Highlights
- •Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are complex interventions.
- •The optimal MBI for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) is not known.
- •MBIs appear to be moderately effective in improving fatigue in PwMS.
- •Evidence for MBIs for relieving pain in PwMS is inconsistent.
Abstract
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords
1. Background
(2014) NIfHaCE. Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care2014Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186.
(2014) NIfHaCE. Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care2014Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186.
2. Methods
2.1 Protocol and registration
2.2 Eligibility for inclusion
2.3 Search strategy
2.4 Study selection, storage and screening
2.5 Data collection/data items
2.6 Quality appraisal
2.7 Principal summary measures
2.8 Synthesis of results
3. Results

3.1 Systematic review
3.1.1 Study characteristics
Study | Country | Study design | Powered(Y/N/unclear) | Comparator | Sample size(n) | Study attrition (%) | Outcome measures (others) | Data collection |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mills and Allen, 2000 | Wales (UK) | Randomised controlled trial | N | Treatment as usual | 24 | 33 | Profile of Mood States, Standing balance, Symptom rating questionnaire | oBaseline oPost MBI o3 months post MBI |
Grossman et al., 2010 | Switzerland | Randomised controlled trial | Y | Treatment as usual | 150 | 5 | Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression, Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Hamburg Quality of life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis, Profile of health-related Quality Of Life in Chronic disorders, Goal setting, Neuropsychology assessment | oBaseline oPost MBI o6 months post MBI |
Bogosian et al., 2015 | England (UK) | Randomised controlled trial | N | Treatment as usual | 40 | 5 | General Health Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29, EuroQol, Fatigue Severity Scale, Numerical Rating Scale (Pain) | oBaseline oPost MBI o3 months post MBI |
Mahdavi et al., 2016 | Iran | Randomised controlled trial | N | Indeterminate | 24 | 0 | Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Fatigue Severity Scale, Meta-Worry Questionnaire, Thought Fusion Inventory | oBaseline oPost MBI |
Nejati et al., 2016 | Iran | Randomised controlled trial | Unclear | Indeterminate | 24 | 0 | Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54, Fatigue Severity Scale | oBaseline oPost MBI |
Simpson et al., 2017 | Scotland (UK) | Randomised controlled trial | N | Treatment as usual | 50 | 12 | Perceived Stress Scale, EuroQol, Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Self-Compassion Scale-short form, Emotional Lability Questionnaire | oBaseline oPost MBI o3 months post MBI |
Carletto et al., 2017 | Italy | Randomised controlled trial | Y | Psycho-education | 90 | 21 | Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Perceived Stress Scale, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis, Fatigue Severity Scale | oBaseline oPost MBI o6 months post MBI |
Cavalera et al., 2018 | Italy | Randomised controlled trial | Y | Psycho-education | 139 | 39 | Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Medical Outcomes Sleep Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale | oBaseline oPost MBI o6 months post MBI |
Mosalanejad et al., 2018 | Iran | Randomised controlled trial | Unclear | Pelvic floor muscle exercises | 75 | 7 | Female Sexual Function Index | oBaseline oPost MBI o1-month post MBI |
Senders et al., 2018 | USA | Randomised controlled trial | Y | Psycho-education | 62 | 16 | Perceived Stress Scale, Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Paced Auditory Serial Attention Task | oBaseline oMid-intervention oPost MBI o4 months post MBI o8 months post MBI o12 months post-MBI |
3.1.2 Participant characteristics
Study/ demographic | Mills and Allen, 2000 | Grossman et al., 2010 | Bogosian et al., 2015 | Mahdavi et al., 2016 | Nejati et al., 2016 | Simpson et al., 2017 | Carletto et al., 2017 | Cavalera et al., 2018 | Mosalanejad et al., 2018 | Senders et al., 2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ethnicity | Not reported | Not reported | 90% British Caucasian | Not reported | Not reported | 100% British Caucasian | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | 97% Caucasian |
Number of participants (% F) | 16 (80%) | 150 (80%) | 40 (55%) | 24 (100%) | 24 (46%) | 50 (92%) | 90 (71%) | 139 (65%) | 75 (100%) | 67 (78%) |
Mean age (SD) | 49.8 (6.8) | 47.3 (10.3) | 52.2 (9.1) | NR | 32.3 (5.1) | 45 (10.9) | 44.6 (9.4) | 42.7 (8.7) | 37.5 (6.5) | 52.94 (11.37) |
Socio-economic status | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Postcode derived; controlled in analyses | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Employment status | 4 employed (25%) | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | 20 employed (40%) | 59 employed (65%) | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Education status (SD) | Not reported | Mean (SD) 14.1 (1.9) years of education | 31 (77.5) college education at least | Completed high school | Completed high school | (56%) university | Not reported | 11% elementary school;52% completed high school;38% university | Not reported | 60% college education at least |
