (n = 14), complementary health practices (n = 12), social/physical stimulation (n = 11), clinical care practices (n = 3), or mind-body practices (n = 3). Although there was no clear pattern of positive findings, three interventions had the most promising results: increased daytime light exposure, nighttime use of melatonin, and acupressure.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve sleep for residents of long-term care facilities. Further research is needed to better standardize such interventions and provide clear implementation guidelines using cost-effective practices.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of acupuncture on malignancy-related, chemotherapy (CT)- or radiation therapy (RT)-induced, surgery-induced, and hormone therapy (HT)-induced pain. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of acupuncture on cancer-related pain were reached from the EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Airiti library, Taiwan Electrical Periodical Service, Wanfang Data (a Chinese database) and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database from inception through June 2014. Heterogeneity, moderator analysis, publication bias and risk of bias associated with the included studies were examined. A total of 29 RCTs yielding 36 effect sizes were included. The overall effect of acupuncture on cancer-related pain was -0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.63 to -0.26]. The subanalysis indicated that acupuncture relieved malignancy-related and surgery-induced pain [effect size (g) = -0.71, and -0.40; 95% CI = -0.94 to -0.48, and -0.69 to -0.10] but not CT- or RT-induced and HT-induced pain (g = -0.05, and -0.64, 95% CI = -0.33 to 0.24, and -1.55 to 0.27). Acupuncture is effective in relieving cancer-related pain, particularly malignancy-related and surgery-induced pain. Our findings suggest that acupuncture can be adopted as part of a multimodal approach for reducing cancer-related pain.
IMPORTANCE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to establish and compare the mean weighted effect sizes (WESs) of the 4 most commonly recommended treatments for CRF-exercise, psychological, combined exercise and psychological, and pharmaceutical-and to identify independent variables associated with treatment effectiveness.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to May 31, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials in adults with cancer were selected. Inclusion criteria consisted of CRF severity as an outcome and testing of exercise, psychological, exercise plus psychological, or pharmaceutical interventions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement. Effect sizes (Cohen d) were calculated and inversely weighted by SE.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severity of CRF was the primary outcome. Study quality was assessed using a modified 12-item version of the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale (range, 0-12, with 12 indicating best quality).
RESULTS: From 17 033 references, 113 unique studies articles (11 525 unique participants; 78% female; mean age, 54 [range, 35-72] years) published from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2016, had sufficient data. Studies were of good quality (mean Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias. Exercise (WES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.36; P < .001), psychological (WES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.33; P < .001), and exercise plus psychological interventions (WES, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P < .001) improved CRF during and after primary treatment, whereas pharmaceutical interventions did not (WES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19; P = .05). Results also suggest that CRF treatment effectiveness was associated with cancer stage, baseline treatment status, experimental treatment format, experimental treatment delivery mode, psychological mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES range, -0.91 to 0.99). Results suggest that the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, specifically exercise and psychological interventions, is not attributable to time, attention, and education, and specific intervention modes may be more effective for treating CRF at different points in the cancer treatment trajectory (WES range, 0.09-0.22).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exercise and psychological interventions are effective for reducing CRF during and after cancer treatment, and they are significantly better than the available pharmaceutical options. Clinicians should prescribe exercise or psychological interventions as first-line treatments for CRF.
BACKGROUND: Massage and aromatherapy massage are used to relieve cancer-related symptoms. A number of claims have been made for these treatments including reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, and stress. Other studies have not shown these benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of massage with or without aromatherapy on pain and other symptoms associated with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trials registries up to August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed Cancer Subset, SADCCT, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting the effects of aromatherapy or massage therapy, or both, in people with cancer of any age. We applied no language restrictions. Comparators were massage (using carrier oil only) versus no massage, massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus no massage, and massage with aromatherapy (using carrier oil plus essential oils) versus massage without aromatherapy (using carrier oil only).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data relating to pain and other symptoms associated with cancer, using standardised forms. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (21 reports) of very low quality evidence with a total of 1274 participants. We included 14 studies (16 reports) in a qualitative synthesis and five studies in a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Thirteen studies (14 reports, 596 participants) compared massage with no massage. Six studies (seven reports, 561 participants) compared aromatherapy massage with no massage. Two studies (117 participants) compared massage with aromatherapy and massage without aromatherapy. Fourteen studies had a high risk of bias related to sample size and 15 studies had a low risk of bias for blinding the outcome assessment. We judged the studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall. Our primary outcomes were pain and psychological symptoms. Two studies reported physical distress, rash, and general malaise as adverse events. The remaining 17 studies did not report adverse events. We downgraded the GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes to very low because of observed imprecision, indirectness, imbalance between groups in many studies, and limitations of study design. Massage versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain and anxiety but the quality of evidence was very low as