OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of internet-based mindfulness interventions on the physical symptoms of people living with cancer, where physical symptoms are defined as distressing somatic experiences (eg fatigue, insomnia, and pain) regardless of the underlying cause. The secondary aim was to investigate interventions for the quality of life (QoL).

METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were systematically searched using electronic databases, namely Scopus, Medline through PubMed, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) through EBSCOhost, and Cochrane Central Database. Randomized controlled and pilot trials involving adults and/or older adults with cancer and using remote-based mindfulness interventions compared to usual care were included. The quality of the trials included in this study was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias, version 2.0. This study estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. The I2 test was used to identify potential causes of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using contour-enhanced funnel plots and the Egger linear regression test to reveal a small study effect.

RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1985 records, of which 13 studies were ultimately included. After treatment, remote-based mindfulness significantly reduced fatigue (SMD -0.94; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.33; P=.002), sleep disturbance (SMD -0.36; 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.12; P=.004), and improved physical function (SMD .25; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.41; P=.002) compared to that observed before treatment. However, compared with usual care, remote-based mindfulness showed a statistically significant reduction only in sleep disturbance (SMD: -0.37; 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.16; P=.0006) after treatment. Moreover, remote-based mindfulness was not statistically significant in reducing pain both within and between groups.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 until April 2022, and SLE patients were recruited to complete the SLEQoL, LupusQoL and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in Malay language. Disease activity were recorded using the modified SLE Disease Activity Index (M- SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 (BILAG-2004) index. Presence of organ damage was determined using the SLICC Damage index. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency while exploratory factor analysis was done to determine the construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with SF-36. Multiple linear regression analysis was deployed to determine the factors affecting each domain of SLEQoL and LupusQoL.

RESULTS: A total of 125 subjects were recruited. The Cronbach's α value for the Malay-SLEQoL (M-SLEQoL) and Malay-LupusQOL (M-LupusQoL) was 0.890 and 0.944 respectively. Exploratory factor analysis found formation of similar number of components with the original version of questionnaires and all items have good factor loading of >0.4. Both instruments also had good concurrent validity with SF-36. M-SLEQoL had good correlations with BILAG-2004 and M-SLEDAI scores. Musculoskeletal (MSK) involvement was independently associated with lower M-SLEQoL in physical function, activity and symptom domains. Meanwhile, MSK and NPSLE were associated with fatigue in M-LupusQoL.

METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search through five databases, namely, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Wiley, and ProQuest to assess the efficacy of phytopharmaceuticals until July 12, 2022. We used the Cochrane RoB 2.0 for the quality assessment of the study.

RESULTS: Phytopharmaceuticals significantly improved patients' recovery rate (OR = 3.54; p < 0.00001) and reduced deaths (OR = 0.24; p < 0.0001) compared to the control group. Phytopharmaceuticals also performed as a protective factor for COVID-19 clinical symptoms, such as dyspnea (OR = 0.42; p < 0.05) and myalgia (OR = 0.31; p = 0.02) compared to the control group. However, there is no statistically significant effect on cough (OR = 0.76; p = 0.61) and fever (OR = 0.60; p < 0.20). The results were not affected by patients' covariates [hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases (meta-regression p > 0.05)].