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: 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)].