SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Visuospatial bias”

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.

308 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

The impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Preoperative rehabilitation training can optimize functional reserve before radical prostatectomy (RP), thereby improving postoperative outcomes. However, its effects on urinary incontinence, erectile function, and quality of life (QoL) remain controversial. This study systematically evaluated these outcome measures. METHODS: Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL databases. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB-2 tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Stata 18.0 software. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed- or random-effects models according to heterogeneity. Outcomes included urinary incontinence incidence, urinary incontinence severity, erectile function, and QoL at different postoperative follow-up time points. RESULTS: 16 randomized controlled trials involving 1,542 participants were included. Prehabilitation significantly reduced the incidence of urinary incontinence at 1 month (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.84) and 6 months (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96) after RP, with a non-significant borderline reduction at 3 months, and no significant benefit at 12 months. No significant improvement was observed in urinary incontinence severity or erectile function at any follow-up time point. Prehabilitation significantly improved QoL within 3 months (SMD = -0.70, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.32) and 6 months (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.16) postoperatively. However, within 12 months, the effect size attenuated, showing only a marginal trend that did not reach statistical significance (SMD = -0.33, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.00). Risk of bias was generally moderate. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation reduces early incontinence and improves QoL post-RP, but its effects on severity and erectile function remain unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO [CRD420251183407].

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Predicting ACL injury risk in athletes: A systematic review of machine learning-based models.

BACKGROUND: Early ACL injury risk identification in athletes is essential. This systematic review examines machine learning (ML) models for predicting ACL injuries, evaluating their methodological quality, performance, and reliability. METHOD: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases, supplemented by Google Scholar for grey literature, covering articles published between January 1, 2015, and August 30, 2025. Eligible studies were appraised using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for methodological quality and risk of bias, and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines for quality of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. PROBAST showed eight studies had moderate risk of bias and two low risk. TRIPOD found only two studies met quality criteria. ML models included logistic regression (n = 5), support vector machines (n = 4), k-nearest neighbor (n = 3), decision trees (n = 3), random forests (n = 5), neural networks (n = 2), linear discriminant analysis (n = 1), and pre-trained CNNs (n = 1). AUC ranged from 0.63 to 0.98. Accuracy (reported in six studies) ranged from 26% to 95%; however, these values should be interpreted with caution due to the absence of confidence intervals, lack of class imbalance handling, and limited external validation across studies. Tree-based ensemble methods such as random forest achieved competitive accuracy (74-86%), while SVM, a non-ensemble classifier, reported accuracy ranging from 71% to 95%; however, the highest values were obtained in studies with notably small sample sizes (n = 12 to n = 39), raising concerns about overfitting and generalizability. CONCLUSION: Current ML algorithms show promise for identifying athletes at high ACL injury risk and detecting relevant risk factors. Although study quality was generally satisfactory, future research should prioritize external validation and model interpretability to support clinical translation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety and efficacy of Meridian sinew tuina (MST) for post-surgical upper limb lymphedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complex Decongestive Therapy (CDT) is the non-operative standard for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), but many patients experience persistent subcutaneous stiffness, pain, and restricted mobility. This study systematically reviews the safety and clinical efficacy of Meridian Sinew Tuina (MST) protocols for BCRL. METHODS: Global and regional databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP) were searched from inception to January 15, 2026, with alerts monitored through April 30, 2026. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating MST (deep tissue mobilisation along the six-hand meridian sinew [Jingjin] lines via plucking, kneading, and pressing) were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data, evaluated risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2, and assessed evidence certainty via GRADE using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included. For the primary anthropometric outcome, MST significantly reduced upper limb circumference compared to controls (SMD = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.44 to 1.74; Z = 20.81; p < 0.0001; I2=0.0%; N = 924; GRADE: Moderate certainty). The Clinical Response Efficacy Rate (≥ 30% swelling reduction and symptom relief) favoured MST (RR = 1.69; 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.87; Z = 10.62; p < 0.0001; I2=0.0%; N = 1,114; GRADE: Moderate certainty). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed sample size sufficiency. For secondary outcomes (N = 924; GRADE: Low to Very Low certainty due to performance bias and clinical heterogeneity), MST showed favourable 3-month improvements in DASH functional scores (SMD = -1.81; 95% CI: -2.11 to -1.51; I2=45.1%), pain intensity (SMD = -2.44; 95% CI: -2.93 to -1.95; I2=50.4%), and quality of life (SMD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.29; I2=0.0%). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: MST protocols are associated with favourable short- and mid-term reductions in upper limb swelling. However, confidence is tempered by unblinded performance bias and control group variations. MST cannot be unconditionally recommended for standalone implementation but represents a promising, optional supportive adjunctive intervention within oncological rehabilitation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Timing of aneurysm repair and clinical outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) causes substantial morbidity and mortality, and guidelines recommend aneurysm repair as early as feasible. However, the association between onset-to-treatment time and outcomes remains uncertain. This review synthesized evidence across multiple clinical outcomes and examined whether treatment modality modifies this association. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS for studies comparing clinical outcomes across different onset-to-treatment windows in adults with confirmed aSAH. Findings were synthesized narratively according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261415084). RESULTS: Twenty reports comprising 11,096 participant records were included, with likely overlap between two reports. Treatment categories ranged from <6 h to ≥15 days. Earlier securement likely reduced pretreatment rebleeding, particularly when untreated or markedly delayed patients were included, although treated-cohort comparisons were inconsistent. More methodologically informative adjusted analyses showed no reproducible independent association between treatment timing and functional outcome or mortality. No consistent association emerged for vasospasm or related cerebral ischemia, hydrocephalus, or length of stay. Two observational studies modeled time continuously: one found a significant U-shaped mortality association with an estimated nadir at 32.6 h, whereas the other showed a similar but non-significant adjusted pattern with an estimated nadir near 12.16 h. These findings are highly susceptible to confounding by indication and survivor bias and do not establish benefit from treatment delay. Three studies formally tested modality-timing interaction; one found a significant mortality interaction and two did not. Additional stratified analyses showed no consistent modality-specific pattern. Certainty of evidence for the timing-mortality association was very low because of serious risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: Earlier aneurysm securement remains supported for preventing pretreatment rebleeding. The independent association of treatment timing with mortality or functional outcome remains uncertain. The observed mortality patterns are hypothesis-generating and do not define a validated therapeutic window, support intentional treatment delay, or justify changing current guideline recommendations. Prospective multicenter studies using continuous-time modeling and rigorous methods to address confounding and survivor bias are needed.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Hormonal contraceptives and women's sleep health: A systematic review.

