Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical Oral Investigations - To evaluate t he long-term outcomes following treatment of RT 1 multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGR) using the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) with...     

健脾消癌方通过PI3K/Akt信号通路抑制结肠癌血管生成的研究＊

目的 观察结肠癌HCT116细胞健脾消癌方的条件培养液对HUVEC细胞管腔形成的影响，从PI3K/Akt生物轴调控角度探讨其作用机制。方法 培养HCT116细胞，细胞设3组：对照组，健脾消癌方组（加入15%健脾消癌方含药血清）及人参皂苷Rg3组；制备HCT116细胞健脾消癌方条件培养液（分组及制备方法见实验方法），用条件培养液干预HUVEC（脐静脉内皮细胞，Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells），Matrigel基质胶法检测HCT116细胞健脾消癌方条件培养液对HUVEC小管形成的影响。随后采用蛋白免疫印迹法（Western blot）检测各组HCT116细胞磷脂酰肌醇3-激酶（PI3K）、蛋白激酶B（Akt）、p-Akt、VEGF（血管内皮生长因子，Vascular endothelial growth factor）蛋白表达。最后在结肠癌HCT116荷瘤小鼠中验证健脾消癌方对肿瘤生长速度的影响，并经瘤组织VEGF蛋白表达、CD31免疫组化染色检测肿瘤内血管生成情况。结果 模型组HUVEC细胞管腔形成较空白血清组显著增加（P<0.05）；健脾消癌方组及人参皂苷Rg3组较模型组HUVEC细胞管腔形成显著减少（P<0.01）。p-Akt和VEGF蛋白表达水平模型组高于空白血清组（P<0.05），健脾消癌方组及人参皂苷Rg3组显著低于模型组（P<0.01）；PI3K、Akt蛋白表达量组间差异无统计学意义。与对照组比较，模型组荷瘤小鼠肿瘤体积显著性增大，瘤组织内VEGF表达、CD31阳性面积显著性增加，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；与模型组比较，健脾消癌方组及人参皂苷Rg3组荷瘤小鼠肿瘤体积显著减小，瘤组织内VEGF表达、CD31阳性面积降低，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 健脾消癌方可抑制肿瘤的血管生成和生长，其作用机制可能与PI3K/Akt生物轴调控VEGF表达有关。     

Update PONV – Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen?

Die Anaesthesiologie - Auch wenn für Anästhesiologen über Jahrzehnte die Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Schmerzen im Rahmen des postoperativen Patientenkomforts an vorderster...     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.