RESUMO
The aim of this study is to assess the possible effect of olive seed oil (OSO) and destoned and dehydrated olive oil (DDOO), in comparison with extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), on some cardiovascular biomarkers in an experimental model of diabetes mellitus. Diabetic animals showed evident alterations in biomarkers involved in the evolution of diabetic vasculopathy, marked by increases in biomarkers that favor vascular damage, which was between 1.5 and five times as many as those in non-diabetic animals, and a smaller number of biomarkers that protect against such damage (25-75% less than in healthy controls) was observed. The three oils administered decreased the concentration of biomarkers of vascular damage (35-45% in the serum lipid profile, 15-40% in early biomarkers of vascular inflammation and 20-60% in platelet aggregation and in thromboxane/prostacyclin imbalance). The greatest effect was by the antioxidant, both in the inhibition of lipid peroxidation and in the increase of glutathione. DDOO showed a significantly greater effect on oxidative stress and on thromboxane/prostacyclin imbalance than those shown by OSO and EVOO. This greater effect may possibly be explained by its higher triterpenoid content (913 mg/kg, compared to 113 mg/kg in OSO and 75 mg/kg in EVOO). We conclude, in the light of the results of this study, that these oils meet two basic conditions: they could improve the yield of the olive industry, and they equal, and may even increase, the beneficial effects of EVOO on cardiovascular disease.
RESUMO
Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations based on a systematic review of scientific evidence that are intended to help healthcare professionals and patients make the best clinical decisions. CPGs must be evidence-based and are designed by multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study is to assess the topics related to the clinical laboratory addressed in CPGs and evaluate the involvement of laboratory professionals in the CPG development process. Methods: A total of 16 CPGs recommended by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine and/or retrieved from PubMed-Medline were included. A review of the information provided in CPGs about 80 topics related to the clinical laboratory was performed. The authorship of laboratory professionals was assessed. Results: On average, the 16 CPGs addressed 49% (standard deviation [SD]: 11%) of the topics evaluated in relation to the clinical laboratory. By order of frequency, CPGs contained information about 69% of postanalytical variables (SD: 20%); 52% of preanalytical variables (SD: 11%); and 43% of the analytical variables studied (SD: 18%). Finally, half the CPGs included a laboratory professional among its authors. Conclusions: CPGs frequently failed to provide relevant laboratory-related information. Laboratory professionals were co-authors in only half the CPGs. There is scope for improvement, and laboratory professionals should be included in multidisciplinary teams involved in the development of CPGs.