Sex hormones and hormonal contraceptives influence the regulation of sleep-wake behavior. However, there are very few large-scale studies to date that have comprehensively evaluated how hormonal contraceptives influence women's sleep health. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing research on hormonal contraceptive use and sleep in women ages 18-50. The systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Nineteen studies were included in this review. Data were extracted and evaluated for risk of bias and heterogeneity. The included studies demonstrated high heterogeneity in terms of objective and/or subjective sleep-related measures and non-sleep primary study outcomes and demonstrated significant risks of bias, underscoring the need for methodological consistency in assessing women's sleep health. Several clinical considerations may be gleaned from this existing research in terms of the behavioral assessment and treatment of sleep difficulties in women using hormonal contraceptives. Additional investigation is needed to identify standardized research and clinical methodology guidelines for assessing and treating women's sleep health.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence enabled social robotic interventions (PARO) in Australian dementia care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a growing body of research indicating that Personal Robot/Social Robot could be used in various aspects of care for individuals with dementia, little is known about how well these types of interventions work in an actual hospital setting in Australia. AIMS & OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of PARO-based socially assistive robotic intervention in terms of its effectiveness outcomes towards the reduction of dementia-related behavioural and psychological symptoms in Australian based healthcare settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions for dementia in Australian healthcare settings. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251251916) and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. In addition, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias across all studies. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for agitation, anxiety, and depression. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 1444 participants were identified for inclusion in this review. AI-enabled socially assistive robotic interventions, specifically the PARO therapeutic robot, significantly reduced agitation and anxiety when compared to standard treatment or control conditions. The pooled analysis showed that agitation [SMD = -0.44 (95 % CI: -0.70, -0.18) p = 0.0008] and anxiety [SMD = -0.59 (95 % CI: -0.91, -0.27) p = 0.0003] were reduced significantly, while the decrease in depression [SMD = -0.44 (95 % CI: -0.95, -0.07) p = 0.09] scores was non-significant among dementia patients receiving PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions as compared to the control. The overall risk of bias across all six studies was considered low to moderate. CONCLUSION: PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions may provide preliminary evidence of effectiveness in reducing agitation and anxiety in individuals with dementia in Australian healthcare, but the evidence regarding the reduction of depression remains unclear. Therefore, additional high-quality trials with consistent methodology and extended follow-up will be necessary to determine both the short-term and long-term clinical efficacy and practicality of implementing these interventions into practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety Profile of the Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Celecoxib in the Short-Term Management of Acute Non-cancer Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature regarding the safety of short-term use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Participants comprised individuals of all ages with acute non-cancer pain. Interventions included celecoxib at 200-400 mg/day for up to 10 days. The comparators were placebo, other NSAIDs (including cyclooxygenase-2 [COX-2] inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDS [nsNSAIDS]), or opioids. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched from inception to April 2025: Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Additionally, a registry was searched: ClinicalTrials.gov. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for severe cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal adverse events and secondary outcomes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised trials (RoB-2) was used to assess bias risk. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was conducted to assess the certainty of evidence of each reported outcome. RESULTS: Title/abstract and full text screening comprised 3976 and 273 studies, respectively. Fifty studies were included with 10,693 participants. The RRs for adverse events were no different between celecoxib and placebo for severe events (3 studies) (RR 0.44 [95% CI 0.10-2.03]), cardiovascular (3 studies) (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.24-2.92]), respiratory (4 studies) (RR 1.23 [95% CI 0.29-5.26]), and gastrointestinal events (33 studies) (RR 0.96 [95% CI 0.64-1.43]). There was no difference between celecoxib and NSAIDS for gastrointestinal adverse events, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.68-1.17). Celecoxib had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal events, RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.14-0.86), and showed a lower risk of nausea compared with placebo, RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.93), and nsNSAIDS, RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64-0.99). Most studies had some risk of bias concerns, and the overall certainty of evidence for most outcomes was very low. Celecoxib appears to be safe for acute non-cancer pain when compared to placebo, NSAIDS, and opioids. It had a lower risk compared to opioids for gastrointestinal adverse events in general, nausea and vomiting, as well as a lower risk for nausea adverse events when compared to placebo and nsNSAIDS. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42025642152.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early and accurate diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its organ involvement is essential. Previous reviews of machine learning (ML) in SLE combined heterogeneous tasks and validation strategies and may have overinterpreted model performance. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and deep learning (DL) models for 3 clinically distinct SLE-related tasks: SLE classification or diagnosis, lupus nephritis (LN) diagnosis, and neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) discrimination. We also assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched from January 2014 to April 2026. Eligible peer-reviewed diagnostic accuracy studies developed or validated ML or DL models for 1 of the 3 prespecified tasks, used an accepted reference standard, and provided data for a 2×2 contingency table. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment were used to pool sensitivity and specificity. We reported 95% prediction intervals (PIs), assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Artificial Intelligence tool (QUADAS-AI; Viknesh Sounderajah [Imperial College London]), and evaluated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included: 17 for SLE classification, 5 for LN diagnosis, and 7 for NPSLE discrimination. In the primary task-stratified analysis, pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94; 95% PI 0.56-0.99), and pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96; 95% PI 0.69-0.99), with low heterogeneity (I²=23.9% and 22.9%, respectively). DL models showed a sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.95, compared with 0.88 and 0.94 for traditional ML models. Certainty of evidence was high for most analyses but low for LN diagnosis because of inconsistency and imprecision. All studies were retrospective, and only 9 of 29 (31%) performed independent external validation. Overall risk of bias was high or unclear in 22 of 29 (75.9%) studies. No study reported model calibration, decision-curve analysis, or net clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: ML models showed promising diagnostic accuracy across 3 distinct SLE-related tasks, but wide PIs, limited external validation, and pervasive risk of bias restrict conclusions about real-world generalizability. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized tasks and reference standards, independent external validation, and formal assessment of calibration and clinical utility are required before clinical implementation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Are There Any Effective Behavior Change Strategies for Communicating Genetic Risk in Obesity Prevention and Body Weight Reduction Interventions?

