RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the causal effect of lipoproteins to the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) by systematic review and meta-analysis of the associated Mendelian randomization (MR) studies. METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023465430). Searches from the databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science) and non-database sources to collect MR studies. The search time frame was from the database inception to August 2023. After data extraction, quality evaluation was performed, and the meta-analysis with bias evaluation was carried out with RevMan software. RESULTS: A total of 5,828,409 participants from 21 records were included. Quality and bias assessment was performed by evaluating the internal three assumptions of MR studies. Meta-analysis for the causal association between non-HDL lipoproteins and CAD showed a significantly positive association between LDL and CAD (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.26-1.49; P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), apoB and CAD (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71; P = 0.003, I2 = 98%), and Lp(a) and CAD (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.31; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). Interestingly, although there was no statistical significance in the association between VLDL/apoA1 and CAD (both P > 0.05), the pooled non-HDL lipoproteins showed a significantly positive association with CAD (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.22-1.34; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). For the HDL lipoproteins, the pooled OR showed a significantly negative association with CAD (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.002, I2 = 72%). However, the protective effect of HDL on CAD diminished when analyzed together with apoA1 and/or apoB (both P > 0.05). The funnel plot did not show serious publication bias, and sensitivity analysis performed relatively well robustness of the causal association of LDL, apoB, Lp(a), and total cholesterol with CAD. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests an overall effect of causal association between lipoproteins and CAD. Most of the non-HDL lipoproteins (LDL, apoB, Lp(a)) promote CAD, while the protective effect of HDL in CAD still needs to be verified in the future.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vaginal electrical stimulation (VES) as an alternative or adjunct treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome in women. METHODS: Five English-language databases and four Chinese-language databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies comparing VES (VES alone or VES plus other interventions) with other interventions (medicines, bladder training, or PFMT) were included. Voiding diary, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events were extracted from the included studies for comparison. RESULTS: Seven trials with 601 patients in total were reviewed. The results showed that when compared with other interventions, VES alone significantly improved urgency episodes (p = 0.0008) and voiding frequency (p = 0.01), but did not significantly reduce nocturia (p = 0.85), urinary incontinence episodes (p = 0.90) and number of pads (p = 0.87). When VES plus other interventions was compared with other interventions, the former significantly improved voiding frequency (p < 0.00001), nocturia (p < 0.00001), and number of pads (p = 0.03), but it did not significantly reduce urinary incontinence episodes (p = 0.24). Both VES alone (p < 0.00001) and VES plus other interventions (p = 0.003) showed significant benefit on QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that VES alone decreased urgency episodes and QoL better than other therapies. Although VES alone reduced voiding frequency better and VES plus other therapies decreased nocturia, number of pads, urgency episodes, and QoL better than other therapies, the results should be interpreted with caution for clinical practice because some of the RCTs included were of low quality and because of the small number of studies included.
RESUMO
Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most common psychiatric sequelae among novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of PTSD symptoms, PTSD-related factors, and its relationship with quality of life at long-term follow-up in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken to evaluate the health consequences of hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. All participants were interviewed face-to-face through a series of questionnaires: a researcher-developed symptom questionnaire, the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian Version, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item, and the 36-item Short Form. Results: A total of 574 participants were enrolled with an average age of 57 years. The median follow-up time post-discharge was 193.9 days (SD = 15.32). Among the participants, 77.9% of survivors presented with at least one symptom, where fatigue or muscle weakness (47.9%) was reported the most frequently, followed by chest distress (29.4%) and sleep difficulty (29.4%). The prevalence of PTSD was 11.15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.56, 13.73] with a cut-off score of 44. Factors such as respiratory symptoms [odds ratio (OR): 3.53; 95% CI: 1.68-7.42], anxiety (OR: 14.64; 95% CI: 7.09-30.21), and sleep difficulty (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.14-4.16) were positively related to PTSD. Those COVID-19 survivors with potential PTSD had significantly lower quality of life than those without (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Our study illustrated that a significant number of COVID-19 survivors were suffering from physical or mental distress to varying degrees at 6 months post-discharge. People with PTSD were more likely to experience persistent respiratory symptoms and sleep difficulty, as well as anxiety and a decreased quality of life. Such survivors require greater attention to their mental health, particularly the PTSD symptoms at the early phase, which may play an important role in the recovery of both the physical and psychological health of COVID-19 survivors.