Disease phenotype (%) | Secondary progressive 16 (100%) | Relapsing 123 (82%) Secondary progressive 27 (18%) | Secondary progressive 23 (57.5%) Primary progressive 17 (42.5%) | Not reported | Not reported | Relapsing 40 (80%) Secondary progressive 16 (32%) Primary progressive 4 (8%) | Relapsing 79 (88%) Secondary progressive 7 (8%) Primary progressive 2 (2%) | Relapsing 131 (93%) Secondary progressive 8 (7%) | Not reported | Relapsing 41 (67%) Secondary progressive 15 (25%) Primary progressive 4 (6%) Unknown 2 (3%) |
EDSS score | Not reported | Mean (SD) 3.0 (1.1) | Mean (SD) 6.5 (1.5) | Not reported | Not reported | 4.4 (1.8) | 2.3 (1.7) | Median 3.0 | Not reported | 4.6 (1.93) |
Comorbidities | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Mean 2.4 (2.0); Range 0-9 | Not reported | 1 participant had severe depression on HADS | Excluded if comorbid conditions | Not reported |
On DMDs | Not reported | 91 (60.1%) | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | 26 (52%) | Not reported | 104 | ||
(85%) | Not reported | 34 (55%) | ||||||||
Psychotropic medication(s) | Not reported | 30 (20%) | Not reported | Not reported | No | 23 (46%) | Not reported | 9 (6%) | Not reported | 35 (56%) |
3.1.3 Intervention characteristics
Study/ checklist item | Mills and Allen, 2000 | Grossman et al., 2010 | Bogosian et al., 2015 | Mahdavi et al., 2016 | Nejati et al., 2016 | Simpson et al., 2017 | Carletto et al., 2017 | Cavalera et al., 2018 | Mosalanejad et al., 2018 | Senders et al., 2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Brief name? | Mindfulness of Movement | Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) | Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy | Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy | MBSR and Conscious Yoga | Mindfulness-based stress reduction | Modified MBSR – ‘Body Affective Mindfulness’ | Mindfulness-based stress reduction | ‘Mindfulness’ | Mindfulness-based stress reduction |
2. Why(stated rationale/ theory/ goal)? | Develop moment to moment awareness of breath, posture, movement with compassion | Cultivate interested, accepting, non-judgmental attitude to experience, including difficult sensations, emotions, thoughts and behavior | Adaptation of MBSR. Focus on negative thinking, engaging low mood, changing relationship with thoughts, feelings, sensations, no longer avoiding/ reacting to them automatically | Adaptation of MBSR. Focus on negative thinking, engaging low mood, changing relationship with thoughts, feelings, sensations, no longer avoiding/ reacting to them automatically | Facilitate the compliance with and adaptation to medical conditions. Pay attention to being present in a non-judgmental manner | Cultivate interested, accepting, non-judgmental attitude to experience, including difficult sensations, emotions, thoughts and behavior | Cultivation of mindful awareness, loving kindness, enrichment of listening, self-compassion, sensorimotor psychotherapy principles ‘window of tolerance’ | Cultivate interested, accepting, non-judgmental attitude to experience, including difficult sensations, emotions, thoughts and behavior | Non- judgmental present moment awareness | Cultivate interested, accepting, non-judgmental attitude to experience, including difficult sensations, emotions, thoughts and behavior |
3. What -Materials provided to participants? | Written handout, audio and video aids | Not reported | Headset, webcam, compact discs for home practice | Not reported | Leaflets for each session and compact discs for home practice | Course manual, compact discs for home practice Book - Full Catastrophe Living | Not reported | Dedicated website with online multimedia for home practices | Not reported | Not reported |
4. What - Procedures -Pre-session? | Had to make a commitment to regular practice | Personal intake interview; goal planning | Screened for evidence of distress on General Health Questionnaire | Personal intake interview | Personal intake interview | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Score of at least 1ten on Perceived Stress Scale |
4. What - Procedures –In session? | General description only- Body awareness, breath awareness, mindful movement, Tui Na self-massage | General description only- Observation of sensory, cognitive and affective experience in lying, siting, and dynamic yoga postures | Session content reported in paper – Raisin exercise, Mindful awareness, body scan, sitting practice, three-minute breathing space, psycho-education, cognitive exercises | Session outline reported in paper – Sustained attentional focus on the body and breath, decentered view of thoughts as passing mental events | Session outline reported in paper – Body awareness, raisin exercise, three-minute breathing, yoga, sitting meditation, psycho-education on stress, mountain meditation | Session content reported in paper – Raisin exercise, Mindful breathing, body scan, mindful movement, psycho-education | General description in trial protocol – Emphasis on sensorimotor resources: grounding, centring, self-soothing, psycho- education on stress, self-compassion, body scan, breath meditation, walking meditation, yoga exercises | General description only - Based on original Mindfulness-based stress reduction protocol | Session content reported in paper – Mindful breathing, body scan, sitting mediation, mountain meditation, mindful eating, choice-less awareness, loving kindness, psycho- education | Session content reported in paper – Mindful breathing, body scan, mindful movement, loving kindness, sitting meditation, push- pull exercise, psycho- education on stress |
