Background: Practitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised. Objective: To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources: Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection: Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: We identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference −0.43 [95% confidence interval −0.65 to −0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons. Conclusions: Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a substantial threat to public health. Safe and effective alternatives are required to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. Andrographis Paniculata (A. Paniculata, Chuān Xīn Lián) has traditionally been used in Indian and Chinese herbal medicine for cough, cold and influenza, suggesting a role in respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of A. Paniculata for symptoms of acute RTIs (ARTIs). English and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to March 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating oral A. Paniculata without language barriers (Protocol ID: CRD42016035679). The primary outcomes were improvement in ARTI symptoms and adverse events (AEs). A random effects model was used to pool the mean differences and risk ratio with 95% CI reported. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; two reviewers independently screened eligibility and extracted data. Thirty-three RCTs (7175 patients) were included. Most trials evaluated A. Paniculata (as a monotherapy and as a herbal mixture) provided commercially but seldom reported manufacturing or quality control details. A. Paniculata improved cough (n = 596, standardised mean difference SMD: -0.39, 95% confidence interval CI [-0.67, -0.10]) and sore throat (n = 314, SMD: -1.13, 95% CI [-1.37, -0.89]) when compared with placebo. A. Paniculata (alone or plus usual care) has a statistically significant effect in improving overall symptoms of ARTIs when compared to placebo, usual care, and other herbal therapies. Evidence also suggested that A. Paniculata (alone or plus usual care) shortened the duration of cough, sore throat and sick leave/time to resolution when compared versus usual care. No major AEs were reported and minor AEs were mainly gastrointestinal. The methodological quality of included trials was overall poor. A. Paniculata appears beneficial and safe for relieving ARTI symptoms and shortening time to symptom resolution. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously owing to poor study quality and heterogeneity. Well-designed trials evaluating the effectiveness and potential to reduce antibiotic use of A. Paniculata are warranted.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are first-line antidepressants, however, only around 60% of patients could benefit from them. Acupuncture is supported by insufficient evidence to help with symptom relieving and SSRIs tolerance. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial compared SSRIs alone versus SSRIs together with manual acupuncture (MA) or electroacupuncture (EA) in moderate to severe depressed patients. Patients were randomly allocated to receive MA + SSRIs (161), EA + SSRIs (160), or SSRIs alone (156) for six weeks, and then followed up for another four weeks. The primary outcome was response rate of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) at 6th week. The secondary outcomes were HAMD-17 (remission rate, early onset rate, total score), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS: total score), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Rating Scale for Side Effects (SERS: total and domain scores), number of patients with adjusted dosage of SSRIs and adverse events (AEs). Both MA + SSRIs and EA + SSRIs were significantly better than SSRIs at 6th week on HAMD-17 response rate (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.04, 1.42, P = 0.013; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.09, 1.48, P = 0.0014), HAMD-17 early onset rate (P < 0.0001), HAMD-17 and SDS total scores (P < 0.05), CGI (P < 0.01), SERS total score (P < 0.01), number of patients with increased dosage of SSRIs (P < 0.01). For HAMD-17 remission rate, EA + SSRIs was significantly higher than SSRIs (P = 0.0083), while MA + SSRIs showed no significant difference at 6th week (P = 0.092). No unintended acupuncture-related severe AE was observed. This study identified that both MA and EA showed beneficial effects in addition to SSRIs alone in patients with moderate to severe depression, and were well tolerated. Clinical trials registration: ChiCTR-TRC-08000297.