Effectiveness comparisons of various psychosocial therapies for cancer-related fatigue: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effect of several psychosocial therapies on CRF critically. METHODS: We applied systematic strategies based on eight databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wan Fang database, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database to preliminary literature retrieval to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies, including adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with cancer, were eligible regardless of cancer stage and current treatment. We carried out an expression analysis for comparing the efficacy of various psychosocial therapies using Bayesian NMA. A battery of analyses and assessments, such as conventional meta-analysis and risk of bias, were performed concurrently. RESULTS: We identified 41 RCTs including six different psychosocial interventions (4422 participants), namely cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy (MBSR), psychoeducational therapy (PE), stress management therapy (SMT), meditation therapy (MT) and comprehensive therapy (CT). Our NMA results showed that three psychosocial intervention therapies were effective for CRF in cancer patients. The most effective psychosocial intervention was MBSR (SMD = -1.23, CrI: -1.88, -0.59, SUCRA = 83.33%), followed by PE (SMD = -0.86, CrI: -1.53, -0.18, SUCRA = 58.51%) and CBT (SMD = -0.84, CrI: -1.31, -0.37, SUCRA = 57.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that MBSR was most likely to be the best psychosocial intervention to relieve CRF in cancer patients. Medical staff should pay attention to applying MBSR to cancer patients in future clinical care.