Popular snore aids: do they work?

OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to critically evaluate 3 popular noninvasive treatments for snoring: an oral spray lubricant applied before bedtime, a nasal strip designed to maintain nasal valve patency, and a head-positioning pillow. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized blinded clinical trial of 3 popular noninvasive snore aids using objective acoustic snoring analysis and subjective patient and bed-partner questionnaires in 40 snoring patients. A digital recorder allowed snoring analysis with data collected in the home environment over 1 week. RESULTS: There is neither objective nor subjective benefit to the use of tested popular noninvasive snore aids. Palatal snoring, palatal loudness, average loudness of snoring, averaged palatal flutter frequency, and respiratory disturbance index did not significantly change when comparing the 3 snoring aids with no treatment. Subjective comments and complications are reviewed as well. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective comparison trial of popular noninvasive snoring aids. There is no significant objective or subjective snoring improvement in the anti-snoring aids studied compared with the use of no aid. SIGNIFICANCE: Outcome studies aid in verifying or refuting claims made by popular noninvasive snore aids.     

筛检对肝癌死亡率影响的研究

5581名HBsAg阳性的男性随机分入周期性筛检组(A组,3712人)及对照组(B组,1869人)。A组(19155.4人年)共发生肝癌257例,B组(9785.5人年)为117例,两组的肝癌发生率分别为1342/10万与1196/10万;两组肝癌死亡分别为218与109例,肝癌死亡率分别为1138/10万与1114/10万。两组中Ⅰ期肝癌病例分别为29.6％与6.0％,差异有非常显著性意义。1、3、5年相对生存率A组为23.7％、7.0％、4.0％,B组为9.7％、4.0％、4.1％。用Poisson回归模型拟合显示,在调正年龄、初筛AFP及入列年份后,筛检对于肝癌的相对危险度为0.83,95％CI为0.68～1.03,有较弱的“保护”作用,Cox回归模型拟合结果显示当临床分期未引入模型时,筛检对于肝癌有显著的“保护”作用:危险率为0.6617,95％CI为0.5234～0.8365;而模型经调整后,危险率即接近“1”,95％CI为0.74～1.26。     

FM sonography in diffuse liver disease: prospective assessment and blinded analysis

FM sonography - a signal-processing technique that uses frequency and phase information as well as amplitude data - shows promise in evaluation of patients with diffuse liver disease. In a prospective blinded review of 37 patients with biopsy-proved liver disease and 42 healthy volunteers, FM sonography was clearly superior to traditional amplitude-based (AM) sonography in distinguishing healthy from diseased subjects. Statistically significant differences were seen in accuracy (FM, 98.7%; AM, 84.8%), sensitivity (FM, 97.3%; AM, 70.3%), and negative predictive value (FM, 97.7%; AM, 78.8%). Our data also suggest that current FM sonographic techniques cannot differentiate among histologic findings associated with different hepatic parenchymal abnormalities. It is unclear, therefore, whether FM imaging can reduce the numbers of patients who require biopsy for diagnosis or the frequency of biopsy procedures in patients with known disease.