Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on Mental Health and Psychological Quality of Life among University Students: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review
Table 6
GRADE quality of evidence assessment for the effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on the symptom management of postoperative side effects among university students.
Quality assessment
Summary of finding table
Quality
Importance
No of university students
Effect
Outcome/no of studies
Design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
MBSR
Control
Relative (95% CI) Absolute
Anxiety/17
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias1
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
733
705
−0.31 (−0.43, −0.22)
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Depression/17
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
678
687
−0.19 (−0.98, −0.15)
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Perceived stress/17
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias1
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
333
300
−0.48 (−0.71, −0.26)
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Sleep quality/3
Randomized trials
Serious1
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
Reporting bias4
335
333
−0.20 (−0.06, 0.20)
LOW
IMPORTANT
Mindfulness/17
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias1
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
705
646
0.52 (0.11, 0.68)
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Self-kindness/9
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
425
410
0.41 (−0.57, 0.95)
MODERATE
CRITICAL
Social function/5
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
Reporting bias4
57
66
−0.71 (−2.40, 0.97)
MODERATE
IMPORTANT
Subjective well-being/11
Randomized trials
No serious risk of bias1
No serious inconsistency
No serious indirectness
Serious3
None
574
600
0.15 (−0.45, 0.74)
MODERATE
IMPORTANT
Physical health/10
Randomized trials
Serious1
No serious inconsistency2
No serious indirectness
Serious3
Reporting bias4
272
262
−0.59 (−1.14, −0.14)
LOW
IMPORTANT
1Some RCTs did not mention using the blind method or randomized grouping. 2Similarity of point estimates, extent of overlap of confidence intervals, and statistical criteria are poor. 3Confidence in estimates of effect is poor, small sample size, and SRCTs do not calculate the optimal information size. 4Small sample and asymmetry of the funnel plot.
