The Effect of Hypnosis on Anxiety in Patients With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis : Hypnosis Effect Anxiety in Cancer Patients

To quantify and compare potential benefits (subjective reports of sleep variables) and risks (adverse events and morning-after psychomotor impairment) of short term treatment with sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane clinical trials database, PubMed, and PsychLit, 1966 to 2003; bibliographies of published reviews and meta-analyses; manufacturers of newer sedative hypnotics (zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone) regarding unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for insomnia for at least five consecutive nights in people aged 60 or over with insomnia and otherwise free of psychiatric or psychological disorders. 24 studies (involving 2417 participants) with extractable data met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep quality improved (effect size 0.14, P 0.05), and reports of daytime fatigue were 3.82 times more common (1.88 to 7.80, P < 0.001) in people using any sedative compared with placebo. Improvements in sleep with sedative use are statistically significant, but the magnitude of effect is small. The increased risk of adverse events is statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant in older people at risk of falls and cognitive impairment. In people over 60, the benefits of these drugs may not justify the increased risk, particularly if the patient has additional risk factors for cognitive or psychomotor adverse events.

Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81-1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions.

The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of anxiety and depression in cancer patients with the prevalence found in the general population, using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Participants were 1529 cancer patients treated between 2002 and 2004 in Germany and 2037 persons from the German general population. In the cancer patients, the risk of psychiatric distress was nearly twice that of the general population. While for older age groups (61 years and above) there were only small differences between cancer patients and the general population, the differences in both scales were high for young persons. There were differences between the HADS mean scores of the patients with different tumour localisations, with high values for brain cancer and low scores for prostate cancer. The influence of the tumour stage on anxiety and depression was weak. However, depression scores of patients with a survival time less than 1 year were elevated. The results show that large sample sizes are necessary to evaluate the psychological situation of cancer patients, and that age and gender differences must be taken into account when several samples are compared.