Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31387109›Full record

SynthesisPsychotherapy and psychosomatics2019

Effectiveness of Stress-Reducing Interventions on the Response to Challenges to the Immune System: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Lemmy Schakel, Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen, Paige I Crompvoets, Jos A Bosch, Sheldon Cohen, Henriët van Middendorp, Simone A Joosten, Tom H M Ottenhoff, Leo G Visser, Andrea W M Evers

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lemmy SchakelHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, l.schakel@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
Dieuwke S VeldhuijzenHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Paige I CrompvoetsHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jos A BoschDepartment of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sheldon CohenDepartment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Henriët van MiddendorpHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Simone A JoostenDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Tom H M OttenhoffDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leo G VisserDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Andrea W M EversHealth, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is consistent evidence showing an interplay between psychological processes and immune function in health and disease processes.

objectivesThe present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a concise overview of the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions on the activation of immune responses in both healthy subjects and patients.

methodsIncluded are 3 types of challenges: in vivo, in vitro, and psychophysiological. Such challenges are designed to mimic naturally occurring immune-related threats.

resultsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and PsychInfo, resulting in 75 eligible studies. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Across all studies, a small-to-medium effect size was found for the effects of psychological interventions on optimization of the immune function (g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.22-0.43). While the largest effects were found for in vivo immune-related challenges (g = 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-0.88; especially on studies that incorporated skin tests and wound healing), studies incorporating psychophysiological challenges and in vitro immune-related stimulations similarly suggest more optimal immune responses among those receiving stress-reducing interventions (g = 0.28; 95% CI 0.15-0.42).

conclusionThese findings showed substantial heterogeneity depending on the type of challenge, the study populations, and the intervention types. These data demonstrate support for the effectiveness of stress-reducing psychological interventions in improving immunity in studies that tested immune function by means of incorporating an in vivo,in vitro, or psychophysiological challenge. Future research should more consistently incorporate challenges into the study design to gather more insights in the mechanisms underlying the optimized immune function following a psychological intervention. This is also relevant for clinical practice, as psychological interventions can possibly supplement, or at least partially replace, current drug treatments in various somatic conditions to reduce side effects.

Indexed as

HumansImmune SystemPsychotherapyStress, PsychologicalImmune systemIn vitro immune measuresIn vivo immune measuresPsychophysiological challengesStress-reducing psychological interventions

Identifiers

PMID31387109
PMCPMC6878733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.