4. What – Procedures -Home practice? | Thirty minutes per day | Forty minutes per day | Ten-twenty minutes per day | Not reported | Not reported | Forty-five minutes per day | Forty-five minutes per day | Not reported | Not reported | Forty-five minutes per day |
4. What - Procedures –Post-course? | Not reported | Post course interviews for all participants | Post course interviews for some participants | Not reported | Not reported | Post course interviews for some participants | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
5. Who provided? | Not reported | Two experienced (over nine years), certified teachers | Study author. Had completed MBI teacher training | Not reported | Not reported | Two experienced (seven and a half years), certified physician teachers | Trained clinical psychologists, used to working with people with multiple sclerosis | Expert MBSR trainer | Study author | Certified MBSR teacher with sixteen years of experience |
6. How - Mode of delivery? | One-to-one, face-to-face | Group, face-to-face, ten-fifteen per group | Group, via Skype, up to five per group | Group, twelve per group | Group, twelve per group | Group, face-to-face, twenty-five per group | Group, number per group not reported | Group, via Skype, average of five per group | Not reported | Group, number per group not reported |
7. Where -Intervention location? | Unclear | Unclear | Participants’ own homes | Unclear | Unclear | NHS Centre for Integrative Care | Unclear | In patients own homes | University hospital out- patient clinic | Not reported |
8. When and how much? | Six weekly sessions | Nine weekly two and a half hour sessions Seven-hour practice day at week six | Eight weekly one hour sessions | Eight weekly two hour sessions | Eight weekly two hour sessions | Eight weekly two and a half hour sessions | Eight weekly three hour sessions Seven-hour practice day | Eight weekly sessions (? duration) | Eight weekly ninety minute sessions | Eight weekly two hour sessions Six-hour practice day at week six |
9. Tailoring? | Individualised application of core techniques | Exercises did not exceed level of function | Developed with people with multiple sclerosis. MBCT manual adapted for Progressive multiple sclerosis issues Mindful-movement removed | Not reported | Not reported | Developed with people with multiple sclerosis, informed MBSR optimisation for future iteration | Protocol reports tailoring to needs of participants, but not reported in paper | Music meditations and acceptance of multiple sclerosis symptoms introduced | Not reported | Not reported |
10. In study modifications? | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Mindful movement simplified | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
11. How well -Treatment adherence? | Average thirty-two minutes home practice per day | Ninety-two percent session attendance; Average twenty-nine-point two minutes home practice per day | Ninety-five percent completed four or more sessions. Home practice not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Sixty percent session attendance; Average thirty-two and a half minutes home practice per day | Not reported | Seventy-nine percent session attendance | Not reported | Eighty-five percent attended six or more sessions. Median home practices thirty-eight minutes per day |
12. How well -Fidelity assessment? | Not reported | Not reported | Senior clinical psychologist listened to session recordings for every session | Not reported | Not reported | Based on National Institutes of Health (2004) | Not reported | Treatment integrity monitored, but not reported in what way | Not reported | Not reported |
3.1.4 Outcome characteristics
3.2 Meta-analysis
3.2.1 Effect of MBIs on physical symptom measures



3.2.2 Heterogeneity and publication bias

3.2.3 Outcomes by intervention type
3.3 Study quality
Mills and Allen, 2000 | Grossman et al., 2010 | Bogosian et al., 2015 | Mahdavi et al., 2016 | Nejati et al., 2016 | Simpson et al., 2017 | Carletto et al., 2017 | Cavalera et al., 2018 | Mosalanejad et al., 2018 | Senders et al., 2018 | Across trials – overall RoB | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Random sequence generation | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Allocation concealment | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
Blinding of assessors | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
Blinding of outcome assessment | High | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
Selective outcome reporting | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Other sources of bias | Unclear | Low | Low | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Within trials overall RoB | High | Low | Low | High | High | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |

