共找到 20 条结果
Veterinary Medicine International publishes original research articles and review articles in all areas of veterinary research. Topics covered include the biological basis of disease, as well as diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and epidemiology.
Originalus / Original
Academia and Clinic18 August 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementFREEDavid Moher, PhD, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPH, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, and Douglas G. Altman, DSc, the PRISMA Group*David Moher, PhDFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPHFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, and Douglas G. Altman, DScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, the PRISMA Group*Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Editor's Note: In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in PLOS Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research (3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction (4). As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies (5). In 1987, Sacks and colleagues (6) evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement (7).In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (8). In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).Box 1. Conceptual Issues in the Evolution From QUOROM to PRISMA Download figure Download PowerPoint TerminologyThe terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration (9). A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.Developing the PRISMA StatementA three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant (10). For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update (11) of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol.Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper.Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available (12, 13), the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (14) now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability (15). Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question (16, 17) and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews.The PRISMA StatementThe PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Table S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.Table 1. Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review or Meta-AnalysisFigure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. Download figure Download PowerPoint From QUOROM to PRISMAThe new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.Table 2. Substantive Specific Changes Between the QUOROM Checklist and the PRISMA ChecklistThe flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process.EndorsementThe PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their instructions to authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration PaperIn addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced (18) following the style used for other reporting guidelines (19–21). The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA.DiscussionThe quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal (22–27). In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias (22), even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence (28) and its impact on the results of systematic reviews (29). Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately (30). Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness (31), diagnostic (32) or prognostic questions (33), genetic associations (34), and policy making (35). The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis (36).We have developed an explanatory document (18) to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors.Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development.References1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71. [PMID: 7933399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:1083-4. [PMID: 14604930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist. December 2006. Accessed at www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar4. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107-8. [PMID: 16005318] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485-8. [PMID: 3813259] LinkGoogle Scholar6. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450-5. [PMID: 3807986] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996;63:216-24. [PMID: 8692168] MedlineGoogle Scholar8. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Glossary. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2005. Accessed at www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar10. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:521-4. [PMID: 18471654] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006;367:881-3. [PMID: 16546523] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Accessed at www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar13. The Joanna Briggs Institute protocols & work in progress. 2009. Accessed at www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar14. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Editorial]. CMAJ. 2004;171:606-7. [PMID: 15367465] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004;363:1341-5. [PMID: 15110490] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:161-6. [PMID: 16432083] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-9. [PMID: 16415336] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W-65-94. LinkGoogle Scholar19. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94. [PMID: 11304107] LinkGoogle Scholar20. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1-12. [PMID: 12513067] LinkGoogle Scholar21. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163-94. [PMID: 17938389] LinkGoogle Scholar22. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:78. [PMID: 17388659] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:15-24. [PMID: 11205853] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:518-26. [PMID: 11679863] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004;5:17. [PMID: 15238972] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:700-9. [PMID: 11226105] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575-82. [PMID: 16277721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:11-33. Google Scholar29. Sutton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:175-92. Google Scholar30. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597-600. [PMID: 16974018] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:769-81. [PMID: 11694102] LinkGoogle Scholar32. