SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Patient Education as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2,348 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Comparative Efficacy of Non-opioid Analgesic Drugs for Chronic Cancer Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: While opioids remain the primary pharmacological intervention for cancer pain management, their clinical utility is frequently compromised by dose-limiting toxicities. This study aimed to determine the comparative efficacy, opioid-sparing potential, and clinical hierarchy of non-opioid adjuvant drug classes. The study was structured around the PICO framework to evaluate the pharmacological strategies currently utilized in multimodal clinical oncology. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2025. The primary outcome was global analgesic efficacy (standardized mean difference [SMD]), while secondary outcomes included the opioid-sparing effect, defined as the percentage reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (Harms). A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to rank treatments using SUCRA values. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 1845) met the inclusion criteria. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (-1.10) and anticonvulsants (-1.06) demonstrated the most robust analgesic effects. The SUCRA ranking confirmed a clear hierarchy, with the combination of anticonvulsants and antidepressants showing the highest probability of efficacy. A significant opioid-sparing effect was observed for gabapentinoids and ketamine, facilitating MEDD reduction. While serious adverse events were rare, minor harms (somnolence, dizziness) were more frequent in the most effective classes. CONCLUSION: Our NMA provides a robust evidence base for a "Clinical Tier" system, ranking adjuvants by their balance of efficacy and safety. These findings support the early integration of Tier I agents (anticonvulsants and NSAIDs) to optimize pain control and reduce opioid-related toxicities in chronic cancer pain management.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A qualitative study of cancer survivors' exercise behaviour 4 months after a telerehabilitation program.

PURPOSE: Although telerehabilitation can improve access to exercise programs for cancer survivors, it is not known if these programs lead to ongoing change in exercise habits. This study explored participant experiences of exercise 4 months after finishing specialized cancer exercise-based telerehabilitation. METHOD: A qualitative study embedded in a randomized controlled trial evaluated exercise-based cancer telerehabilitation delivered in groups. Data were collected via semistructured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Seventeen adult cancer survivors (age 21 to 80) were purposively sampled 4 months after completing exercise-based cancer telerehabilitation. Data were coded independently by two researchers and analyzed inductively within an interpretive description framework. RESULTS: The overarching theme was telerehabilitation was perceived to facilitate positive exercise intentions. Participants said they were empowered to exercise through knowledge, opportunity, and connection gained through telerehabilitation. They described acting on their positive intentions to exercise to varying degrees following telerehabilitation, depending on their context. A subtheme was that exercise was challenging in their new reality created by cancer. Comorbidities, ongoing side effects, previous exercise experience, and personal factors were considered by some to influence their ability to exercise. CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation may facilitate positive intent to maintain exercise. Cancer survivors may need ongoing support after telerehabilitation to act on positive exercise intentions due to health-related difficulties. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Participation in telerehabilitation may be a positive first step to initiate exercise, but ongoing support to maintain positive behavior changes is likely to be needed for people without previous exercise experience.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the (1) timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatology, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to publication, and (3) factors associated with publication delays. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 for Phase 3, superiority, parallel-design RCTs that evaluated any treatment for a rheumatologic illness or a rheumatologic treatment for COVID-19 and reported clinical primary efficacy outcome. Outcomes of interest were time to publication after trial completion and publication delay of >2 years after trial completion. RESULTS: 448 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Median time from completion to publication was 549 days and 65.9 % RCTs were published within 2 years of completion. Compared with RCTs on rheumatologic diseases, RCTs on COVID-19 were published sooner (253 vs. 549 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.49, 95 % CI 2.07 to 43.61). Compared with RCTs completed before March 1, 2020, RCTs completed after March 1, 2020, were published sooner (327 vs. 724 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.40, 95 % CI 5.14 to 17.21). Time from RCT completion to submission accounted for most (67 %) of the time to publication. CONCLUSIONS: Publication delay continues to be an important concern in dissemination of clinical research. Most of the delays in publication were attributable to delays in submission to journals after trial completion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The Animal Variant Classification Guidelines v2: An Update With New Criteria and Improved Clarifications.

