Response to Yin et al regarding: “Conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies”

Background Humeral shaft fractures are common but debate still occurs as to whether these are best managed operatively or non-operatively. We sought to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies to clarify the optimal treatment. Methods We performed a search for all randomised and non-randomised comparative studies on humeral shaft fracture. We included only those with an operative and non-operative cohort in adult patients. We undertook a meta-analysis of the following outcome measures: nonunion, malunion, delayed union, iatrogenic nerve injury and infection. Non-operative management was with a functional brace. Results Non-operative management resulted in a significantly higher nonunion rate of 17.6% compared to 6.3% with fixation. Operative management had a significantly higher iatrogenic nerve injury rate of 3.4% and infection rate of 3.7%. All nonunions within the included studies went on to union after plate fixation. There was no significant difference in delayed union or patient reported outcome measures. There was a significantly increased risk of malunion with non-operative treatment however this did not correlate with the outcome. Discussion Our findings suggest that in the majority of cases, humeral shaft fractures can be managed with non-operative treatment, and any subsequent nonunion should be treated with plate fixation.

Download Full-text

Selenium and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu10121924 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. 1924 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Lindsay Kohler ◽

Janet Foote ◽

Connor Kelley ◽

Ana Florea ◽

Colleen Shelly ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Positive Association ◽

Significant Positive Association

Several studies have investigated the potential role of selenium (Se) in the development of type 2 diabetes (T2D) with disparate findings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the evidence of any association between Se and T2D. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Approach (PRISMA). Sixteen studies from 15 papers met inclusion criteria defined for this review. Of the 13 observational studies included, 8 demonstrated a statistically significant positive association between concentrations of Se and odds for T2D, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranging from 1.52 (1.01–2.28) to 7.64 (3.34–17.46), and a summary odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 2.03 (1.51–2.72). In contrast, among randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of Se, a higher risk of T2D was not observed for those who received Se compared to a placebo (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.95–1.47). Taken together, the results for the relationship between Se and T2D differ between observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It remains unclear whether these differences are the result of uncontrolled confounding in the observational studies, or whether there is a modest effect of Se on the risk for T2D that may vary by duration of exposure. Further investigations on the effects of Se on glucose metabolism are needed.

Download Full-text