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157-62. [PMID: 11463691] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001;323:224-8. [PMID: 11473921] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar34. Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001;29:306-9. [PMID: 11600885] CrossrefMedlineGoogle J, Oxman A, E. systematic reviews that inform health care and J Health [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle of meta-analyses using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle E, R, I, L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of studies by systematic reviews: results of the study. BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, R, P, et al; Working Group. an on quality of evidence and of BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle R, Cook DJ, A, et al; and An the quality of evidence and of in guidelines and J Crit Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle A, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. evidence for reporting of in randomized trials: of protocols to published articles. JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Schmid I, Altman DG. reporting bias in randomized trials by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle CA, P, protocols of systematic reviews: what was to what was JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle In to A Article, and Disclosure From Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United The following to the PRISMA Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine United PhD, University Hospital MD, Health Research & Health PLoS Medicine United PhD, Hospital of Ontario, A. & Research and PhD, PLoS Medicine the of United PhD, Cochrane Centre United and of and MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario J. PhD, University of United MD, PhD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, of Health MD, of and Medicine, University of MD, PhD, Medical United MD, The Cochrane Centre PhD, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, United MD, University of MD, PhD, Systematic Reviews United and for Health and University of the and Alessandro Liberati, MD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario MD, Centre for the of the of Health PhD, The United MD, Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, Annals of Internal Medicine for Medical MD, Health Research Centre Health and Technology Assessment Ontario, Canada; at the of the first meeting of the group, Ontario, MD, University of Hospital of Ontario, PhD, Health International G. MD, PhD, Evidence-Based Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, The Cochrane Cochrane Collaboration United at the of the first meeting of the group, United and MD, Institute of University of Ottawa Ontario, PRISMA was by the Canadian Institutes of Health Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy; Research Clinical Evidence The Cochrane Collaboration; and Liberati is in through of the of University and Altman is by Research Moher is by a University of Ottawa Research of the any in the or of the PRISMA no a role in the Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Canada; Moher and Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, United of the PRISMA is in the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and of Studies Health Explanation and Elaboration Alessandro Liberati Douglas G. Altman Jennifer
Abstract. Growth factors and/or angiogenic factors are supposed to improve wound healing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous pretreatment with combinatory proangiogenic factors on wound closure, mechan-ical properties, vessel density and morphology. Twenty-eight Balb/c mice were divided equally into two groups. A mixture of VEGF (35.0 µg), bFGF (2.5 µg) and PdGF (3.5 µg) was administered subcutaneously 3, 5 and 7 days to 14 mice before full thickness skin punch biopsy wounding, whereas 14 control animals received three injections of 0.2 ml saline solution. Wound sizes were assessed daily and the repaired tissues were harvested 7 days after complete wound closure. Complete closure (≥95 % healing of initial wound area) was reached in all proangiogenic pretreated animals on day 10, whereas controls needed 13 days for complete closure. Tensile strengths were nearly twofold higher compared to the controls (p≤0.01). The punch biopsy material revealed 4.2-fold higher vessel densities in the proangiogenic pretreated group. On day 17, the vessel densities in the proangiogenic pretreated wounds were also 3.2-fold higher compared to the untreated controls. No significant differences were seen in the collagen ratio. Pretreatment with proangiogenic factors revealed several significant effects on wound healing: faster time to closure, a higher vessel density and a better functional outcome. These results suggest a beneficial effect of pretreatment with combinatory growth factors in mouse skin wounds without impaired wound healing. This might be exploited in further investigations in diabetic healing as a therapeutic approach for elective surgery.
The aim was to examine the association between this breakpoint (NIRS) and VT2 in welltrained runners.Gas exchange and NIRS data were collected during an incremental VO2max running test for 10 well-trained runners.The breakpoint calculated in oxygen saturation (StO2) and the VT2 were determined and compared in terms relative to %VO2max, absolute speed, VO2 and maximum heart rate (HRmax).There were no significant differences (p>0.05) between the breakpoint in StO2 and VT2 relative to %VO2max (87.00±6.14 and 88.28±3.98 %), absolute speed (15.70±1.42 and 16.10±1.66km•h -1 ), VO2 (53.71±15.17and 54.66±15.57ml•kg -1 •min -1 ) and %HRmax (90.90± 4.17 and 91.84 ± 3.70 %).There were large and significant correlations between instruments relative to %VO2max (r=0.68,p<0.05), absolute speed (r=0.86,p<0.001),VO2 (r=0.86,p<0.001) and %HRmax (r = 0.69; p<0.05).A Bland and Altman analysis of agreement between instruments resulted in a mean difference of -1.27±4.49%,-0.40±0.84km•h -1 , -0.90±3.07ml•kg -1 •min -1 , and -0.94±3.14 for %VO2max, absolute speed, VO2 and %HRmax, respectively.We conclude that a portable NIRS determination of the StO2 breakpoint is comparable with VT2 using gas exchange and therefore appropriate for use in determining exercise training above VT2 intensity.This is the first study to analyze the validity with the running mode using a NIRS portable device.