The Animal Variant Classification Guidelines (AVCG) were developed to standardize and objectify the classification of putative disease-causing variants. These guidelines are sufficiently reproducible and are used to classify previously published and new disease-causing variants across species. Here, the guidelines are updated (AVCG.v2), based on a three-phase decision process. Overall, four new criteria and seven clarifying comments were added. The number of criteria has increased from 23 to 27, with three new criteria supporting pathogenicity and one new criterion supporting benign classification. Pharmacogenomic variants were determined to fall within the scope of the guidelines. These updated guidelines are being used by the Variant Pathogenicity Working Group (VPWG), part of the Animal Genetic Testing Standardization standing committee, which is a committee of elected members of the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). Under the auspices of ISAG, the VPWG retrospectively classifies published putative disease-causing variants. The pathogenicity label for a variant will be presented in the variant tables of Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals (OMIA; https://omia.org/). The AVCGv.2 criteria and recommendations were developed by the expertise of the animal genetics community and the ISAG Executive Committee through the Animal Genetics Testing Standardization Committee endorses and strongly encourages their use to evaluate the evidence supporting pathogenicity of putative disease-causing variants.

Animals↗

PubMed2026

Radiographic assessment and orthodontic intervention effects on orthodontically induced root resorption: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

The relative contribution of radiographic methods and characteristics of the orthodontic intervention to orthodontically induced root resorption (OIRR) remains unknown. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) estimate the pooled OIRR effect across orthodontic intervention versus comparator contrasts, (2) compare pooled estimates by radiographic method (2D [two-dimensional] vs. 3D/CBCT [three-dimensional/cone-beam computed tomography]), and (3) explore whether force mechanics (intrusive versus nonintrusive) modified OIRR magnitude. Seven randomized controlled trials and one prospective study (January 2010-October 2025) were included. Only OIRR was the outcome, reported as correlation coefficients (r). The primary analysis combined within-study intervention-versus-comparator estimates. Subgroup analysis of 2D versus 3D/CBCT imaging was prespecified, whereas post-hoc analysis of intrusive versus nonintrusive mechanics was performed. The pooled analysis for the primary outcome showed a small, nonsignificant OIRR effect (r = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.12 to 0.27; p = 0.372) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 84.0%). Radiographic method did not change the pooled estimates significantly (p = 0.331). Force-mechanics analysis showed that intrusive mechanics was related to significantly higher root resorption than nonintrusive mechanics (r = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.65 versus r = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.10; p < 0.001). This accounted for 87.1% of the between-study variance. The average orthodontic intervention effect on OIRR was small and not significant; however, the OIRR magnitude was strongly affected by force mechanics, particularly by intrusive forces. There was no significant difference in pooled estimates by radiographic method; however, 3D/CBCT provides superior volumetric quantification and should be used judiciously according ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles.

Root Resorption↗

PubMed2026

Comparative Efficacy of Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide for Weight Loss in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Studies.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide versus semaglutide for weight reduction in adults with overweight or obesity. We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing tirzepatide and semaglutide with ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was percentage weight change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included absolute weight change, weight-loss thresholds, HbA1c and safety outcomes. Ten studies including 41 381 participants were analysed. Tirzepatide was associated with greater percentage weight reduction than semaglutide (MD -4.28 percentage points; 95% CI -5.28 to -3.28; p < 0.00001) and greater absolute weight loss (MD -4.43 kg; 95% CI -5.56 to -3.30; p < 0.00001). Tirzepatide was also associated with a higher likelihood of achieving ≥ 10%, ≥ 15% and ≥ 20% weight loss, with no difference at ≥ 5%. HbA1c reduction was greater with tirzepatide (MD -0.29%; p = 0.0002). Subgroup analyses by study design and type 2 diabetes status yielded consistent findings. There was no significant difference in treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.28; p = 0.54), whereas serious adverse events were more frequent with tirzepatide (RR 1.83; p = 0.007). Overall and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar between groups. Tirzepatide was associated with greater weight reduction, greater glycaemic benefit and a higher likelihood of achieving weight-loss thresholds than semaglutide, but with a higher risk of serious adverse events.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Atomoxetine Versus Placebo for Cognitive Deficits in Stimulant Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use disorder (StUD), particularly involving cocaine and amphetamines, is associated with significant cognitive impairments that impede recovery and increase relapse risk. Atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, has been proposed as a potential treatment given its role in enhancing executive function and its established efficacy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy, cognitive, and mood effects of atomoxetine compared with placebo in individuals with StUD. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating atomoxetine for StUD. Eligible studies compared atomoxetine with placebo and assessed outcomes related to cognition (attention and response inhibition), stimulant use or abstinence, mood symptoms, and safety. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively due to methodological heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Findings on cognitive outcomes were inconsistent: Some studies reported improvements in attentional bias and inhibitory control, while others showed no significant effects. Atomoxetine did not significantly reduce stimulant use, craving, or sustain abstinence compared with placebo. Limited mood-related benefits were observed, particularly among male participants, although results were variable. Across studies, atomoxetine was well tolerated, with most adverse events mild and transient. CONCLUSION: Despite a compelling neurobiological rationale and evidence of modest cognitive and mood benefits, atomoxetine has not demonstrated consistent efficacy as a monotherapy for StUD. Its favorable safety profile may warrant further investigation in carefully defined populations, such as individuals with comorbid ADHD or in combination with behavioral interventions.