3.4 Adverse events
4. Discussion
4.1 Summary of main findings
4.2 Comparison with existing literature
4.3 Strengths of this review
4.4 Limitations of this review
4.5 Strengths and Limitations of the included studies
4.6 Implications for research
4.7 Implications for clinical practice
5. Conclusions
Role of the funding source
Funding
Declaration of Competing Interest
Acknowledgments
Appendix A. MEDLINE search strategy
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Unclear – First matched on basis of activities of daily living (ADL) scores, then randomly allocated from that pair only |
Allocation concealment | Unclear – Not mentioned in the paper |
Blinding of assessors | Unclear – Not mentioned in the paper |
Blinding of outcome assessment | High – Paper suggests in discussion that study would be enhanced by including a ‘blind or more objective rater’ |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear – Some data is reported in methods, but participant data has been omitted on the basis of not being ‘complete’. Unclear what this means. |
Selective outcome reporting | High – This study is also reported in another paper with different outcome data:Mills N, Allen J, Carey-Morgan S. Does tai chi/qi gong help patients with multiple sclerosis? Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2000 Jan 1;4(1):39-48. |
Other sources of bias | Unclear – Nothing else of note mentioned in paper |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Baseline assessments prior to randomisation. PI randomised blind, using www.randomizer.org in blocks of 4 - 6 |
Allocation concealment | Low – PI sent allocation list to coordinator who informed participants in writing of their assignment. This was then re-checked by PI, no deviations found |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Investigators blinded to assignment |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – All PRO measures were entered into a database by blinded personnel |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low – Consort flow diagram included in report with n randomised, ‘n’ analysed etc. Intention to Treat (ITT) employed. Missing data imputed by multiple linear regression that adjusted for age, gender, and disease progression |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Randomisation took place once cohort of 10 participants consented, screened and baseline data collected. Independent unit at KCL Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) handled randomisation, with fixed block sizes of 2 |
Allocation concealment | Low – As above. Then CTU sent assignment list to PI |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Trial assessor blinded to allocation |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – Statistician, health economist blinded to assignment |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low – Consort flow diagram included in report with n randomised, ‘n’ analysed etc. ITT employed. Informative missingness processes explored by sensitivity analysis. Missing baseline variables handled using the missing indicator method |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Unclear – Paper only states that participants were selected using a random sampling method |
Allocation concealment | Unclear - Paper only states that participants were selected using a random sampling method |
Blinding of assessors | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear – Attrition not reported, nor numbers included in analyses or details regarding missing data. No consort flow diagram. |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | High – No reporting of baseline participant characteristics at all |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Each participant's names placed on slip of paper, mixed and drawn randomly |
Allocation concealment | Unclear - Paper only states that participants were selected using a random sampling method |
Blinding of assessors | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear – Attrition not reported, nor numbers included in analyses or details regarding missing data |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | High – Paper states study population based on convenience sampling |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Post-baseline measures an independent statistician undertook block randomisation and sequence generation |
Allocation concealment | Low – Blinded research staff undertook treatment allocation |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Research staff were blinded to treatment allocation and participant ID |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – Anonymous data was collected by a blinded research assistant |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low – Detailed reporting of missing data, no imputation. Consort flow diagram and details accounting for participant drop-out |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Randomly assigned on 1:1 ratio using a block wise randomisation sequence |
