Alison K Reynard1, Amy Burleson Sullivan1, Alexander Rae-Grant1. 1. Psychiatry and Psychology (AKR, ABS) and the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research (ABS, ARG), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Dr. Reynard is now with NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify stress-management interventions used for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and systematically evaluate the efficacy of these interventions. METHODS: Several strategies were used to search for studies reported in articles published up to 2013. RESULTS: Our initial search retrieved 117 publications, of which 8 met our criteria for review. Of the eight studies, one provided Class I evidence, five provided Class III evidence, and two provided Class IV evidence for the efficacy of stress-management interventions according to the evidence classification established by the American Academy of Neurology. Most studies showed positive changes in outcomes assessed; however, the range of methodological quality among the published studies made it difficult to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The promising findings for stress-management interventions highlight the need for future studies. Additional large, prospective, multicenter studies will help to define the role of stress-management interventions in the treatment and course of MS. Furthermore, including outcome measures based on biological and clinical markers of disease will prove useful in understanding potential underlying mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify stress-management interventions used for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and systematically evaluate the efficacy of these interventions. METHODS: Several strategies were used to search for studies reported in articles published up to 2013. RESULTS: Our initial search retrieved 117 publications, of which 8 met our criteria for review. Of the eight studies, one provided Class I evidence, five provided Class III evidence, and two provided Class IV evidence for the efficacy of stress-management interventions according to the evidence classification established by the American Academy of Neurology. Most studies showed positive changes in outcomes assessed; however, the range of methodological quality among the published studies made it difficult to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The promising findings for stress-management interventions highlight the need for future studies. Additional large, prospective, multicenter studies will help to define the role of stress-management interventions in the treatment and course of MS. Furthermore, including outcome measures based on biological and clinical markers of disease will prove useful in understanding potential underlying mechanisms.
Authors: Artemios K Artemiadis; Angeliki A Vervainioti; Evangelos C Alexopoulos; Antonis Rombos; Maria C Anagnostouli; Christina Darviri Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: David C Mohr; Jesus Lovera; Ted Brown; Bruce Cohen; Thomas Neylan; Roland Henry; Juned Siddique; Ling Jin; David Daikh; Daniel Pelletier Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kristin M Phillips; Michael H Antoni; Suzanne C Lechner; Bonnie B Blomberg; Maria M Llabre; Eli Avisar; Stefan Glück; Robert DerHagopian; Charles S Carver Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Saskia Elkhalii-Wilhelm; Anna Sippel; Karin Riemann-Lorenz; Christopher Kofahl; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Sigrid Arnade; Ingo Kleiter; Stephan Schmidt; Christoph Heesen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 3.752