Studies have demonstrated that Ziprasidone use may be beneficial in children. Determining its potential risks and benefits when used in children is therefore important.

To examine the tolerability of Ziprasidone, an atypical antipsychotic, in children and adolescents.

We conducted a literature search of open label or randomized control trials that report on Ziprasidone use in children on three databases: Embase, PsychInfo and PubMed using the PRISMA guidelines of Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Out of 1690 articles, 11 studies met inclusion criteria. Outcome measures included adverse effects such as weight gain, increase in BMI, QTc prolongation, changes in metabolic parameters, sedation, and dizziness. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression of potential moderators. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots.

Data from Eleven studies was meta-analyzed (Total n= 474, mean age=12.87 years, male= 68..37%) that reported the use of Ziprasidone in children and adolescents with Psychosis, Bipolar, Autism spectrum disorders and Tourettes syndrome. Mean Ziprasidone dose = 84.40 mg and mean study duration = 2.85 months). We found that Ziprasidone was not found to cause any significant weight gain (1.72, p>0.05) or change in BMI (0.58 , p>0.05). QTc prolongation was found to be significant (11.9 , p<0.05). Most common side effects were sedation (42.44%), Nausea(19.32%), Headache (22.92%), fatigue (16.67%) and Dizziness (16.96 %).

Results demonstrate that Ziprasidone does not cause significant weight gain, however QTc prolongation and sedation were found to be significant side effects of Ziprasidone use. Therefore, baseline EKG and thorough history must be obtained before prescribing Ziprasidone in children and adolescents.

No significant relationships.

Clinical studies demonstrated the efficacy of rTMS treatment in major depressive disorder. However, the results of meta-analyses are contradictory due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

The aim was to analyse the effectiveness of rTMS for treatment-resistant major depression.

A systematic literature review of English-language articles published in the last 10 years was performed on PubMed and Scopus databases according to PRISMA guideline principles. To assess the effects of rTMS on response and remission rates, random-effects model and inverse variance method were used.

23 randomized double-blind sham-controlled studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis for response (n= 1020 patients) and 12 studies for remission (n= 846 patients). The relative risk for response and remission were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.68-2,86, p=0.000 n=912) and 2.65 (95% CI: 1.32-5,31, p=0.002, n=603), respectively using rTMS as add on treatment (in patients after two antidepressant treatment failures) compared to standard pharmacotherapy. I2analysis showed no considerable heterogeneity in the combined effect sizes neither for remission studies (I2=23.36%) nor for response studies (I2=0.00%).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation became an evidence-based, effective treatment for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, either as a monotherapy or as an augmentation of pharmacotherapy. However, because of the lack of standardized protocol, a substantial methodological heterogeneity exists. According to our results, rTMS was significantly more effective than sham rTMS in both response and remission outcomes, which is consistent with previous meta-analyses, but the effect size was a bit smaller than what was reported previously.

No significant relationships.

Our aim was to examine the effect of supportive care interventions on depressive symptoms in patients with lung cancer.

We searched the databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid EMBASE, PubMed, and the Chinese Electronic Periodical Services (CEPS) from their inception until September of 2015. We included randomized controlled trial studies that compared standard care with supportive care interventions. The standardized mean difference (SMD) (Cohen's d) was calculated to estimate the effect of interventions. Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify possible sources of heterogeneity.

A total of 1,472 patients with lung cancer were identified. Compared with standard care, the overall effects of all supportive care interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD = –0.74, CI95% = –1.07 to –0.41), and the effects could be maintained at weeks 4, 8, and 12 of follow-up. Three types of supportive care interventions were identified: psychotherapy combined with psychoeducation, psychoeducation alone, and an exercise program. Both psychotherapy combined with psychoeducation and exercise significantly improved depressive symptoms, while psychoeducation alone did not yield significant effects. The moderating effects indicated that greater improvements in depressive symptoms were found in lung cancer patients with a severe level of depressive symptoms at baseline.

Personalized supportive care interventions can be developed based on the main causes of depressive symptoms. Psychotherapy combined with psychoeducation can target the causes of depressive symptoms, including both physical distress and psychological trauma due to lung cancer, while exercise programs can effectively improve depressive symptoms for lung cancer patients with impaired respiratory function.