Background/Aim: Anxiety disorders are associated with impairments in several aspects of cognitive processing. In this study we investigated three such aspects, i.e., time perspective, repetitive negative thinking (worry and rumination), and executive functioning, in persons with anxiety disorders compared to healthy controls and examined the influence of negative past and negative future time perspective and executive functioning on worry and rumination. Method: Thirty-six psychiatric outpatients with anxiety disorders (mean age = 30.83, SD = 11.74; 30 females and 6 males) and 44 healthy controls (mean age = 28.89, SD = 9.54; 24 females and 20 males) completed inventories of time perspective and repetitive negative thinking, and tasks measuring executive functioning (shifting and inhibition). Results: The groups (patient vs. control) differed significantly on all time perspective dimensions (past, present, and future), with largest effect sizes observed for negative past and negative future. Regression analyses with executive functioning, negative past, and negative future time perspectives as predictors, and worry and rumination as outcomes, showed that negative past time perspective was the best predictor for rumination, whereas negative future time perspective more strongly predicted worry. Executive functioning was not a significant predictor of either worry or rumination. Conclusions: Individuals with anxiety disorders demonstrated systematic biases in all time perspective dimensions, particularly negative past and negative future time perspective, which was further related to worry and rumination. Thus, interventions targeting temporal focus may be one way of reducing repetitive negative thinking. A major limitation of this study was the use of a cross-section design.

Background: Unintended perioperative hypothermia is a significant complication for patients undergoing anesthesia. Different measures are routinely undertaken to prevent hypothermia and its consequences. The evidence comparing the impact of self-warming blankets and forced-air warming is scarce. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of self-warming blankets compared to forced-air devices regarding the incidence of perioperative hypothermia. Methods: We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant studies from inception until December 2022. We included comparative studies with patients allocated to undergo warming using a self-warming blanket or forced air warming. All concerned outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences (MDs) in the meta-analysis models using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Our results from 8 studies (597 patients) favored self-warming blankets over forced-air devices in terms of core temperature at 120 and 180 minutes after induction of general anesthesia (MD = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14–0.51], P = .0006), (MD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09–1.14], P = .02), respectively. However, the overall effect did not favor either of the 2 groups for the incidence of hypothermia (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% CI [0.18–2.62]). Conclusion: Ultimately, self-warming blankets have a more significant effect than forced-air warming systems in terms of maintaining normothermia of core temperature after induction anesthesia. However, the present evidence is not enough to verify the efficacy of the 2 warming techniques in the incidence of hypothermia. Further studies with large sample sizes are recommended.

We conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the existing evidence and to quantitatively synthesise evidence on the impact of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) on severe COVID‐19 patients. This systematic review and meta‐analysis protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316331). We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, http://clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception until 1 June 2022. We included studies comparing patients who received TPE versus those who received the standard treatment. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, the ROBINS1 tool, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for RCTs, non‐RCTs, and observational studies, respectively. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio in the random effect model with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Thirteen studies (one randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 12 non‐RCTs) were included in the meta‐analysis, with a total of 829 patients. There is a moderate‐quality evidence from one RCT that TPE reduces the lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (SMD −1.09, 95% CI [−1.59 to −0.60]), D‐dimer (SMD −0.86, 95% CI [−1.34 to −0.37]), and ferritin (SMD −0.70, 95% CI [−1.18 to −0.23]), and increases the absolute lymphocyte count (SMD 0.54, 95% CI [0.07–1.01]), There is low‐quality evidence from mixed‐design studies that TPE was associated with lower mortality (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI [0.35–0.74]), lower IL‐6 (SMD −0.91, 95% CI [−1.19 to −0.63]), and lower ferritin (SMD −0.51, 95% CI [−0.80 to −0.22]) compared to the standard control. Among severely affected COVID‐19 patients, TPE might provide benefits such as decreasing the mortality rate, LDH, D‐dimer, IL‐6, and ferritin, in addition to increasing the higher absolute lymphocyte count. Further well‐designed RCTs are needed.

No abstract

Background: As an antioxidant, vitamin E (VitE) may benefit the erythrocytes by protecting glutathione from oxidation by free radicals and peroxide-generating processes. Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines when reporting this systematic review. We searched 6 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) until May 8, 2022. We included all relevant studies. According to the study design, the Cochrane assessment tool (Risk of Bias 2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions checklists, and National Institutes of Health tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Continuous data were pooled as a mean difference (MD) with a relative 95% confidence interval. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022333848). Results: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 181 patients. Compared with the control group, VitE significantly improved the hemoglobin level for chronic hemolysis (MD = 2.72 g/dL, P < .0001) and for acute hemolysis (MD = 1.18 g/dL, P < .0001). It also decreased the reticulocyte level for chronic hemolysis (MD = −1.39 P < .0001) and for acute hemolysis (MD = −1.42%, P < .0001). For before and after studies, the use of VitE significantly improved the level of packed cell volume (MD = 0.56%, P < .00001), red blood cell half-life (MD = 2.19 days, P < .0001), and decreased the reticulocytes level (MD = −1.41%, P < .00001). Conclusion: Among patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, VitE might provide benefits such as increasing the hemoglobin, packed cell volume levels, red blood cell half-life, and decreasing the reticulocyte level, so reducing hemolysis. Further high-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials are recommended.