CASE REPORT: This is a case report of 19 years old gentleman who presented with fever, lower limb redness, pain and swelling. He was initially treated as cellulitis. However, based on the recovery of Brucella melitensis from his blood culture, he was later diagnosed to have brucellosis. He had a history of consumption of fresh goat's milk and uncooked meat which could have been the possible modes of transmission. Brucella serology IgM and IgG were both positive, and anti-Brucella immunocapture agglutination test (BrucellaCapt) was also positive with a titer of 1:2560. He was treated with six weeks of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and oral rifampin 450 mg twice daily.
DISCUSSION: This is a case of human brucellosis with atypical cutaneous involvement.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities and quality of life among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 16 March 2021. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 randomised controlled trials comprising 7998 participants. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. The updated review included 7998 randomised women; the original review included 3940 women. A wide range of interventions was evaluated. Most interventions were cognitive- or mindfulness-based, supportive-expressive, and educational. The interventions were mainly delivered face-to-face (56 studies) and in groups (50 studies) rather than individually (10 studies). Most intervention sessions were delivered on a weekly basis with an average duration of 14 hours. Follow-up time ranged from two weeks to 24 months. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated that the intervention may reduce depression (SMD -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.02; P = 0.04; 27 studies, 3321 participants, I2 = 91%, low-certainty evidence); anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.17; P = 0.0009; 22 studies, 2702 participants, I2 = 89%, low-certainty evidence); mood disturbance in the intervention group (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.009; 13 studies, 2276 participants, I2 = 56%, low-certainty evidence); and stress (SMD -0.34, 95% (CI) -0.55 to -0.12; P = 0.002; 8 studies, 564 participants, I2 = 31%, low-certainty evidence). The intervention is likely to improve quality of life in the intervention group (SMD 0.78, 95% (CI) 0.32 to 1.24; P = 0.0008; 20 studies, 1747 participants, I2 = 95%, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, psychological intervention may have produced favourable effects on psychological outcomes, in particular depression, anxiety, mood disturbance and stress. There was also an improvement in quality of life in the psychological intervention group compared to control group. Overall, there was substantial variation across the studies in the range of psychological interventions used, control conditions, measures of the same outcome and timing of follow-up.
RESULTS: Out of the six clinical trials selected, a significant impact of trauma was observed in individuals in all but one paper. Gender predilection varied across studies and could not be conclusively determined. The follow-up period ranged from two months to two years in the trials. The odds ratio (OR) 0.38 [0.19, 0.77] and the risk ratio (RR) 0.52 [0.32, 0.85] indicated that both the odds as well as the relative risk of experiencing dental trauma were lower in the group with negligible impact compared to the group with noticeable impact. Conclusion and further implications: The findings show that dental trauma significantly affects orthodontic parameters, with lower risk and likelihood of suffering dental trauma in the group with negligible impact than in the group with noticeable impact. However, given the substantial heterogeneity among the studies, it is advised to exercise caution when extrapolating the findings to all populations. Registration and protocol: Registration in the PROSPERO database was carried out before initiating the investigation [CRD42023407218].