AIMS: This study aims to assess the efficacy of resistance training in preventing sarcopenia among breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL until May 5, 2023. Selected literature focused on the effects of resistance training on body fat, muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 was employed for quality assessment, and data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2.0.
RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that resistance training had a significant positive impact on reducing body fat (SMD = -0.250, 95% CI [-0.450, -0.050]), increasing lean body mass (SMD = 0.374, 95% CI [0.178, 0.571]), and enhancing handgrip strength at both the affected site (SMD = 0.326, 95% CI [0.108, 0.543]) and the nonaffected site (SMD = 0.276, 95% CI [0.059, 0.492]). Additionally, significant improvements were observed in leg press strength (SMD = 0.598, 95% CI [0.401, 0.796]) and overall physical performance (SMD = 0.671, 95% CI [0.419, 0.923]).
LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Resistance training is a recommended intervention for reducing body fat, increasing muscle mass, muscle strength, and enhancing physical performance in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Ideal low-intensity resistance training programs span 8-24 weeks, with 20-to-90-min sessions 2-4 times weekly. Regimens generally entail 8-12 repetitions at 40%-90% of one-repetition maximum test, with free-weight resistance training targeting major muscle groups yielding substantial benefits. Further research should explore outcomes across different chemotherapy phases and investigate long-term resistance training effects for a comprehensive view.
AIM: This review aimed to study the short- (≤3 months) and long-term (>3 months) effectiveness and sustainable benefit of different burning mouth syndrome treatment strategies and the associated side effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomised controlled trials of burning mouth syndrome treatment compared with placebo or other interventions with a minimum follow up of 2 months were searched from the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database (published to July 2020).
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and analysed. Nine categories of burning mouth syndrome treatment were identified: Anticonvulsant and antidepressant agents, phytomedicine and alpha lipoic acid supplements, low-level laser therapy, saliva substitute, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and cognitive behaviour therapy. Cognitive behaviour therapy, topical capsaicin and clonazepam, and laser therapy demonstrated favourable outcome in both short- and long-term assessment. Phytomedicines reported a short-term benefit in pain score reduction. The pooled effect of alpha lipoic acid (ALA) pain score improvement was low, but its positive effects increased in long term assessment.
CONCLUSION: A more significant volume in terms of sample size, multi-centres, and multi-arm comparison of therapeutic agents with placebo and longitudinal follow-up studies is recommended to establish a standardised burning mouth syndrome treatment protocol. Further studies are required to assess the analgesic benefits of topical clonazepam and capsaicin, alternative medicines with neurodegenerative prevention capability and psychology support in treating burning mouth syndrome and reducing systemic adverse drug reactions.Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):Protocol ID - CRD42020160892.
METHODS: Patients having migraine for more than six months attending the Neurology Clinic, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia, were recruited. Standard forward and back translation procedures were used to translate and adapt the MIDAS questionnaire to produce the Bahasa Melayu version. The translated Malay version was tested for face and content validity. Validity and reliability testing were further conducted with 100 migraine patients (1st administration) followed by a retesting session 21 days later (2nd administration).
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients between 15 and 60 years of age were recruited. The majority of the patients were single (66%) and students (46%). Cronbach's alpha values were 0.84 (1st administration) and 0.80 (2nd administration). The test-retest reliability for the total MIDAS score was 0.73, indicating that the MIDAS-M questionnaire is stable; for the five disability questions, the test-retest values ranged from 0.77 to 0.87.
CONCLUSION: The MIDAS-M questionnaire is comparable with the original English version in terms of validity and reliability and may be used for the assessment of migraine in clinical settings.