Objective The International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health ( IJAMH ) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, scientific journal which aims to publish original research on the promotion, prevention and improvement of adolescents’ health and well-being globally. Starting 2025, the journal will be transferred to Diamond Open Access on a year-by-year basis . All articles will thus immediately appear under the Creative Commons license CC-BY. There will be no publication costs for the authors. The Open Access transformation is based on Subscribe-to-Open , an alternative model that enables the full Open Access transformation of journals by continuing existing subscriptions. The prerequisite for successful transformation is that subscriptions are continued to the same extent as before. The editors of the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health and the publisher De Gruyter would therefore like to thank all subscribers for their support in making the transformation to Open Access possible. Our mission is to enhance the health and well-being of individuals during adolescence. To achieve this, we aim not only to publish research that supports their healthy growth and development but also to empower young people with chronic conditions and special health needs to successfully transition from pediatric to adult care. Starting in 2025, the journal will feature a dedicated section "Transitions in Medicine and Health Care", focusing on this important topic. We work closely with the Society for Transition Medicine ( Gesellschaft für Transitionsmedizin e.V. , GfTM), whose official publication the journal is. We seek original manuscripts, review articles, short communications, and letters to the editor from all disciplines worldwide. We welcome manuscripts from our colleagues in medicine, nursing, health services research, social work, psychiatry, psychology and youth work, public health and policy, and other disciplines working to improve the health and well-being of adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health regularly identifies focus topics that the editorial team considers to be of particular global relevance. Focus Topics in 2024 and 2025 Innovations in Adolescent Health Climate Change and Health Refugee and Migrant Health Promoting Mental Health Diversity and Inclusion Sexual and Reproductive Health Our International Editorial Team is dedicated to producing a high-quality scientific journal that is essential reading for healthcare professionals, practitioners, researchers, educators, managers, policymakers, students, and other learners. All contributions submitted for publication undergo single-anonymized peer review by at least two renowned experts in the field, selected and invited by the Editors-in-Chief or the Associate Editors. Article formats Original Articles, Review Articles, Short Communications, Letters to the Editor
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
Context: Rehabilitation Medicine is dedicated to optimise patients function and health in the most comprehensive manner. ICF, the latest International Classification by World Health Organization (WHO) is a conceptual framework for the assessment of functioning, disability and health. The purpose of this paper is to describe the applications of ICF in Rehabilitation Medicine practice in the Medical Rehabilitation Unit, University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Kuala Lumpur. Issues: ICFconsists of body function, structure, activity, participation and environmental factor. ICF categories are exhaustive, but are not practical to be used entirely and not applicable in clinical practice on theirown. How is ICF used from the clinical perspective' It has to be dapted to make it usable. In Rehabilitation Medicine settings, the following are ways ICF is applied in clinical practice: research in terms of validating the use of available ICF Core Sets and development of new ICF Core Set; clinical practice based on the ICF-based sheet; and educational tools. Conclusion: The practice of Rehabilitation Medicine is in line and compatible with the concept of ICF and can serve as a new important language that can improve the practice of Rehabilitation Medicine. It can be a universal language in functioning, disability and health and can improve understanding in addressing issues on disability within the medical community, improve multi professionals' communication among patients, healthcare providers and stakeholders.
OBJECTIVES: Existing studies on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) have produced diverse results regarding the types and prevalence of CAM use due, in part, to variations in the measurement of CAM modalities. A questionnaire that can be adapted for use in a variety of populations will improve CAM utilization measurement. The purposes of this article are to (1) articulate the need for such a common questionnaire; (2) describe the process of questionnaire development; (3) present a model questionnaire with core questions; and (4) suggest standard techniques for adapting the questionnaire to different languages and populations. METHODS: An international workshop sponsored by the National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM) of the University of Tromsø, Norway, brought CAM researchers and practitioners together to design an international CAM questionnaire (I-CAM-Q). Existing questionnaires were critiqued, and working groups drafted content for a new questionnaire. A smaller working group completed, tested, and revised this self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The questionnaire that was developed contains four sections concerned with visits to health care providers, complementary treatments received from physicians, use of herbal medicine and dietary supplements, and self-help practices. A priori-specified practitioners, therapies, supplements, and practices are included, as well as places for researcher-specified and respondent-specified additions. Core questions are designed to elicit frequency of use, purpose (treatment of acute or chronic conditions, and health maintenance), and satisfaction. A penultimate version underwent pretesting with "think-aloud" techniques to identify problems related to meaning and format. The final questionnaire is presented, with suggestions for testing and translating. CONCLUSIONS: Once validated in English and non-English speaking populations, the I-CAM-Q will provide an opportunity for researchers to gather comparable data in studies conducted in different populations. Such data will increase knowledge about the epidemiology of CAM use and provide the foundation for evidence-based comparisons at an international level.
INTRODUCTION: Definitions of sexual dysfunctions in women and men are critical in facilitating research and enabling clinicians to communicate accurately. AIMS: To present the new set of definitions of all forms of sexual dysfunction in women and men adopted by the Fourth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM) held in 2015. METHODS: Classification systems, including the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and systems that focus on only specific types of sexual dysfunctions (e.g., the International Society for Sexual Medicine definition for premature ejaculation) were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence-based definitions were retained, gaps in definitions were identified, and outdated definitions were updated or discarded. Where evidence was insufficient or absent, expert opinion was used. Some definitions were self-evident and termed clinical principles. RESULTS: The evidence to support the various classification systems was carefully evaluated. A more comprehensive analysis of this evidence can be found in two other articles in this journal that consider the incidence and prevalence and the risk factors for sexual dysfunction in men and women. These data were used to shape the definitions for sexual dysfunction that have been recommended by the 2015 ICSM. CONCLUSION: The definitions that have been adopted are those that are most strongly supported by the literature at this time or are considered clinical principles or consensus of experts' opinions. As more research and clinical studies are conducted, there likely will be modifications of at least some definitions.
