Iron intake and multiple health outcomes: Umbrella review.

Iron is an essential trace element, while excess iron can lead to different levels of physical abnormalities or diseases. This umbrella review aimed to conduct a systematic evaluation of the possible relationships between iron intake and various health outcomes. We retrieved PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through May 2021. A total of 34 meta-analyses with 46 unique health outcomes were identified. Heme iron intake was positively associated with nine outcomes, including colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease mortality, while dietary total iron intake could decrease the risk of colorectal adenoma, esophageal cancer, coronary heart disease, and depression. Iron supplementation was a protective factor against eight outcomes. However, it was associated with decreased length and weight gain. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was "low" or "very low" with the remaining eleven as "high" or "moderate". All outcomes were categorized as class III, IV, or NS based on evidence classification. Although high iron intake has been identified to be significantly associated with a range of outcomes, firm universal conclusions about its beneficial or negative effects cannot be drawn given the low quality of evidence for most outcomes.

The association between metabolic syndrome and benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed this meta-analysis to assess the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHOD: We conducted extensive searches on the PubMed, Science and Cochrane Library to identify all articles. Outcomes including annual prostate growth rate, prostate volume (PV), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS sub-scores (voiding and storage), prostate- specific antigen (PSA), maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual urine volume (PVR) and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. RESULTS: 21 studies with 15,317 patients were included. Patients with MetS had higher annual prostate growth rate [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.79; p < .001], larger PV (WMD = 2.62; p < .001), lower Qmax (WMD = -0.48; p = .001) and more PVR (WMD = 8.28; p < .001). However, no significant differences were found between two groups in IPSS (WMD = 0.20; p = .37), IPSS-voiding (WMD = -0.05; p = .78), IPSS-storage (WMD = -0.22; p = .26), PSA (WMD = 0.04; p = .43), and QoL (WMD = -0.01; p = .70). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggested that MetS may be one of the risk factors for the clinical progress of BPH. However, further study is warranted to support these results.

The relationships between bariatric surgery and sexual function: current evidence based medicine.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains despite several studies have discussed the role of bariatric surgery in improving male's sexual function. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of bariatric surgery in promoting male's erectile function. METHODS: PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and Clinical Trails.gov were searched from database inception to May 2019. The language of publication was limited in English. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score and Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BSFI) score were set as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 370 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The results showed significant improvement in the IIEF score (erectile function: MD = 5.33, 95% CI 4.12-6.54; intercourse satisfaction: MD = 2.57, 95% CI 1.19-3.94; orgasmic function: MD = 0.50, 95%CI 0.60-0.94; overall satisfaction: MD = 1.67, 95% CI 0.78-2.56; sexual desire: MD = 1.27, 95% CI 0.61-1.93; total erectile function: MD = 7.21, 95% CI 4.33-10.10) and the BSFI score (erection: MD =2.53, 95% CI 2.39-2.67; ejaculation: MD = 1.40, 95% CI 1.28-1.51; desire: MD =1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.49; problem assessment: MD = 2.20, 95% CI 2.06-2.34; sexual satisfaction: MD = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.76) in obese individuals after bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that bariatric surgery could be effective in promoting males's sexual function for obese individuals.

Aspiration-sclerotherapy versus laparoscopic de-roofing in the treatment of renal cysts: which is better?

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficiency between aspiration-sclerotherapy (AS) and laparoscopic de-roofing (LD) in the management of renal cysts through meta-analysis of comparative studies. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search was performed by PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to January 2020. The statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.0 and Stata 15.1. The sensitivity analysis was also carried out to confirm the reliability of this Meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our searches of literature generated 6 studies (1547 patients incorporated) comparing AS with LD in the impacts of renal cyst therapy. Of these, 6 studies contained 1106 and 441 patients who were treated with AS and LD, respectively. The outcome of this meta-analysis indicated that LD group was superior in symptomatic successful rate [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.28; 95%Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.86; P = 0.03), radiological successful rate (OR: 0.06; 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.15; P < 0.01) and recurrence rate (OR: 6.08; 95%CI: 2.81 to 13.15; p < 0.01). Nevertheless, AS group had shorter treatment time [Mean Difference (MD):-51.10; 95% CI:-73.01 to - 29.20; p < 0.01]. No statistically significant difference was showed in the rate of complications (OR: 3.19; 95% CI: 0.39 to 25.88; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In our meta-analysis, LD had higher symptomatic successful rate, radiological successful rate as well as lower recurrence rate than AS, while the treatment time was longer.

Outpatient vs Inpatient Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Evidence-Based Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

Purpose: To provide a systematic analysis of outcomes comparing outpatient and inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer based on the best available evidence. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted to determine eligible comparative studies as of July 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Parameters including perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes were collected. Results: Nine studies with 2721 patients were included, of which 831 underwent outpatient RARP and 1890 underwent inpatient RARP. The combined results demonstrated that compared with the inpatient group, the outpatient group had shorter operation time (weighted mean difference -8.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.08 to -3.10, p = 0.002) and lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95, p = 0.03). However, there were no significant differences regarding estimated blood loss, readmission rate, positive surgical margin, and urinary continence rates between the groups. Conclusions: Outpatient RARP does not increase the incidence of complications and readmissions compared with inpatient RARP. This suggests that routine same-day discharge after providing patients with RARP is safe and feasible.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced penile cancer: an updated evidence.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has shown promising results in patients with locally advanced penile cancer. However, no consensus exists on its applications for locally advanced penile cancer. Thus, it is unclear which kind of chemotherapy regimen is the best choice. Consequently, a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE was performed in March 2021 to assess the efficacy and safety of NAC for the treatment of patients with locally advanced penile cancer. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. This study synthesized 14 published studies. The study revealed that patients who achieved an objective response to NAC obtained a better survival outcome compared with those who did not achieve an objective response. In addition, the objective response rates (ORRs) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 0.57 and 0.11, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was 0.36. Subgroup analysis found that the ORR and pCR of the taxane-platinum (TP) regimen group performed better than those of the nontaxane-platinum (NTP) regimen group (0.57 vs 0.54 and 0.14 vs 0.07, respectively). Moreover, the TP regimen group had more frequent toxicity than the NTP regimen group (0.41 vs 0.26). However, further studies were warranted to confirm the findings.

Retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, which one is better?

PURPOSE: To systematically assess the perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), we conducted an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature retrieval of multi-database including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI was performed to identify eligible comparative studies from the inception dates to January 2021. Perioperative outcomes included operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative length of stay (PLOS), positive surgical margin (PSM), and complications (major complications and overall complications). Outcomes of data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4.1. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 2482 RP and 3423 TP approach RAPN patients met the inclusion criteria. Operating time (OT) (weighted mean difference [WMD] -16.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] -23.08, -10.12; p < 0.01) and PLOS (WMD -0.46 days; 95% CI -0.69, -0.23; p < 0.01) were shorter in RP-RAPN. Besides, lower EBL (WMD -21.67; 95% CI -29.74, -13.60; p < 0.05) was also found in RP-RAPN. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: RP-RARN was superior to TP-RAPN in patients undergoing RAPN in terms of OT, PLOS, and estimated blood loss. Besides these two approaches have no significant differences in PSMs or perioperative complications.