桂枝芍药知母汤联合西药治疗急性痛风性关节炎的疗效和安全性Meta分析

目的：系统评价桂枝芍药知母汤联合西药治疗急性痛风性关节炎的安全性和疗效。方法：计算机检索PubMeb、The Cochrane Library、EMBASE、Web of Science、国家知识基础设施数据库（CNKI）、中国学术期刊数据库（CSPD）、中文科技期刊数据库（CCD）和中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）,搜索桂枝芍药知母汤联用西药与单用西药治疗急性痛风性关节炎的疗效与安全性临床随机对照试验,并用改良后的Jadad量表对纳入的文献质量进行初步评价,利用Revman5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入7篇文献,共498例患者。Meta分析结果显示：中西药联用观察组患者总有效率明显高于西药对照组,差异有统计学意义（RR=1.20,95%CI为1.12～1.28,P<0.000 01）;中西药联用观察组在降低BUA（MD=-61.35,95%CI为-93.17～-29.53）,CRP（MD=-1.83,95%CI为-2.56～-1.11）,ESR（MD=-3.93,95%CI为-6.60～-1.26）,关节肿胀积分（SMD=-2.89,95%CI为-3.36～-2.43）和关节疼痛积分（SMD=-3.11,95%CI为-3.87～-2.35）的效果明显优于西药对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;中西药联用干预的观察组不良反应发生率明显低于西药对照组（P<0.05）。结论：桂枝芍药知母汤联合西药治疗急性痛风性关节炎的疗效和安全性明显优于单用西药,但受纳入研究质量和数量的限制,仍需更多高质量的临床随机对照试验来证实上述结论。     

Systematic review of outcomes and meta-analysis of risk factors for prognosis after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma without cirrhosis

Long-term overall survival (OS) after liver resection for non-cirrhotic hepatocellular carcinoma (NCHCC) has been reported recently. The aim of this study was to review outcomes systematically and analyze risk factors for survival after surgical resection for HCC without cirrhosis. A literature search was performed of the PubMed and Embase databases for papers published between January 1995 and October 2012, which focused on hepatic resection for HCC without underlying cirrhosis. Cochrane systematic review methodology was used for this review. Outcomes were OS, operative mortality and disease-free survival (DFS). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the random effects model for parameters considered as potential prognostic factors. Totally, 26 retrospective case series were eligible for inclusion. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rate after surgical resection of NCHCC ranged from 62% to 100%, 46.3%–78.0%, and 30%–64%, respectively. The corresponding DFS rates ranged from 48.7% to 84%, 31.0%–66.0%, and 24.0%–58.0%, respectively. Five variables were related to poor survival: multiple tumors (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.25–2.11); larger tumor size (HR 2.66, 95%CI 1.69–3.63); non-clear resection margin (R0 resection) (HR 3.52, 95%CI 1.63–5.42); poor tumor stage (HR 2.61, 95%CI 1.64–3.58); and invasion of the lymphatic vessels (HR 4.85, 95%CI 2.67–7.02). In sum, hepatic resection provides excellent OS rates for patients with NCHCC, and results have tended to improve recently. Risk factors for poor prognosis comprise multiple tumors, lager tumor size, non-R0 resection and invasion of the lymphatic vessels.     

The anterior versus posterior approach for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety between anterior and posterior approach, and determine the best surgical methods for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) in the cervical spine.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI and Wanfang Med Data databases from January 2007 to March 2018. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, cervical lordosis, functional recovery rates, excellent and good outcomes of the surgical approaches, and complication and reoperation rates were analyzed. RevMan 5.3 was utilized for data analysis.Results: Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. By comparing the anterior and posterior approaches for the treatment of OPLL in the cervical spine, statistically significant differences were found in the preoperative initial JOA, the postoperative final JOA scores, functional recovery rates, complication rates, excellent and good outcomes of the surgical approaches and reoperation rates. However, no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of the preoperative and postoperative cervical lordosis was noted.Conclusion: The anterior approach is superior to the posterior approach in terms of the postoperative final JOA score, functional recovery rate, and clinical outcomes. Although the complication and reoperation rates of the anterior approach are higher than those of the posterior approach. We recommend the anterior approach for the treatment of OPLL when patients with occupying ratio ≥ 60%. In addition, high-quality studies with long-term follow-up and large sample size are also needed.     

