4.4 Review

Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1179-1191

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1736312

关键词

Anxiety; cognitive behavioral therapy; depression; meta-analysis; pain; rheumatoid arthritis

资金

  1. Jiangsu Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning Foundation [Z201622, N2017009]
  2. Jiangsu Province '333 high-level talent training project' Foundation [BRA2016198]
  3. Jiangsu Province Youth Medical Talent Foundation [QNRC2016409]
  4. Jiangsu Province 'six talent peak high-level personnel training project' Foundation [WSN-234]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on the psychological and physiological health of rheumatoid arthritis patients. An extensive literature search was conducted, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI Scholar, WanFang, and VIP databases, from inception to December2018. The quality of the studies was evaluated by 2 independent authors, according to the basic criteria provided by the Cochrane Handbook for evaluating randomized trials. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3. Six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of the current study. Using standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), our results showed that cognitive behavioral therapy could significantly reduce levels of anxiety (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09], P= 0.005) and depression (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.27], P< 0.00001), and relieve fatigue symptoms (SMD = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.10], P= 0.006) in rheumatoid arthritis patients.This is the first known assessment of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy on rheumatoid arthritis patients using meta-analysis. Large-scale randomized controlled trials need to be implemented to further explore this issue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据