This systematic review examined how differences in intervention components may contribute to inconsistent findings in genetic risk communication studies, addressing obesity-related outcomes (e.g., weight reduction, nutrition behavior, exercise). The review was preregistered (PROSPERO #CRD42024524026) and followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches across eight databases identified 23 randomized controlled trials, covering 18 intervention trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. A narrative synthesis was used to cluster studies by the content of intervention and control groups. Genetic risk communication alone (no behavioral counseling, addressing nutrition and exercise) or combined with phenotype-based risk was ineffective and sometimes counterproductive among low-risk individuals. When combined with personalized behavioral counseling, effectiveness improved, but only when compared to waitlist control groups or non-personalized behavioral counseling. Significant effects emerged in high-genetic risk subgroups within personalized behavioral counseling, using behavior change techniques such as problem-solving, feedback on behavior, self-monitoring, and environmental changes. The most promising results emerged from complex interventions integrating genetic risk communication into multiple sessions and combining numerous additional behavioral change techniques, such as social reward, cues/prompts, self-reward. Complex personalized interventions combining multiple behavior change techniques and prompting experiential genetic risk awareness show promise for improving weight, nutrition, and exercise-related outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The effectiveness of digital health interventions for type 2 diabetes in underserved populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (1835 participants) evaluated whether digital health interventions (DHIs) improve glycemic control among underserved adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), including racial/ethnic minority, low-income, Medicaid-insured, rural, and low-health-literacy populations. Searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 20, 2025 identified eligible parallel-group randomized controlled trials reporting change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analysis showed that DHIs produced a modest but statistically significant HbA1c reduction versus control (mean difference, -0.37 %age points; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.30; P < .0001; equivalent to -4.0 mmol/mol). Heterogeneity was moderate-to-substantial (I² = 69.9%). Subgroup analyses suggested directionally similar effects by population group and intervention modality, but interpretation was limited by study-level data and the small number of trials. Funnel-plot inspection and Egger's test (P = .31) did not suggest major small-study effects, although power was limited. Overall certainty for HbA1c was moderate. DHIs may support more equitable diabetes care when implemented with cultural tailoring, language access, digital-literacy support, and technology-access safeguards.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Medically Unexplained Symptoms: A Systematic Umbrella Review of Current Terminology and Reported Rationales.