Atomoxetine Hydrochloride↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy of transcranial alternating current stimulation for musculoskeletal pain and sleep quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, emerging as a potential therapeutic option for musculoskeletal pain management. OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of tACS for alleviating pain and improving sleep quality in adults with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Seven major databases and other sources were searched from inception until April 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random-effects model was used to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 232 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that tACS could significantly reduce pain intensity compared to control (SMD = -0.355, 95% CI: -0.625 to -0.084, p = 0.010, I² = 28.7%). However, no significant improvement was found for sleep quality (SMD = 0.004, 95% CI: -0.310-0.317, p = 0.982, I² = 0.0%). Adverse effects were mild and transient, comparable to sham stimulation. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both pain and sleep quality outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that tACS may be beneficial for musculoskeletal pain; however, the available evidence remains limited and should be interpreted cautiously. The effect of tACS on sleep quality remains uncertain because of the limited number of available studies. Future well-designed RCTs with standardized outcome measures, condition-specific stimulation protocols, and longer follow-up are required to establish the efficacy and long-term safety of tACS.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Sustained cognitive and functional effects of pro-cognitive interventions for bipolar disorder: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

A substantial proportion of individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) experience considerable cognitive deficits. Existing systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy of pro-cognitive interventions in BD, but have not established whether any cognitive benefits translate into functional improvements, with evidence for sustained functional effects remaining limited. A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library from inception until 21 May 2026. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in BD reporting cognitive or functional outcomes at three or more months following a pro-cognitive intervention, or examining the translation of cognitive benefits into improvements in functional outcomes at any timepoint. Seven unique RCTs plus three secondary analyses of these trials (n = 615) met the inclusion criteria. Approximately 13% (7/55) of RCTs identified in the search of pro-cognitive interventions in adult BD assessed cognitive or functional outcomes at least 3 months after treatment end. Of the seven unique RCTs, most evaluated cognitive remediation (CR; k = 4). The average follow-up length was 4 months (range: 3-6 months). Three of the four RCTs examining CR reported cognitive benefits at 3 to 6 months, whereas only one CR RCT found consistent functional effects at 3 months. Evidence on the translation of cognitive benefits to functional improvements is scarce and inconsistent. Most trials examining pro-cognitive interventions do not examine whether potential benefits are sustained or whether they translate into improvements in real-world functioning. CR appears to be a promising intervention for achieving durable cognitive gains in BD, although evidence for sustained effects of other interventions is limited.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Role of nicotine metabolite ratio in pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emerging evidence suggests that the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR) may influence the efficacy of smoking cessation, yet its role across pharmacotherapies remains unclear. This study aims to investigate how NMR affects cessation outcomes under different medications to guide personalized treatment. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to September 30, 2024) for randomized controlled trials on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation with NMR data. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, with heterogeneity assessment. The primary outcome was verified smoking cessation rate at the end of treatment or the closest time-point. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with accessible full text were included in the qualitative analyses and nine were included in the quantitative synthesis. For non-titratable nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), normal/fast metabolizers demonstrated lower odds of smoking cessation than slow metabolizers (Odds Ratio, OR=0.81, 95% confidence interval, CI=0.68-0.96; 5 studies, I²=62.5%). No significant associations were shown between normal/fast and slow metabolizers using titratable NRT (OR=1.04, 95% CI=0.95-1.14; 2 studies, I²=0%), bupropion (OR=0.67, 95% CI=0.38-1.16; 2 studies, I²=51.4%), or varenicline (OR=1.17, 95% CI=0.79-1.74; 4 studies, I²=59.8%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates that NMR moderates' treatment efficacy among those who smoke using non-titratable NRT, with slow metabolizers achieving significantly better cessation outcomes than normal/fast metabolizers. Substantial further research is needed to determine optimal medication hierarchies across metabolic profiles.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparing the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine for surgical site disinfection: a systematic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials report conflicting evidence on the efficacy of different skin disinfectants for preventing surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for RCTs published up to February 2025 comparing preoperative skin disinfection with povidone-iodine (PVI) versus chlorhexidine (CH). Primary outcomes were overall, superficial, deep, and organ/space SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, readmission, and reoperation. RESULTS: CH was superior to PVI in preventing overall SSI (26 studies, n = 29,356; RR: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 0.99). The overall SSI incidence rate in the CH group was 7.1% (1,045/14,677), compared with 7.8% (1,152/14,679) in the PVI group, equating to an 11% reduction in relative risk and a 0.7% reduction in absolute risk. The number needed to treat to prevent one SSI was 143. CH demonstrated superiority over PVI in preventing superficial SSI (13 studies, n = 16,867; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.92), but not for deep SSI (11 studies, n = 15,842; RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.29) or organ SSI (9 studies, n = 9,471; RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.53). No significant differences were found in hospital stay, readmission, or reoperation rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: CH demonstrates statistical superiority over PVI in preventing overall and superficial SSI, though the absolute clinical benefit is modest. No significant differences were observed for deep or organ/space SSI, nor for secondary outcomes including hospital length of stay, readmission, or reoperation rates.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of olive leaf or olive pomace supplementation on cardiometabolic and anthropometric health markers.

