Simple non‐invasive scoring systems and histologic scores in predicting mortality in NAFLD patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background: Multiple lines of evidence indicate protective effects of carotenoids in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, previous epidemiological studies reported inconsistent results regarding the associations between carotenoids levels and the risk of AD. Objective: Our study aims to evaluate the associations of six major members of carotenoids with the occurrence of AD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Ebsco, and PsycINFO databases was conducted, and the quality of each included studies was evaluated by a validated scoring systems. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95%confidence intervals (CI) were determined by using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated by I2 statistics. Publication bias was detected using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Results: Sixteen studies, with 10,633 participants were included. Pooled analysis showed significantly lower plasma/serum levels of lutein (SMD = –0.86, 95%CI: –1.67 to –0.05, p = 0.04) and zeaxanthin (SMD = –0.59; 95%CI: –1.12 to –0.06, p = 0.03) in patients with AD versus cognitively intact controls, while α-carotene (SMD = 0.21, 95%CI: –0.68 to 0.26, p = 0.39), β-carotene (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: –0.57 to 0.65, p = 0.9), lycopene (SMD = –0.12, 95%CI: –0.96 to 0.72, p = 0.78), and β-cryptoxanthin (SMD = –0.09, 95%CI: –0.83 to 0.65, p = 0.81) did not achieve significant differences. Conclusion: Of six major members of carotenoids, only lutein and zeaxanthin concentrations in plasma/serum were inversely related to the risk of AD. More high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to verify these findings.

Download Full-text

Revisiting an Old Conundrum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intravesical Therapy for Treatment of Urothelial Carcinoma of the Prostate

Bladder Cancer ◽

10.3233/blc-200404 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Andrea Kokorovic ◽

Mary E. Westerman ◽

Kate Krause ◽

Mike Hernandez ◽

Nathan Brooks ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Urothelial Carcinoma ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Complete Response ◽

Intravesical Therapy ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Carcinoma Of The Prostate ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Bcg Therapy ◽

Mucosal Involvement

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of non-invasive (mucosal and/or ductal) urothelial carcinoma of the prostate remains elusive and there is a paucity of data to guide treatment. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review and synthesize treatment responses to conservative management of non-invasive prostatic urothelial carcinoma using intravesical therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 2019 was performed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised studies. Pooled estimates of complete response in the bladder and prostate and prostate only were performed using a random effects model. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were generated to assess differences in complete responses for: BCG therapy vs other agents, ductal vs mucosal involvement, CIS vs papillary tumors and TURP vs no TURP. RESULTS: Nine studies including 175 patients were identified for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All were retrospective case series and most evaluated response to BCG therapy. The pooled global complete response rate for intravesical therapy was 60%(95%CI: 0.48, 0.72), and for prostate 88%(95%CI: 0.81, 0.96). Pre-specified analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between subgroups of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Management of non-invasive prostatic urothelial carcinoma using intravesical therapy yields satisfactory results. Caution should be taken in treating patients with papillary tumors and ductal involvement, as data for these populations is limited. TURP may not improve efficacy, but is required for staging. Current recommendations are based on low quality evidence, and further research is warranted.

Download Full-text

Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-020-01364-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yuanyuan Chen ◽

Dongru Chen ◽

Huancai Lin

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

High Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Low Risk ◽

Caries Risk ◽

Moderate Risk ◽

Risk Levels ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Caries Lesions

Abstract Background Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels. Methods Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings. Results In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37). Conclusion Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.

Download Full-text