The incidence and global burden of cancer have steadily increased in the 21st century, and cancer remains one of the top causes of mortality. There are estimated to be over 300 000 cancer cases per year, with the most common cancers being leukemias, brain cancers, and lymphomas.^1,2 With advancements in antineoplastic treatment, survival rates for pediatric cancers have risen over the years. This improved long-term prognosis has placed the spotlight on the management of complications in survivorship, such as growth delays, endocrinopathies, and neuropsychological impairment.^3,4

Background: Recently, it has been discovered that anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative pathways play a role in depression and anxiety. Lower serum levels of antioxidants, such as vitamin E, have been implicated in both depression and anxiety. Methods: This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (Reference: CRD42021260058) is reported according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 2021. Results: Twelve studies were included in this systematic review, and nine in meta-analysis of vitamin E versus placebo. For depression, meta-analysis of 354 participants showed a standardised mean difference of –0.88 (95% CI: –1.54, –0.21; I2 = 87%) favouring vitamin E. For anxiety, meta-analysis of 306 participants showed a standardised mean difference of –0.86 (95% CI: –2.11, 0.40; I2 = 95%) favouring vitamin E. Three of the studies involved a pure comparison of vitamin E against placebo, while others included constituents such as omega-3 fatty acids. Nine of the studies were at low risk of bias, two had some concerns, and one was at high risk of bias. Conclusion: Vitamin E supplementation has shown inconclusive results in ameliorating both depression and anxiety. Containing a reassuring safety profile and low cost, future studies would be of promise, and they would benefit from both larger sample sizes and from excluding other constituents, such as omega-3 fatty acids, from experimental and comparator arms.

Background: A diagnosis of cancer and treatment may constitute a highly traumatic period for paediatric cancer patients (PYACPs). However, no review has comprehensively analysed how the mental health of PYACPs is acutely affected and the longitudinal course. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches of databases were conducted to identify studies of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms in PYACPs. Random effects meta-analyses were used for the primary analysis. Results: From 4898 records, 13 studies were included. Acutely after diagnosis, depressive and anxiety symptoms were significantly elevated in PYACPs. Depressive symptoms only significantly decreased after 12 months (standardised mean difference, SMD = −0.88; 95% CI: −0.92, −0.84). This downward trajectory persisted to 18 months (SMD = −1.862; 95% CI: −1.29, −1.09). Anxiety symptoms similarly only decreased after 12 (SMD = −0.34; 95% CI: −0.42, −0.27) up to 18 months (SMD = −0.49; 95% CI: −0.60, −0.39) after the cancer diagnosis. Post-traumatic stress symptoms showed protracted elevations throughout follow-up. Overall, significant predictors of poorer psychological outcomes included unhealthy family functioning, concomitant depression or anxiety, poor cancer prognosis or experiencing cancer and treatment-related side effects. Conclusions: While depression and anxiety may improve over time with a favourable environment, post-traumatic stress may have a protracted course. Timely identification and psycho-oncological intervention are critical.

Context: Diabetes mellitus is associated with morbid complications such as diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) that may lead to amputations or mortality if not managed adequately. Objective: New adjunctive interventions to treat diabetic wounds include topical biologics and growth factors. This study aims to evaluate their efficacy in improving wound-healing outcomes and safety. Methods: Comprehensive database searches of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were performed from inception to December 2022. Three independent researchers selected the studies. Randomized controlled trials that compared the use of a topical biologic growth factor-containing regimen to other biologics or standard of care (SOC) were included. This review followed PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias analysis was performed using the Jadad scale. Network meta-analysis was performed. Treatments were grouped into common nodes based on the type of biologic agent. Primary outcomes of interest were healing rate and time to wound closure. Secondary outcomes included wound infection, serious adverse events (AEs), and amputation rate. Results: Human umbilical cord (HUC) was associated with the highest cure, followed by recombinant human epidermal growth factor (hEGF). A significantly greater reduction in the time to cure DFUs was seen in HUC, hEGF, and fibroblast growth factor (FGF). There was a significantly lower risk of AEs when platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was administered. Conclusion: HUC, hEGF, and FGF are promising topical biologics with statistically significant primary outcomes compared to SOC, while PRP is effective in reducing ulcer-related AEs. HUC has been found to be the most effective in terms of cure rate and a reduction in time to cure.

Background: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (TACS) is a non-invasive method of brain stimulation that is hypothesised to alter cortical excitability and brain electrical activity, modulating functional connectivity within the brain. Several trials have demonstrated its potential in treating psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. Objectives: To study the efficacy of TACS in ameliorating symptoms of depression and schizophrenia in patients and its effects on cognition in patients and healthy subjects compared to sham stimulation. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data Sources and Methods: This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42022331149) is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to March 2022. Only randomised-controlled trials were included. Results: A total of 12 randomised-controlled trials are reviewed for meta-analysis, with three randomised-controlled trials reporting only effects on cognition in psychiatric and cognitively impaired patients, three trials on cognition in healthy subjects, one trial on cognition in both patients and healthy subjects, one trial on only depression, two on both cognition and depression in patients and two on schizophrenia symptoms. No studies were at significant risk of bias. For cognition, TACS showed significant improvement [positive standardised mean differences (SMD) denoting improvement] over sham stimulation in those with psychiatric disorders with an SMD of 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 1.06). Similarly, among patients with depression, an SMD of 1.14 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.18) was found significantly favouring TACS over sham stimulation. Two studies assessed the effect of TACS on schizophrenia symptoms with mixed results. Conclusion: TACS has shown promise in ameliorating symptoms of both schizophrenia and depression in patients. TACS also improves cognition in both patients and healthy subjects. However, these findings are limited by the sample size of included studies, and future studies may be required to better our understanding of the potential of TACS. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022331149)