Allocation concealment | Low – Sequence determined by an independent researcher blinded to initial assessment. Study co-ordinator communicated assignment to participants |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Clinical Psychologists performing assessments were blinded to participant ID |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – Clinical Psychologists performing assessments were blinded to participant ID |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low – Both Per Protocol (PP) and ITT performed - ITT explored missing data – data imputation was used for two participants. Consort flow diagram detailing numbers analysed and dropping out. Comparison between completers and dropouts baseline measures and socio-demographics undertaken. |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to MBI and control using www.random.org |
Allocation concealment | Unclear – Paper only states that participants were randomly assigned to MBI and control |
Blinding of assessors | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Unclear – Not reported in the paper |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear – Although consort flow diagram included, detailing attrition, reasons accounting for this were insufficiently described. No mention of missing data |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Generally well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Block randomisation of six blocks of three patients (ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA), then replacement random sampling used to select blocks |
Allocation concealment | Unclear – Not discernable from paper |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Data collected by third author blinded to group assignment |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – Data analysed by second author, blinded to group assignment |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear – Consort flow diagram detailing attrition and numbers analysed, but no mention of missing data |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Generally well conducted and reported study |
Risk of bias assessment | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation | Low – Statistician generated randomisation scheme stratified by baseline PSS scores with a block size of four (SPSS random number generator) |
Allocation concealment | Low – Randomisation scheme maintained by individual external and blinded to study. Allocation concealed from all study staff |
Blinding of assessors | Low – Baseline data collected prior to randomisation – PI, statistician and personnel performing data entry were blinded to group assignment |
Blinding of outcome assessment | Low – Baseline data collected prior to randomisation – PI, statistician and personnel performing data entry were blinded to group assignment |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low – Low – Consort flow diagram detailing reasons accounting for attrition and numbers analysed. |
Selective outcome reporting | Low – All pre-specified outcomes were reported |
Other sources of bias | Low – Well conducted and reported study |
- 1exp Multiple Sclerosis/
- 2expNeuromyelitisOptica/
- 3exp Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive/
- 4exp Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting/
- 5"disseminated sclerosis".mp.
- 6devic.mp.
- 7"acute disseminated encephalomyelitis".mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 8encephalomyelitis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 9"multiple sclerosis".mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 10"neuromyelitisoptica".mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 11"optic neuritis".mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 12"transverse myelitis".mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 13demyelinat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 14myelitis.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 15((clinically or radiologically) and isolated syndrome).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 16(demyelinating and (disease or disorder)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 171 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16
- 18exp Mindfulness/
- 19exp Meditation/
- 20exp Breathing Exercises/
- 21(MBSR or MBCT).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 22relaxation.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 23(breathing and (exercis* or techniqu*)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 24vipassana.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 25yoga.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 26mindful*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 27meditat*.mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier, synonyms]
- 2818 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27
- 2917 and 28
- 30limit 29 to (english language and humans and yr="2000 -Current")
Appendix B. Data Extraction Sheet v.1 Simpson et al. (2018)
Bibliographic details | |
---|---|
Authors | |
Year | |
Country | |
Citation | |
Title (identifying study as an RCT y/n?) | |
Structured abstract | |
References identified from reference list | Yes/noIf yes, please provide details: |
Study | |
---|---|
Study aims and objectives | |
Study design | |
Comparator group | |