The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Working Group on Bone Marker Standards (WG-BMS) has evaluated the clinical potential of bone turnover markers (BTMs) in the prediction of fracture risk and for monitoring treatment. Research evidence suggests that BTMs may provide information on fracture risk independently from BMD, so that fracture risk prediction might be enhanced by their inclusion in assessment algorithms. The potential use of BTMs to predict the response to treatments for osteoporosis in the individual patient is also of great interest. Treatment-induced changes in specific markers account for a substantial proportion of fracture risk reduction. However, there is still a need for stronger evidence on which to base practice in both situations. IOF/IFCC recommends one bone formation marker (serum procollagen type I N propeptide, s-PINP) and one bone resorption marker (serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen, s-CTX) to be used as reference markers and measured by standardised assays in observational and intervention studies in order to enlarge the international experience of the application of markers to clinical medicine and to help resolve uncertainties over their clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force of experts in critical care medicine was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In addition, international experts in endocrinology were invited to participate. DESIGN/METHODS: The task force members reviewed published literature and provided expert opinion from which the consensus was derived. The consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi methodology. The strength of each recommendation was quantified using the Modified GRADE system, which classifies recommendations as strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2) and the quality of evidence as high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C) based on factors that include the study design, the consistency of the results, and the directness of the evidence. RESULTS: The task force coined the term critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency to describe the dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that occurs during critical illness. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency is caused by adrenal insufficiency together with tissue corticosteroid resistance and is characterized by an exaggerated and protracted proinflammatory response. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency should be suspected in hypotensive patients who have responded poorly to fluids and vasopressor agents, particularly in the setting of sepsis. At this time, the diagnosis of tissue corticosteroid resistance remains problematic. Adrenal insufficiency in critically ill patients is best made by a delta total serum cortisol of < 9 microg/dL after adrenocorticotrophic hormone (250 microg) administration or a random total cortisol of < 10 microg/dL. The benefit of treatment with glucocorticoids at this time seems to be limited to patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock and patients with early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 of < 200 and within 14 days of onset). The adrenocorticotrophic hormone stimulation test should not be used to identify those patients with septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome who should receive glucocorticoids. Hydrocortisone in a dose of 200 mg/day in four divided doses or as a continuous infusion in a dose of 240 mg/day (10 mg/hr) for > or = 7 days is recommended for septic shock. Methylprednisolone in a dose of 1 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1) for > or = 14 days is recommended in patients with severe early acute respiratory distress syndrome. Glucocorticoids should be weaned and not stopped abruptly. Reinstitution of treatment should be considered with recurrence of signs of sepsis, hypotension, or worsening oxygenation. Dexamethasone is not recommended to treat critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. The role of glucocorticoids in the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, liver failure, pancreatitis, those undergoing cardiac surgery, and other groups of critically ill patients requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Evidence-linked consensus statements with regard to the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid deficiency in critically ill patients have been developed by a multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force.
Beneath the beauty of coral reefs lies a hidden universe of microbes unlike anything scientists expected。 Each coral species supports its own specialized microbial partners, many of which have never been studied before。 These microbes produce a stunning variety of chemical compounds with potential uses in medicine and biotech
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to update evidence-based medicine recommendations for treating motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). BACKGROUND: The Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine Committee recommendations for treatments of PD were first published in 2002 and updated in 2011, and we continued the review to December 31, 2016. METHODS: Level I studies of interventions for motor symptoms were reviewed. Criteria for inclusion and quality scoring were as previously reported. Five clinical indications were considered, and conclusions regarding the implications for clinical practice are reported. RESULTS: A total of 143 new studies qualified. There are no clinically useful interventions to prevent/delay disease progression. For monotherapy of early PD, nonergot dopamine agonists, oral levodopa preparations, selegiline, and rasagiline are clinically useful. For adjunct therapy in early/stable PD, nonergot dopamine agonists, rasagiline, and zonisamide are clinically useful. For adjunct therapy in optimized PD for general or specific motor symptoms including gait, rivastigmine is possibly useful and physiotherapy is clinically useful; exercise-based movement strategy training and formalized patterned exercises are possibly useful. There are no new studies and no changes in the conclusions for the prevention/delay of motor complications. For treating motor fluctuations, most nonergot dopamine agonists, pergolide, levodopa ER, levodopa intestinal infusion, entacapone, opicapone, rasagiline, zonisamide, safinamide, and bilateral STN and GPi DBS are clinically useful. For dyskinesia, amantadine, clozapine, and bilateral STN DBS and GPi DBS are clinically useful. CONCLUSIONS: The options for treating PD symptoms continues to expand. These recommendations allow the treating physician to determine which intervention to recommend to an individual patient. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