The influence of bariatric surgery on hip and knee joint pain: a systematic review

Obesity increases the risk of osteoarthritis and the chance of needing joint replacement arthroplasty to reduce lower limb joint pain. Although nonsurgical weight loss interventions can reduce hip and knee joint pain, bariatric surgery may be a more feasible treatment option for people with severe obesity. However, it is unclear whether weight loss through bariatric surgery can positively influence hip and knee joint pain. Our objective was to evaluate the influence of bariatric surgery on hip and knee joint pain in people with obesity by conducting a systematic review of the literature. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane bibliographic databases were searched for studies published between 1947 and September 2019. Risk of bias of the identified studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using JBI’s Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This review included 23 studies, all of which evaluated knee pain and 9 of which also evaluated hip pain. Reported results regarding hip pain intensity and the proportion of participants with hip pain were too limited to draw useful conclusions. Reported results regarding knee pain suggest that weight loss after bariatric surgery reduced knee pain intensity, as well as the proportion of participants with knee pain. The overall risk of bias of the majority of included studies (83%; n = 19) was judged to be unclear to high. Four small studies were judged as having a low risk of bias. Results of this systematic review suggest that bariatric surgery can positively influence hip and knee joint pain, but conclusive evidence is lacking because most of the included studies were judged as having plausible bias overall and in their key domains. Well-designed randomized controlled trials evaluating the influence of bariatric surgery on hip and knee joint pain using standardized joint pain measures are needed.     

阿帕替尼和替吉奥对结肠癌治疗效果的系统评价和Meta分析

目的通过系统评价和Meta分析探讨阿帕替尼与替吉奥对比治疗结肠癌的有效性和安全性。方法以"阿帕替尼""替吉奥""结肠癌""等为中文关键词,以"Apatinib""Tegafur""Colon cancer"等为英文关键词,检索PubMed,Cochrane Library,Embase,Web of Science,中国知网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、维普数据库、万方数据知识服务平台,时间限制在从建库到2020年12月。评价阿帕替尼和替吉奥对结肠癌的总体疗效,结肠癌进展和无进展生存期的差异。研究采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果Meta分析结果显示,阿帕替尼与替吉奥对结肠癌的疗效相比,部分缓解+稳定的差异没有统计学意义(RR=1.10,95%CI,0.71~1.71,P=0.640),在结肠癌进展方面的差异没有统计学意义(RR=0.51,95%CI:0.28~1.32,P=0.205),在无进展生存期方面阿帕替尼组大于替吉奥组,差异具有统计学意义(SMD=0.90,95%CI;0.42~1.37,P<0.0001)。结论相较于替吉奥,阿帕替尼用于治疗结肠癌患者能明显延长无进展生存期,总体生存效益有所提高。     

全球针对家族史高危人群的结直肠癌筛查指南推荐意见的系统综述

目的 对全球现有结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查指南的更新进展及推荐意见进行系统总结和评价。方法 以“结直肠癌”“筛查”“指南”“共识”“推荐”“家族史”以及“colorectal cancer”“screening”“guideline”“recommendation”“family history”为关键词,并补充其自由词,系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science,并且同时检索官网刊登的结直肠癌筛查指南/共识作为补充,语种限定为中文和英文。截至2022年5月24日,共20篇有效文献。对纳入文献的基本信息、针对家族史人群的推荐意见等进行摘录整理及汇总描述。结果 在20篇文献中,大多数国家/地区/机构根据结直肠癌家族史人群的亲属关系等级,对筛查起止年龄、筛查方式及筛查周期提出建议。多数指南针对有1例60岁前患结直肠癌一级亲属的人群,推荐筛查起始年龄为40岁或比患病亲属诊断年龄提前10年,推荐的筛查方式多为结肠镜。结论 目前全球多数结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查指南主要针对一级亲属家族史、以结肠镜作为主要筛查方式。本文将为我国针对结直肠癌家族史高危人群筛查策略的更新提供参考依据,进而完善结直肠癌筛查与早诊早治实践。     

Exposición al radón y cáncer genitourinario en mineros

ObjectiveTo assess the association between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer in a mining population through a systematic review of the scientific literature.MethodA systematic review of the scientific literature was carried out in MEDLINE (PubMed), combining MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms and free terms. We applied a specific scale to assess the quality of the included studies.ResultsWe included 17 studies; all were cohort studies with the exception of one which was a pooling of data. All studies included analysed the relationship between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer. While some studies point towards an association between radon exposure and genitourinary cancer, especially kidney cancer, others do not find such association.ConclusionsThe included studies showed great heterogeneity. It cannot be concluded that there is an association between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer. More research is needed on this topic, designing studies with higher statistical power, better control of confounders, and preferably prospective.