OBJECTIVES: Toaddress current naming conventions for Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS) through a systematic umbrella review. The terminology used and the provided rationales were considered. METHODS: Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024526020), this review searched 8 key databases, last on January 28, 2025. Reviews including medically unexplained symptoms (or synonym or subtype) in their systematic search terms were included (N=422). RESULTS: A total of 577 references to 111 terms were made across the reviews, with numerous reviews using the same overarching terms, including "functional" (n=233), "somatic" (or variants thereof, n=51), and "medically unexplained" (n=28). Thirty percent of terms (n=179) were to specific syndromes or terms that did not group together under an overarching term, suggesting substantial variability in terms, even though over 60% of authors were primarily associated with just 3 disciplines: medicine, allied health, and psychology. A subset of 23 reviews provided rationales, which were subjected to content analysis and a ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) risk-of-bias assessment. This analysis showed that rationales tended to (1) highlight differences between psychological, psychiatric, and other medical fields (n=7); (2) focus on the patient perspective and patient-practitioner therapeutic relationship (n=10); or (3) follow broad and/or commonly used terms (n=7). DISCUSSION: The current landscape of terminology used for MUS remains varied, nuanced, and inconsistent between disciplines. Moving forward to a more universal language accepted and used by both patients and practitioners would aid in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of MUS.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Seed-derived mucilage polysaccharides as biomaterials for in vivo tissue regeneration: A systematic review.

Chronic wounds, bone defects, and cartilage injuries represent persistent clinical challenges requiring biomaterial platforms that actively regulate inflammation, oxidative stress, angiogenesis, and extracellular matrix remodeling. Conventional synthetic dressings often provide limited biological activity in these contexts. Seed-derived mucilages - polysaccharide-rich hydrocolloids obtained from chia (Salvia hispanica), flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), psyllium (Plantago ovata), guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), quince (Cydonia oblonga) etc. - have emerged as biocompatible, biodegradable, and chemically versatile platforms for tissue engineering. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesized in vivo evidence on seed-derived mucilage-based biomaterials across wound healing, bone repair, cartilage regeneration, and related applications. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for original in vivo experimental studies published in English between 2020 and 2026. Eligible studies reported at least one measurable regenerative outcome. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers, and methodological quality was assessed using the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool. Forty-three studies were included. Hydrogels were the dominant biomaterial format, followed by films, scaffolds, sponges, nanoparticle systems, and bilayer or Janus composites. Included systems generally improved wound closure, re-epithelialization, collagen deposition, angiogenesis, antioxidant defense, and inflammatory regulation. However, most studies used small animals with short follow-up periods, and many incorporated nanoparticles or bioactive agents, limiting attribution of efficacy to the mucilage matrix alone. Risk of bias was predominantly unclear due to insufficient reporting of randomization and blinding. Blank mucilage controls, standardized characterization, long-term biosafety data, and clinically relevant models are essential prerequisites for translational progress.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Applications of artificial intelligence in robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review.