AIMS: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are major contributors to global morbidity and mortality, and dietary bioactives such as polyphenols may modulate key risk factors. Olive by-products, particularly olive leaves (OL) and olive pomace (OP), are rich in phenolic compounds with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and cardiometabolic effects demonstrated across in vitro, preclinical, and clinical studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: This GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis included 30 randomized controlled trials (n = 1726) evaluating OL or OP supplementation on 21 standardized biomarkers, encompassing inflammatory markers, lipid profile, glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, anthropometric measures, and blood pressure. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models, with effect sizes calculated as mean differences (or standardized mean differences for oxLDL). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses explored potential sources of variability. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's test and funnel plots where appropriate. OL supplementation significantly improved lipid parameters (total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL-C, ApoB, oxLDL) and increased ApoA1, while reducing TNF-α, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, and BMI. No significant effects were observed on glycemic markers. OP supplementation showed no consistent cardiometabolic benefits and was associated with an increase in IL-8. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high, with several outcomes downgraded due to imprecision, heterogeneity, or limited study numbers. CONCLUSION: These findings support the targeted use of OL as an adjunctive strategy for cardiometabolic risk management. Evidence for OP supplementation remains limited, underscoring the need for well-powered, high-quality RCTs to clarify its clinical effects.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of Moderate-Frequency Resistance Training on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance training (RT) effectively manages cardiometabolic risk factors in adults, but the specific effects of moderate-frequency RT (2-3 sessions/week) in adults with overweight or obesity are understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate moderate-frequency RT's effects on cardiometabolic risk factors in this population and quantify effect sizes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searched up to July 2025. ELIGIBILITY: English randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RT (≥ 7 weeks) to nonexercise control; nonathletic adults ≥ 18 years with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. PARTICIPANTS: 454 participants across 12 RCTs (mean age 58.93 ± 12.87 years; mean BMI 31.2 ± 3.5 kg/m2; ~50% female). RESULTS: RT significantly reduced diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.53 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.16 to -0.91; p < 0.01), LDL-C (MD = -0.25 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.08; p < 0.01), and triglycerides (MD = -0.17 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.04; p = 0.01). No significant effects on systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, waist circumference, glycemic markers, total cholesterol, or HDL-C. Subgroup analyses showed larger LDL-C/triglyceride improvements with concurrent dietary control. CONCLUSION: Moderate-frequency RT inconsistently improves cardiometabolic risk factors, benefiting diastolic blood pressure, LDL-C, and triglycerides but not glycemic or other parameters. Combining with dietary control may enhance benefits, supporting RT as a complementary strategy in multimodal lifestyle interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42022343167.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in substance use disorders is safe and tolerable: A Systematic review of 141 clinical trials including 4299 participants.