Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of the diagnosis and treatment of psychocardiacology on patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with anxiety and depression, and to provide evidence-based medicine for clinical practice. Methods: The Chinese and English studies related to this Meta analysis were collected and published in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China knowledge Network, Wanfang Medical Network, VIP Database and China Biomedical Literature Database. The search time is due to December 2018. The data were analyzed by the RevMan software, and the methodological quality of the included literatures were evaluated with the Risk of bias evaluation criteria, and the heterogeneity of outcomes were determined by subgroup analysis, and using sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results. The funnel chart was used to evaluate the publication bias, and the GRADE system tool was used to evaluate the evidence grade of the results of this study. Results: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, involving 1035 patients. Only 1 paper was of relatively high quality. The results of Meta analysis showed that compared with the control group, the scores of SAS and SDS in the intervention group decreased significantly, the left ventricular ejection fraction increased, the effective rate of treatment increased significantly, and the incidence of adverse cardiac events decreased. The results of subgroup analysis showed that the heterogeneous sources of SAS and SDS may be related to the types of intervention measures for the diagnosis and treatment of psychocardiacology, and the heterogeneous sources of LVEF may be related to the follow-up time. The results of sensitivity analysisshowed that the stability of SAS, SDS, LVEF, effective rate and incidence of major cardiac adverse events may be good, while the HAMD, SAQ and BNP may be poor.Funnel plot analysis shows that there may be publication bias in SAS and SDS.Grade evidence grade evaluation indicates that the evide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: