scholarly journals Aspirin and Reducing Risk of Gastric Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Observational Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thin Thin Win ◽  
Saint Nway Aye ◽  
Joyce Lau Chui Fern ◽  
Cheng Ong Fei
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Dose Aspirin

Background and Aims: The latest meta-analysis on the role of aspirin on various cancers was published in early 2018. By including the latest and updated primary observational studies, we aimed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize stronger evidence on the role of aspirin in reducing gastric cancer (GC) risk. Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched up to December 2019 to identify relevant studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate summary ORs and 95%CI for I 2 >50%. If the heterogeneity is not significant, the fixed-effects model was used. Overall analysis of the studies, inverse variance weighting after transforming the estimates of each study into log OR and its standard error were used. Results: 21 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that aspirin significantly reduced the GC risk (OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.54-0.76) with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 =96%). Effect of GC risk reduction in low dose (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.59-1.09) is slightly greater than high dose aspirin (OR=1.08, 95%CI=0.77-1.52). Protective effect of aspirin uses >5 years (OR=0.67, 95%CI=0.34-1.31) was greater than <5 years (OR=1.01, 95%CI=0.72-1.43) Conclusion: In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that low dose aspirin with longer duration of more than 5 years were associated with a statistically significant reduction in GC risk. However, due to possible confounding variables and bias, these results should be cautiously treated.

scholarly journals Recombinant Human Thyrotropin-Stimulated Radioiodine Therapy in Patients with Multinodular Goiters: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 841-849
Author(s):  
Chunmei Xu ◽  
Ping Wang ◽  
Huikai Miao ◽  
Tianyue Xie ◽  
Xiaojun Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Dose Group ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Radioiodine Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Dose Group ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Recombinant Human Thyrotropin

AbstractA potential reduction of goiter volume (GV) of recombinant human thyrotropin (rhTSH) on multinodular goiters (MNG) was previously reported but controversial. Hence we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of rhTSH-stimulated radioiodine therapy in patients with MNG. PubMed, Cochrane, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were derived by using an inverse variance random-effects model and fixed-effects model, respectively. Six studies (n=237) were involved in the analysis. For 12 months follow up, high dose (>0.1 mg) of rhTSH significantly reduced GV (MD=17.61; 95% CI=12.17 to 23.04; p<0.00001) compared with placebo. No effective pooled results of low dose of rhTSH (<0.1 mg) were applicable for only one study included. For 6 months follow up, the source of heterogeneity was determined by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. High dose group showed vast improvement in GV reduction (MD=16.62; 95% CI=1.34 to 31.90; p=0.03). The reduction of low dose group compared with placebo was inferior to high dose group. No available data were obtained to assess the influence of rhTSH after 36 months follow up for the only included study. Hypothyroidism incidence was higher for rhTSH group. No publication bias was seen. High dose of rhTSH treatment-stimulated radioactive 131I therapy after 6 months and 12 months follow up had a better effect in reducing GV, but with higher incidence of hypothyroidism. Owing to the limited methodological quality, more clinical researches are warranted in the future.

scholarly journals Clinical symptoms, comorbidities and complications features in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis without cases duplication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhufeng Wang ◽  
Hongsheng Deng ◽  
Changxing Ou ◽  
Jingyi Liang ◽  
Yingzhi Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Q Statistic

Abstract Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 posed a challenge to global healthcare. The mortality rates of severe cases range from 8.1% to 31.8%, and it is particularly important to identify risk factors that aggravate the disease.Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using 7 databases to assess clinical characteristics, comorbidities and complications in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. All the observational studies were included. We performed a random or fixed effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion and 95% CI. Measure of heterogeneity was estimated by Cochran’s Q statistic, I2 index and P value.Results: 4881 cases from 25 studies related to COVID-19 were included. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (severe: 33.4%, 95% CI: 25.4% - 41.4%; non-severe 21.6%, 95% CI: 9.9% - 33.3%), followed by diabetes (severe: 14.4%, 95% CI: 11.5% - 17.3%; non-severe: 8.5%, 95% CI: 6.1% - 11.0%). The prevalence of ARDS, AKI and shock were all higher in severe cases, with 41.1% (95% CI: 14.1% - 68.2%), 16.4% (95% CI: 3.4% - 29.5%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 5.5% - 34.4%), rather than 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6% - 5.5%), 2.2% (95% CI: 0.1% - 4.2%) and 4.1% (95% CI -4.8% - 13.1%) in non-severe patients, respectively. The death rate was higher in severe cases (30.3%, 95% CI: 13.8% - 46.8%) than non-severe cases (1.5%, 95% CI: 0.1% - 2.8%).Conclusions: Hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases may be risk factors for COVID-19 patients to develop into severe cases.

