A Review published in Lipids in Health and Disease suggests that lipid markers apolipoproteins and lipoprotein(a) may serve as potential indicators for identifying subjects at risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Further research is required.
]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the available evidence regarding these associations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the evidence on the association between ApoA1, ApoB, ApoB/A1 ratio and lipoprotein [Lp] values with MetS.
]. A version of this systematic review’s protocol has been uploaded to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [CRD42023416427].]. There were no limitations regarding language or date. We performed a systematic search of various databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid/Medline, and Web of Science on March 15, 2023. We also reviewed the reference list of the selected studies and manually searched preprint databases.
The studies retrieved from the systematic search were uploaded to the data management software Rayyan QCRI. After removing duplicated studies, four authors independently assessed the title/abstract of each study according to the selection criteria. Once the relevant literature was identified, two reviewers independently assessed the full text of each article. The studies that did not comply with the entire selection criteria were excluded from the review.
For extracting data, we employed a standardised data collection sheet created in Google Sheets©. The data were gathered independently by two authors from each study and included the following details: title, study location, first author, publication date, study design sample size, age, sex, definition of MetS, ApoB levels, ApoA1 levels, ApoB/ApoA1 ratio levels, Lp levels and assay technique.
Belgique Dernières Nouvelles, Belgique Actualités
Similar News:Vous pouvez également lire des articles d'actualité similaires à celui-ci que nous avons collectés auprès d'autres sources d'information.
Exploring the bidirectional relationship between pain and mental disorders: a comprehensive Mendelian randomization study - The Journal of Headache and PainBackground The close relationship between pain and mental health problems is well-known, and psychological intervention can provide an effective alternative to medication-based pain relief. However, previous studies on the connection between pain and psychological problems, the findings thus far have been inconclusive, limiting the potential for translating psychological interventions into clinical practice. To complement the gap, this study utilized genetic data and Mendelian randomization (MR) to examine the potential relationship between pain in different parts and common mental disorders. Methods Based on the instrumental variables selected from the Genome-wide association study summary statistics of localized pain and mental disorders, we conducted bidirectional two-sample MR analyses to infer bidirectional causal associations between pain and mental disorders. The inverse-variance weighted MR method and MR-Egger were used as the primary statistical method according to the horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity level. We reported the odds ratio to infer the causal effect between pain and mental disorders. F statistic was calculated to measure the statistical efficacy of the analyses. Results Insomnia is causally related to the genetic susceptibility of multisite pain including head (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.06–1.12), neck/shoulder (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07–1.16), back (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07–1.18) and hip (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05–1.10). Reversely, headache (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05–1.24), neck/shoulder pain (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.03–3.68), back pain (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.22–1.60), and hip pain (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.18–4.45) promote the genetic liability of insomnia. Depression is strongly associated with the predisposition of multisite pain including headache (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08–1.52), neck/shoulder pain (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16–1.50), back pain (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.10–1.66) and stomach/abdominal pain (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05–1.25), while headache (OR = 1.06,
Lire la suite »
Efficacy and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials - Critical CareBackground This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP). Methods A comprehensive search was conducted using the Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases for articles published until April 24, 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids for treating sCAP were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day all-cause mortality. Results A total of severe RCTs involving 1689 patients were included in this study. Overall, the study group had a lower mortality rate at day 30 than the control group (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p | 0.01) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.42). Compared to the control group, the study group had a lower risk of the requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.73; p | 0.001), shorter length of intensive care unit (MD − 0.8; 95% CI − 1.4 to − 0.1; p = 0.02), and hospital stay (MD − 1.1; 95% CI − 2.0 to − 0.1; p = 0.04). Finally, no significant difference was observed between the study and the control groups in terms of gastrointestinal tract bleeding (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; p = 0.93), healthcare-associated infection (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.32; p = 0.56), and acute kidney injury (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.21 to 2.26; p = 0.53). Conclusions In patients with sCAP, adjunctive corticosteroids can provide survival benefits and improve clinical outcomes without increasing adverse events. However, because the pooled evidence remains inconclusive, further studies are required.
Lire la suite »
Sniffer dogs can identify lung cancer patients from breath and urine samples - BMC CancerBackground Lung cancer is the most common oncological cause of death in the Western world. Early diagnosis is critical for successful treatment. However, no effective screening methods exist. A promising approach could be the use of volatile organic compounds as diagnostic biomarkers. To date there are several studies, in which dogs were trained to discriminate cancer samples from controls. In this study we evaluated the abilities of specifically trained dogs to distinguish samples derived from lung cancer patients of various tumor stages from matched healthy controls. Methods This single center, double-blind clinical trial was approved by the local ethics committee, project no FF20/2016. The dog was conditioned with urine and breath samples of 36 cancer patients and 150 controls; afterwards, further 246 patients were included: 41 lung cancer patients comprising all stages and 205 healthy controls. From each patient two breath and urine samples were collected and shock frozen. Only samples from new subjects were presented to the dog during study phase randomized, double-blinded. This resulted in a specific conditioned reaction pointing to the cancer sample. Results Using a combination of urine and breath samples, the dog correctly predicted 40 out of 41 cancer samples, corresponding to an overall detection rate of cancer samples of 97.6% (95% CI [87.1, 99.9%]). Using urine samples only the dog achieved a detection rate of 87.8% (95% CI [73.8, 95.9%]). With breath samples, the dog correctly identified cancer in 32 of 41 samples, resulting in a detection rate of 78% (95% CI [62.4, 89.4%]). Conclusions It is known from current literature that breath and urine samples carry VOCs pointing to cancer growth. We conclude that olfactory detection of lung cancer by specifically trained dogs is highly suggestive to be a simple and non-invasive tool to detect lung cancer. To translate this approach into practice further target compounds need to be identified.
Lire la suite »
Non-pharmacological interventions to manage psychological distress in patients living with cancer: a systematic review - BMC Palliative CareBackground Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease. Methods We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results Fifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p | 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p | 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p | 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p | 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias. Conclusions The majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness—including brief, self-administered interventions—merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies. Systematic review registration This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729.
Lire la suite »
Housing association warns vandals over damaged planterA Glasgow housing association has issued a warning after a planter was damaged.
Lire la suite »
Queen's University Belfast expelled from employers' associationThe university lost its membership of the UCEA after it settled a staff pay dispute locally.
Lire la suite »