ObjectivesAfter 20 years of development, there is confusion in the nomenclature of transcutaneous stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve (ABVN). We performed a systematic review of transcutaneous stimulation of ABVN in nomenclature.Materials and MethodsA systematic search of the literature was carried out, using the bibliographic search engine PubMed. The search covered articles published up until June 11, 2020. We recorded the full nomenclature and abbreviated nomenclature same or similar to transcutaneous stimulation of ABVN in the selected eligible studies, as well as the time and author information of this nomenclature.ResultsFrom 261 studies, 67 full nomenclatures and 27 abbreviated nomenclatures were finally screened out, transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation and tVNS are the most common nomenclature, accounting for 38.38% and 42.06%, respectively. In a total of 97 combinations of full nomenclatures and abbreviations, the most commonly used nomenclature for the combination of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation and tVNS, accounting for 30.28%. Interestingly, the combination of full nomenclatures and abbreviations is not always a one-to-one relationship, there are ten abbreviated nomenclatures corresponding to transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation, and five full nomenclatures corresponding to tVNS. In addition, based on the analysis of the usage habits of nomenclature in 21 teams, it is found that only three teams have fixed habits, while other different teams or the same team do not always use the same nomenclature in their paper.ConclusionsThe phenomenon of confusion in the nomenclature of transcutaneous stimulation of ABVN is obvious and shows a trend of diversity. The nomenclature of transcutaneous stimulation of ABVN needs to become more standardized in the future. 相似文献
Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether calcium supplement with or without other drugs could reduce the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension based on existed evidence, and to clarify whether there is discrepant effect among different population and using different dose.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE database were searched. Two authors independently screened all records and extracted data. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios and 95% CIs using random-effects models.
Results: 27 studies, with 28 492 pregnant women were included. The results showed calcium supplement was associated with lower incidence of preeclampsia (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.64) and gestational hypertension (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82). Sub-analyses revealed high-dose (1.2–2 g/day), moderate-dose (0.6–1.2 g/day), and low-dose (<0.6 g/day) of calcium supplement could reduce the risk of preeclampsia. For gestational hypertension, only high dose and moderate dose groups were associated with reducing the risk of gestational hypertension. However, we could draw a conclusion which does group was the most protective, as we were unable to directly compare the effects of different doses.
Conclusions: This study indicated calcium supplementation might decrease the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. And results of subgroups analyses enhanced our confidence to the protective effect of calcium supplementation. However, further studies with direct comparison of different dose of calcium supplementation are needed to explore the ideal dose of calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. 相似文献