The polymyxin antibiotics colistin (polymyxin E) and polymyxin B became available in the 1950s and thus did not undergo contemporary drug development procedures. Their clinical use has recently resurged, assuming an important role as salvage therapy for otherwise untreatable gram-negative infections. Since their reintroduction into the clinic, significant confusion remains due to the existence of several different conventions used to describe doses of the polymyxins, differences in their formulations, outdated product information, and uncertainties about susceptibility testing that has led to lack of clarity on how to optimally utilize and dose colistin and polymyxin B. We report consensus therapeutic guidelines for agent selection and dosing of the polymyxin antibiotics for optimal use in adult patients, as endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), International Society of Anti-Infective Pharmacology (ISAP), Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP). The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) endorses this document as a consensus statement. The overall conclusions in the document are endorsed by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). We established a diverse international expert panel to make therapeutic recommendations regarding the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drugs and pharmacokinetic targets, polymyxin agent selection, dosing, dosage adjustment and monitoring of colistin and polymyxin B, use of polymyxin-based combination therapy, intrathecal therapy, inhalation therapy, toxicity, and prevention of renal failure. The treatment guidelines provide the first ever consensus recommendations for colistin and polymyxin B therapy that are intended to guide optimal clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: The medical literature contains several definitions of premature ejaculation (PE). The most commonly quoted definition, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision, and other definitions of PE are all authority based rather than evidence based, and have no support from controlled clinical and/or epidemiological studies. AIM: The aim of this article is to develop a contemporary, evidence-based definition of PE. METHODS: In August 2007, the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) appointed several international experts in PE to an Ad Hoc Committee for the Definition of Premature Ejaculation. The committee met in Amsterdam in October 2007 to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of current definitions of PE, to critique the evidence in support of the constructs of ejaculatory latency, ejaculatory control, sexual satisfaction, and personal/interpersonal distress, and to propose a new evidence-based definition of PE. RESULTS: The committee unanimously agreed that the constructs that are necessary to define PE are rapidity of ejaculation, perceived self-efficacy and control, and negative personal consequences from PE. The committee proposed that lifelong PE be defined as ". . . a male sexual dysfunction characterized by ejaculation which always or nearly always occurs prior to or within about one minute of vaginal penetration, and the inability to delay ejaculation on all or nearly all vaginal penetrations, and negative personal consequences, such as distress, bother, frustration and/or the avoidance of sexual intimacy." This definition is limited to men with lifelong PE who engage in vaginal intercourse. The panel concluded that there are insufficient published objective data to propose an evidence-based definition of acquired PE. CONCLUSION: The ISSM definition of lifelong PE represents the first evidence-based definition of PE. This definition will hopefully lead to the development of new tools and Patient Reported Outcome measures for diagnosing and assessing the efficacy of treatment interventions and encourage ongoing research into the true prevalence of this disorder and the efficacy of new pharmacological and psychological treatments.
A hacking group breached the academic software Canvas, used by thousands of schools and universities across the globe
Creatine is one of the most popular nutritional ergogenic aids for athletes. Studies have consistently shown that creatine supplementation increases intramuscular creatine concentrations which may help explain the observed improvements in high intensity exercise performance leading to greater training adaptations. In addition to athletic and exercise improvement, research has shown that creatine supplementation may enhance post-exercise recovery, injury prevention, thermoregulation, rehabilitation, and concussion and/or spinal cord neuroprotection. Additionally, a number of clinical applications of creatine supplementation have been studied involving neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's, Huntington's disease), diabetes, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, aging, brain and heart ischemia, adolescent depression, and pregnancy. These studies provide a large body of evidence that creatine can not only improve exercise performance, but can play a role in preventing and/or reducing the severity of injury, enhancing rehabilitation from injuries, and helping athletes tolerate heavy training loads. Additionally, researchers have identified a number of potentially beneficial clinical uses of creatine supplementation. These studies show that short and long-term supplementation (up to 30 g/day for 5 years) is safe and well-tolerated in healthy individuals and in a number of patient populations ranging from infants to the elderly. Moreover, significant health benefits may be provided by ensuring habitual low dietary creatine ingestion (e.g., 3 g/day) throughout the lifespan. The purpose of this review is to provide an update to the current literature regarding the role and safety of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine and to update the position stand of International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN).
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）