To characterize applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in robot-assisted surgery, summarize technical and clinical performance, and assess the quality of the available evidence. PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus were searched for English-language journal articles published from 1 January 2020 through 31 October 2025. Randomized, observational, model-development, validation, and feasibility studies evaluating AI in robot-assisted surgery or closely related image-guided minimally invasive workflows were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Owing to heterogeneity in surgical procedures, AI tasks, analytical units, validation strategies, and outcomes, findings were synthesized descriptively without statistical pooling. The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251175699). Seventeen studies were included: seven clinical prediction or decision-support studies, eight intraoperative recognition, segmentation, or image-guided studies, and two training or workflow studies. Five prediction studies reported area-under-the-curve values of 0.74-0.95. Technical studies reported F1 or Dice scores of 0.525-0.995 and task-specific accuracies of 0.840-0.998. Two randomized studies suggested benefits for personalized suturing feedback and automated camera control, but neither established improved patient outcomes. Only one study had low overall risk of bias; the remaining studies were at high or unclear risk or raised some concerns. AI applications in robot-assisted surgery show promise for prediction, intraoperative perception, training, and workflow support. Evidence primarily demonstrates technical feasibility rather than established clinical effectiveness. Independent multicenter validation and prospective evaluation of patient, educational, and workflow outcomes are required before widespread implementation.

Robotic Surgical Procedures↗

PubMed2026

Meaning in Life in Palliative Cancer Care: Psychosocial and Existential Outcomes-A Systematic Review.

BackgroundExistential distress, marked by hopelessness, loss of meaning, and spiritual suffering, is prevalent among patients with advanced illness, and is associated with psychological burden and a wish to hasten death (WTHD).PurposeThis systematic review aimed to synthesize current evidence on meaning in life (MIL) in adult palliative care (PC) populations, focusing on its associations with quality of life (QOL), mental health, existential and spiritual well-being (SWB), and WTHD.MethodsMEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies (English, 2016-2024) involving adult cancer patients receiving PC. MIL was examined as a central intervention component or outcome. Risk of bias was assessed: findings were synthesized narratively. The review was registered in PROSPERO.ResultsEight studies (n = 1733 participants) were included: four cross-sectional, two randomized controlled trials, one longitudinal observational study, and one qualitative study. Several studies had small samples and substantial attrition. Risk of bias was high (n = 7), and moderate in one cross-sectional study. MIL was inversely associated with depression, anxiety, demoralization, and WTHD; and positively associated with QOL and SWB. MIL may also mediate psychological outcomes (eg, purpose, coherence, and personal values). However, heterogeneity in MIL conceptualization and measurement, combined with low methodological quality, limited comparability and certainty of findings.ConclusionMIL may be relevant to psychosocial/existential outcomes in PC. Conclusions are constrained by a small and methodologically weak evidence base. Further high-quality, longitudinal research is needed before MIL-centered interventions can be recommended for routine clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Association between youth athletes' sports specialization and injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the specialization-injury relationship, and explore whether the specialization-injury relationship is moderated by study design, sport type, age, sex, and injury measurement type, injury mechanism, and anatomical location. METHODS: We searched eight databases by related keywords and assessed the quality of the included studies using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) statistical software 3.7 examined heterogeneity, sensitivity, publication bias, overall effect size of specialization-injury relationship, and moderation effects. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251233318). Searches were conducted in eight electronic databases from inception to March, 2026. RESULTS: The 15 included studies showed moderate heterogeneity, stable sensitivity analyses, and no publication bias. The overall odds ratio of the sports specialization-injury relationship was 2.00 (95% confidence interval [1.58-2.55], p < .001). Moderation analyses indicated that sport type significantly influenced the specialization-injury relationship, whereas no significant moderation effects were observed for study design, sex, age, injury measurement type, injury mechanism, and injury anatomical location. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a positive association between sport specialization and injury risk among youth athletes, with variation across sport participation contexts. Specifically, athletes in both contact and non-contact sports demonstrated higher pooled odds of injury than those involved in multiple sports. Although the evidence is heterogeneous and should be interpreted with caution, these findings highlight the potential role of diversified sport participation in relation to injury.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Enhanced fracture detection on radiographs with AI assistance for clinicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency radiographic interpretation for fractures is prone to missed or misdiagnoses. Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to become a powerful tool to assist clinicians in fracture detection. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess whether AI improves clinicians' ability to detect fractures on radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1, 2010, and October 10, 2025. A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies was performed using a Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curve. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included . The pooled sensitivity of clinicians increased from 77% (95% CI: 72-81) to 87% (95% CI: 83-90) with AI assistance, while the pooled specificity improved from 88% (95% CI: 85-90) to 92% (95% CI: 89-94). The corresponding AUC values were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) before and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) after AI assistance. Eight studies were rated as high risk of bias. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified potential sources of heterogeneity, including fracture location, AI model type, high risk of bias, and reference standards. CONCLUSION: AI assistance significantly improves clinicians' diagnostic performance in detecting fractures on radiographs for extremity and trunk fractures.

Humans↗