most studies were small and considered at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Short-term pain (Present Pain Intensity-Visual Analogue Scale) was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 72, mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.67 to -0.53). Data for anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-state) relief showed no significant difference in anxiety between the groups (three RCTs, n = 98, combined MD -5.36, 95% CI -16.06 to 5.34). The subgroup analysis for anxiety revealed that the anxiety relief for children was greater for the massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -14.70, 95% CI -19.33 to -10.07), but the size of this effect was considered not clinically significant. Furthermore, this review demonstrated no differences in effects of massage on depression, mood disturbance, psychological distress, nausea, fatigue, physical symptom distress, or quality of life when compared with no massage. Massage with aromatherapy versus no-massage groupsWe analysed results for pain, anxiety, symptoms relating to the breast, and quality of life but the quality of evidence was very low as studies were generally at a high risk of bias. There was some indication of benefit in the aromatherapy-massage group but this benefit is unlikely to translate into clinical benefit. The relief of medium- and long-term pain (medium-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 5.30, 95% CI 1.52 to 9.08; long-term: one RCT, n = 86, MD 3.80, 95% CI 0.19 to 7.41), anxiety (two RCTs, n = 253, combined MD -4.50, 95% CI -7.70 to -1.30), and long-term symptoms relating to the breast in people with breast cancer (one RCT, n = 86, MD -9.80, 95% CI -19.13 to -0.47) was greater for the aromatherapy-massage group, but the results were considered not clinically significant. The medium-term quality of life score was lower (better) for the aromatherapy-massage group compared with the no-massage group (one RCT, n = 30, MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.54). Massage with aromatherapy versus massage without aromatherapy groupsFrom the limited evidence available, we were unable to assess the effect of adding aromatherapy to massage on the relief of pain, psychological symptoms including anxiety and depression, physical symptom distress, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of massage for symptom relief in people with cancer. Most studies were too small to be reliable and key outcomes were not reported. Any further studies of aromatherapy and massage will need to address these concerns.
OBJECTIVE: This study was to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival in adult patients with cancer. METHOD: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Korean electronic databases (September 2014) were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias for randomized studies. The RevMan 5.3 program of the Cochrane library was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2940 participants. Overall, psychosocial interventions was not associated with better survival (HR = .83, 95% CI [.68, 1.10], <i>p</i> = .06, <i>I</i>² = 64%). In subgroup analysis, based on six trials with 1448 subjects, psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients with non-metastatic at intervention implementation resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of dying of cancer (HR = .59, 95% CI [.49, .71], <i>p</i> < .001, <i>I</i>² = 0%). For psychoeducational intervention, significant survival benefit were found when health staff delivered the intervention and at a follow-up time of more than 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Use of psychoeducational interventions for cancer patients at early stage appeared to have beneficial effects on survival, preferably for delivering of health staff. However, conduct of further psychosocial studies with adequate power will lead to better understanding of the effects of treatments on survival outcome. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for cancer-related pain. Methods. A systematic review of literatures published from database inception to February 2015 was conducted in eight databases. RCTs involving acupuncture for treatment of cancer-related pain were identified. Two researchers independently performed article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of data. Results. 1,639 participants in twenty RCTs were analyzed. All selected RCTs were associated with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture alone did not have superior pain-relieving effects as compared with conventional drug therapy. However, as compared with the drug therapy alone, acupuncture plus drug therapy resulted in increased pain remission rate, shorter onset time of pain relief, longer pain-free duration, and better quality of life without serious adverse effects. However, GRADE analysis revealed that the quality of all outcomes about acupuncture plus drug therapy was very low. Conclusions. Acupuncture plus drug therapy is more effective than conventional drug therapy alone for cancer-related pain. However, multicenter high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to provide stronger evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in cancer-related pain due to the low data quality of the studies included in the current meta-analysis.
Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women and ranks second in terms of global incidence. Depression, anxiety, and poor quality of life (QoL) are prevalent in women with breast cancer. Supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT) can potentially benefit these patients.
OBJECTIVE:
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of SEGT for women with breast cancer, by focusing on survival, QoL, anxiety, and depression as outcomes.
METHODS:
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adopted. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINHAL, and PsycInfo in English, and Sinomed, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang in Chinese, were searched from inception up to May 2020 for relevant full-text articles using "SEGT," "breast cancer," and related terms as keywords. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEGT with baseline conditions of patients with breast cancer were included in the analysis.
RESULTS:
Ten studies with a total of 2,879 subjects were analyzed. Overall group differences were found for survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.94; p = 0.004), short-term QoL (mean difference [MD] 8.02, 95% CI 4.85-11.20; p < 0.00001), long-term QoL (MD 11.30, 95% CI 6.75-15.84; p < 0.00001), Profile of Mood States score (POMS) score (MD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.13; p = 0.005), anxiety (standardized MD [SMD] -0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.10; p = 0.003), and depression (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.29; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS:
SEGT is effective in improving QoL and psychosocial status in breast cancer patients, but there is no convincing evidence that it has an impact on survival.