Statistical methods | |
Power calculation | |
Inclusion criteria | |
Exclusion criteria | |
Stopping criteria | |
Setting/location where data collected | |
Trial protocol/ registration | |
Ethical approval | |
Funding details y/n? |
Population | ||
---|---|---|
Intervention group | Control /comparison group | |
Sample size | ||
Recruited from where? | ||
Age | ||
Sex | ||
Socioeconomic status | ||
Ethnicity | ||
Marital status | ||
Living Arrangements | ||
Educational status | ||
Employment status | ||
Disease phenotype | ||
Use of disease modifying drugs | ||
Time since diagnosis | ||
Disability level | ||
Cognitive impairment | ||
Comorbid anxiety (% on drug treatment) | ||
Comorbid depression (% on drug treatment) | ||
Other comorbidities |
Intervention | |
---|---|
Definition | |
Course content | |
Tailored to population? (If yes, describe) | |
Fidelity to treatment assessed y/n (if so, how) | |
Course completion criteria | |
Mode of delivery (face-to-face, internet etc) | |
Duration & frequency | |
Instructor characteristics | |
No. of participants per group | |
Intervention materials | |
Intervention location | |
Cost to participants | |
Cost effectiveness | |
Transport issues | |
Family/carer involvement | |
Other (specify) | |
Intervention for control group | |
Provide details: |
Intervention group | Control /comparison group | |
---|---|---|
Feasibility outcomes • Recruitment (to pre-defined target y/n?) • Randomisation • Retention • Adherence (classes attendance/ home-practice completion) • Follow-up (when?) Reasons accounting for attrition reported • Missing data | ||
CONSORT flow diagram y/n | ||
Adverse events reported y/n? (specify) | ||
Standardised outcomes measures (specify) | ||
Study-specific outcomes measures (provide details) | ||
Sub-group analyses | ||
Other outcomes measured (provide details) | ||
No. of data collection time points |
Limitations/conclusions/comments | |
---|---|
Limitations noted by the authors | |
Authors’ conclusions | |
Reviewer's comments |
Risk of bias assessment (High/unclear/low) | |
---|---|
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | |
Blinding of assessors (performance bias) | |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) (patient reported outcomes) | |
Incomplete outcome data addressed (attrition bias) | |
Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias) | |
Other sources of bias (i.e. baseline bias) |
Appendix C. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias assessment - justifications
References
(2014) NIfHaCE. Multiple sclerosis: management of multiple sclerosis in primary and secondary care2014Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186.
- Distress improves after mindfulness training for progressive MS: A pilot randomised trial.Multiple Scleros. J. 2015; (1352458515576261)
- The psychology of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: a review.J. Psychosom. Res. 2009; 66: 3-11
- The effectiveness of a body-affective mindfulness intervention for multiple sclerosis patients with depressive symptoms: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Front. Psychol. 2017; 8: 2083
- Online meditation training for people with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial.Multiple Scleros. J. 2018; (1352458518761187)
- Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2015; 45: 139-145
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.Bmj. 1997; 315: 629-634
- Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy–a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Acta Psychiatr.Scandinav. 2011; 124: 102-119
- Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JAMA Int. Med. 2014; 174: 357-368
- MS quality of life, depression, and fatigue improve after mindfulness training: A randomized trial.Neurology. 2010; 75: 1141-1149
- GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.J. Clinical Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 383-394
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Bmj. 2011; 343: d5928
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.BMJ: Br. Med. J. 2003; 327: 557
- Mindfulness meditation for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals Behav. Med. 2016; 51: 199-213
- Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.Bmj. 2014; (348:g1687)
- Full Catastrophe Living: the Program of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University Of Massachusetts Medical Center.Delta, New York1990
- An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results.General Hosp. Psych. 1982; 4: 33-47
- Further evaluation of the motivational model of pain self-management: coping with chronic pain in multiple sclerosis.Ann. Behav. Med. 2011; 41: 391-400
- Mindfulness-based therapies in the treatment of somatization disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2013; 8: e71834
- The effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in reducing psychological symptoms.Meta-Worry Thought Fus. Mult. Scleros. Pat. 2016;
- Does mindfulness improve outcomes in chronic pain patients?: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2015;
- A systematic review of the incidence and prevalence of comorbidity in multiple sclerosis: overview.Multiple Scleros. J. 2015; 21: 263-281