The Safety of Ovarian Preservation in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma Compared With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Uterine Cervix: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1510-1514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Bing Jiao ◽  
Jun Hu ◽  
Li-Rong Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Ovarian Preservation

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the incidence of ovarian metastasis (OM) in adenocarcinoma (ADC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in early-stage cervical cancer and evaluate the safety of ovarian preservation in early-stage ADC.MethodsTo perform a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of OM between early-stage ADC and SCC, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for observational studies that compared it with pathological evidence after radical hysterectomy and oophorectomy. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with a fixed effects model. We also found a few articles evaluating the oncological prognosis of patients with ovarian preservation to perform a systematic review.ResultsA total of 5 studies were included in the meta-analyses. The incidence of OM of patients with early-stage ADC and SCC were 2% and 0.4%, respectively (odds ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.14–13.45). In 1427 patients with ADC or SCC of the cervix FIGO stage (CIS-IIA) who underwent hysterectomy, no ovarian recurrences were observed after unilateral or bilateral ovarian preservation in ADC patients in the follow-up (30–68 months); however, 15 patients with SCC developed pelvic recurrence.ConclusionsAlthough the incidence of OM was higher in early-stage ADC than SCC according to ovarian pathology, it might be relatively safe to perform ovarian preservation with early-stage ADC because of low ovarian recurrence rate in short-term follow-ups.

scholarly journals Statin use and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139172
Author(s):  
Rimesh Pal ◽  
Mainak Banerjee ◽  
Urmila Yadav ◽  
Sukrita Bhattacharjee
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Risk Estimates ◽  
Statin Use

PurposeObservations studies have shown that prior use of statins is associated with a reduced risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the available data are limited, inconsistent and conflicting. Besides, no randomised controlled trial exists in this regard. Hence, the present meta-analysis was conducted to provide an updated summary and collate the effect of statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 using unadjusted and adjusted risk estimates.MethodsPubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using appropriate keywords till December 18 2020, to identify observational studies reporting clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients using statins versus those not using statins. Prior and in-hospital use of statins were considered. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs were calculated.ResultsWe included 14 observational studies pooling data retrieved from 19 988 patients with COVID-19. All the studies were of high/moderate quality. Pooled analysis of unadjusted data showed that statin use was not associated with improved clinical outcomes (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.50, p=0.94, I2=94%, random-effects model). However, on pooling adjusted risk estimates, the use of statin was found to significantly reduce the risk of adverse outcomes (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, p<0.0005, I2=0%, fixed-effects model).ConclusionsStatin use is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Individuals with multiple comorbidities on statin therapy should be encouraged to continue the drug amid the ongoing pandemic.

Use of Statins and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Randomized Clinical Trials and Nine Observational Studies

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (34) ◽  
pp. 8606-8612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanos Bonovas ◽  
Kalitsa Filioussi ◽  
Nikolaos Tsavaris ◽  
Nikolaos M. Sitaras
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Fixed Effects Model

Purpose A growing body of evidence suggests that statins may have chemopreventive potential against breast cancer. Laboratory studies demonstrate that statins induce apoptosis and reduce cell invasiveness in various cell lines, including breast carcinoma cells. However, the clinical relevance of these data remains unclear. The nonconclusive nature of the epidemiologic data prompted us to conduct a detailed meta-analysis of the studies published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature. Patients and Methods A comprehensive search for articles published up until 2005 was performed; reviews of each study were conducted; and data were abstracted. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using the random and the fixed-effects models. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results Seven large randomized trials and nine observational studies (five case-control and four cohort studies) contributed to the analysis. We found no evidence of publication bias or heterogeneity among the studies. Statin use did not significantly affect breast cancer risk (fixed effects model: RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14; random effects model: RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18). When the analyses were stratified into subgroups, there was no evidence that study design substantially influenced the estimate of effects. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. Conclusion Our meta-analysis findings do not support a protective effect of statins against breast cancer. However, this conclusion is limited by the relatively short follow-up times of the studies analyzed. Further studies are required to investigate the potential decrease in breast cancer risk among long-term statin users.

scholarly journals Early Administration of Low-Dose Aspirin for the Prevention of Preterm and Term Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Roberge ◽  
Pia Villa ◽  
Kypros Nicolaides ◽  
Yves Giguère ◽  
Merja Vainio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Early Administration ◽  
Dose Aspirin ◽  
Low Dose Aspirin
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document