BackgroundThe effects of psychological interventions on symptoms and psychology of functional dyspepsia (FD) remain unclear. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on symptoms and psychology of FD.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of psychological interventions in FD patients published before July 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by a random effects model. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed.ResultsFourteen RCTs with a total of 1,434 FD patients were included. Compared with the control group, psychological interventions were significantly more likely to symptom improvement [RR = 1.74, 95% CI (1.12, 2.72), p = 0.01], relieve gastrointestinal symptoms scores at follow up [SMD = −1.06, 95% CI (−1.55, −0.57), p < 0.0001], relieve gastrointestinal symptoms scores at end of treatment [SMD = −0.98, 95% CI (−1.29, −0.67), p < 0.001], decrease anxiety [SMD = −0.8, 95% CI (−1.38, −0.22), p = 0.006] and depression levels [SMD = −1.11, 95% CI (−1.62, −0.61), p < 0.001]. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that psychotherapy was more likely to symptom improvement, relieve gastrointestinal symptoms scores and decreased depression levels compared to the control.ConclusionsPsychological interventions may be effective in alleviating the symptoms and psychology of FD, but the effect appears to be limited to psychotherapy with fewer trials for other psychological interventions. More data from high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm their use in the treatment of FD.

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results. AIM To compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions. METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications. In addition, factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed. RESULTS Data on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%) vs 75% (67%-81%), respectively. In any case, both SC and LBC exhibited a high specificity close to 100%. Inadequate samples more often appeared in LBC compared with SC. However, the LBC samples exhibited a better visual field than SC. Very few post procedure complications were observed. CONCLUSION Our data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique. If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.

No abstract