RESUMEN
Background: Caesarean section (C-section) is the most common surgery among women worldwide, and the global rate of this surgical procedure has been continuously rising. Hence, it is significantly crucial to develop and apply highly effective and safe caesarean section techniques. In this review study, we aimed at assessing the safety and effectiveness of the Joel-Cohen-based technique and comparing the results with the transverse Pfannenstiel incision for C-section. Methods: In this study, various reliable databases such as the PubMed Central, COCHRANE, DARE, and Ovid MEDLINE were targeted. Reviews, systematic reviews, and randomized clinical trial studies comparing the Joel-Cohen-based technique and the transverse Pfannenstiel incision were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Selected studies were checked by 2 independent reviewers based on the inclusion criteria, and the quality of these studies was assessed. Then, their data were extracted and analyzed. Results: Five randomized clinical trial studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the exiting evidence, statistical results of the Joel-Cohen-based technique showed that this technique is more effective compared to the transverse Pfannenstiel incision. Metaanalysis results of the 3 outcomes were as follow: operation time (5 trials, 764 women; WMD -9.78; 95% CI:-14.49-5.07 minutes, p<0.001), blood loss (3 trials, 309 women; WMD -53.23ml; 95% -CI: 90.20-16.26 ml, p= 0.004), and post-operative hospital stay (3 trials, 453 women; WMD -.69 day; 95% CI: 1.4-0.03 day, p<0.001). Statistical results revealed a significant difference between the 2 techniques. Conclusion: According to the literature, despite having a number of side effects, the Joel-Cohen-based technique is generally more effective than the Pfannenstiel incision technique. In addition, it was recommended that the Joel-Cohen-based technique be used as a replacement for the Pfannenstiel incision technique according to the surgeons' preferences and the patients' conditions.
RESUMEN
Background: Considering that metformin is widely used in the treatment of diabetes, and its protective role against various malignancies, the strength and validity of the available evidence from related systematic reviews and meta-analysis were evaluated. Methods: Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of science databases, and Google Scholar and manual screening of retrieved references were systematically searched from their inception dates to 24 March 2020 by extracting the effect size (Odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) in each study. To present the forest plot of effect of metformin on each cancer, Stata version 14.2 was used. Results: This study included 36 meta-analysis studies and 620 original research studies (26 randomized control trials studies and 594 observational studies (cohort, case-control)) covering 15 different cancers. Overall, metformin medication prevented different cancers, including ovarian cancer (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62,0.93), cervical cancer (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.83), endometrial cancer (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.82,1.35), liver cancer (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47,0.74), pancreatic cancer (OR = 0.59, 95%CI 0.50,0.69), head and neck cancer (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61,0.83), stomach cancer (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.26,1.99), colorectal cancer (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59,0.91), colorectal adenoma cancer (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65,0.86), colon cancer (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69,0.91), esophagus cancer (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83,0.98), lung cancer (OR = 0.92, CI95%:0.85,0.99), breast cancer (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.84,1.02), prostate cancer (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.85-1.04), and bladder cancer (OR = 0.94 95% CI: 0.64,1.38). Conclusions: Treatment with metformin can significantly decrease the chance of all cancers with larger preventive effect on hepatocellular carcinoma and smaller preventive effect on lung and breast cancers.