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation intervention investigated as a treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) and its co-occurring disorders. As the number of rTMS SUD clinical trials increase, the safety and tolerability profile should be assessed. In this systematic review, we investigate adverse events (AEs) of rTMS in individuals with SUD and factors that may influence their occurrence. METHODS: We performed a systematic PubMed search to identify all controlled trials of rTMS in SUD published up to January 2025. Eligible studies were assessed, and safety information was extracted for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 141 clinical trials with 4299 participants were included in their active arms. rTMS trials recruited participants who were engaged in active substance use, were in the pre-treatment phase, in early recovery, or in sustained recovery. Twenty-two studies explicitly reported no AEs. Sixty-nine studies reported only mild AEs, while only six studies reported moderate AEs. Thirty-five studies did not report safety-outcomes/AEs. As expected, participants reported mild and temporary AEs such as headaches, pain or discomfort under the coil, or dizziness. Only nine studies reported serious AEs (7 studies in active TMS and 2 in sham TMS). Importantly, no seizures attributable to active rTMS were reported in these SUD samples. CONCLUSION: Overall, rTMS in SUD samples is safe and well-tolerated regardless of recovery stage and substance. Most reported side effects were mild, self-limiting, and tolerable. However, AE reporting was incomplete, as 35 of 141 trials reported no safety data, limiting conclusions to reported outcomes. This evidence supports the safety of rTMS as a potential stand-alone or adjunctive treatment for SUD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Photobiomodulation as an Adjunct to Resistance Training in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Photobiomodulation (PBM) has been proposed as an adjunct to resistance training to enhance strength adaptations; however, findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate whether adjunctive PBM improves maximal strength gains when combined with periodized resistance training in older adults. METHODS: RCTs were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to January 2026. Eligible studies examined PBM delivered via low-level laser therapy or light-emitting diodes in combination with resistance training or other strength-oriented loading tasks. Prespecified meta-analyses were restricted to trials combining PBM with periodized resistance training that reported one-repetition maximum (1RM) outcomes; other studies were included in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (n = 456) were included. Five trials (PBM plus resistance training: n = 74; control: n = 72) met the criteria for meta-analysis. PBM combined with resistance training did not significantly improve maximal muscle strength compared with sham PBM (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.59; p = 0.14; I2 = 4%). Subgroup analyses showed a nonsignificant trend favoring PBM for unilateral 1RM, with no effect for bilateral outcomes and no significant subgroup differences. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the unilateral effect was dependent on individual studies. In nonresistance training contexts, some studies reported potential benefits for fatigue-, recovery-, or function-related outcomes, particularly in frail or critically ill older adults, although findings were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear additional benefit of PBM on maximal strength when combined with resistance training in older adults, although a small effect cannot be excluded. PBM may have selective value in improving recovery-related outcomes and supporting training tolerance in vulnerable populations. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to clarify its role.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Neuromodulation for Subjective Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of neuromodulation and bimodal stimulation for chronic subjective tinnitus in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE (January 2015-December 2025) searched per PRISMA 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Adult RCTs (≥ 18 years) with chronic subjective tinnitus (> 3 months) assessing validated outcomes (THI, TFI, TQ) for neuromodulation/bimodal interventions vs. sham/controls. Two-stage screening, Cochrane RoB-2 risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects meta-analyses (REML) were performed when ≥ 3 comparable trials were available; effects reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and measures included change in tinnitus severity (THI/TFI/TQ) while secondary outcomes included loudness (VAS/NRS), durability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs (n = 1576) met criteria: tES (11; n = 372), rTMS (8; n = 432), acoustic coordinated reset (1; n = 100), vagus nerve stimulation (2; n = 90), and bimodal stimulation (4; n = 582). Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant pooled effect for tDCS (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.75 to 0.02; I 2 = 51%) and rTMS (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.07; I 2 = 0%). Single-trial evidence for coordinated reset showed no advantage over broadband noise. VNS demonstrated modest benefits with safety concerns limited to implanted approaches. Bimodal stimulation yielded consistent, clinically meaningful reductions (often ≥ 10-20 points on THI/TFI), with durability up to 12 months. Adverse events were mild/transient across noninvasive modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive neuromodulation appears safe with average benefits; among modalities, bimodal stimulation shows the most consistent and durable clinical improvements. Standardized, adequately powered RCTs with harmonized protocols and long-term follow-up are needed to refine targets and dosing.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic study of rasagiline versus selegiline in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Given the persistent absence of direct head-to-head trials, this study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rasagiline versus selegiline as early-stage monotherapy for Parkinson's disease (PD), informing clinical selection and healthcare policies in China. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 2026. Focusing on short-term outcomes (10-16 weeks), an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using placebo as a common anchor evaluated symptom improvement (UPDRS total scores) and adverse event (AE) incidence. For economic evaluation, a 2-year Markov model was constructed from a Chinese healthcare-system perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated alongside robust sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (rasagiline: 6; selegiline: 4) were included. The ITC revealed no statistically significant differences between rasagiline and selegiline in short-term symptomatic relief (Mean Difference = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.44], p = 0.203) or AE risk (Odds Ratio = 0.83, 95% CI [0.50, 1.38], p = 0.475). The overall evidence certainty was rated as moderate. Economically, the base-case simulation indicated rasagiline yielded a marginal benefit of 0.0088 QALYs over selegiline but incurred an additional 17,111.10 Yuan. This resulted in an ICER of 1,951,505.55 Yuan/QALY, substantially exceeding the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSION: Supported by moderate-certainty evidence, rasagiline and selegiline provide comparable short-term efficacy and safety for early-stage PD monotherapy. However, at its current pricing, rasagiline is not cost-effective. Significant price reductions or definitive proof of long-term superiority are required to justify its economic value.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of mental and substance use disorders and symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Interest in cannabinoids for mental and substance use disorders is increasing. We examined experimental and observational evidence for treating these disorders and their symptoms. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023467536). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2025 for studies of cannabinoids in adults (≥18 years) with ADHD, anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychosis or Tourette syndrome, or alcohol, cannabis, opioid or tobacco use disorders. Two reviewers screened, extracted and assessed quality using a risk-of-bias tool and GRADE. RESULTS: We included 82 experimental and 118 observational studies. In RCTs, cannabinoids reduced anxiety symptoms (SMD=-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.23; I²=90%) and, in one small trial, PTSD symptoms (SMD=-2.60; 95% CI: -4.58, -0.62; n=20), with trivial-to-no effect on depression (SMD=-0.20; 95% CI: -0.43, 0.04; I²=91.6%), ADHD, psychosis and Tourette syndrome. Much anxiety and depression evidence came from symptoms measured as secondary outcomes in other primary conditions. Cannabinoids worsened cannabis use disorder severity in one RCT (SMD=2.35; 95% CI: 1.49, 3.21), with no effect on craving or withdrawal; evidence for alcohol, opioid and tobacco use disorders was very limited. Observational studies suggested improvements but had high risk of bias. The only significant safety finding was increased withdrawals due to adverse events with THC (OR=2.78; 95% CI: 1.66, 4.65). Certainty was predominantly very low. DISCUSSION: The evidence base shows very low certainty, high heterogeneity and methodological limitations, and is insufficient to support cannabinoids as first-line treatment. Signals for anxiety and PTSD are limited by indirectness and low certainty; no benefit was evident for depression; THC-related safety signals warrant careful consideration.

Humans↗