Adverse childhood experiences and risk of late-life dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) refer to distressing events before age 18 that can lead to potential mental and physical health consequences. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between ACEs and the risk of dementia in elderly adults who experienced ACEs during childhood, addressing the existing inconsistencies and methodological variations. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was employed across key databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) to identify relevant articles. Our primary outcome was ACEs-dementia risk, and our secondary outcome was mild cognitive impairment risk. A quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE. A random-effects model was utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity and assess the reliability of the results. RESULTS: Out of 1,376 screened papers, nine studies were included. The studies consisted of two case-control, one prospective cohort, and six retrospective cohort studies conducted in the UK, France, USA, China, and Spain. Five studies were of good methodological quality according to the NOS. according to the GRADE, all outcomes were classified as very low or low quality of evidence. A significant association was observed between ACEs and dementia risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.20, 1.52; P = 0.00001) and mild cognitive impairment risk (OR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.63, 2.62; P = 0.49). A meta-analysis by type of adversity revealed significant results for the maltreatment subgroup(OR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.58; P = 0.007; I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the dementia definition revealed no between-subgroup difference (P = 0.71) between tool-based and register/criteria-based subgroups. No possibility of Publication bias was observed upon inspection of the funnel plot. CONCLUSION: Adverse childhood experiences may be associated with an increased risk of dementia. However, caution is warranted in interpreting these results due to the limited number of studies. Larger high-quality studies investigating the association between ACEs and dementia risk are needed to confirm the reliability of our results.

What is the impact of Kinesio taping on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: As a therapeutic intervention for several musculoskeletal illnesses, the benefits and effectiveness of Kinesio taping (KT) are currently unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis's (MA) goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of KT for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and its impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive search of online databases was done to discover relevant studies. Inclusion criteria included controlled or randomized clinical trials that were published in English. Changes in pain, flexion strength, and extension strength were among the outcomes of interest. RevMan 5.4 was used to extract and analyze data. RESULTS: After satisfying the inclusion requirements, five studies were included in the MA. Pooled analysis showed that, in comparison with the intervention group, the control group had a statistically significant improvement in flexion strength (Standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.44, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.87], p = 0.04). Extension strength and pain, however, did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups (SMD = 30, 95% CI [- 0.12, 0.72], p = 0.16), (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI [- 0.14, 0.66], p = 0.20), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests limited to no benefits of KA post-ACL reconstruction. While the control group surprisingly showed better improvement in flexion strength, no significant differences were found in extension strength and pain. Further rigorous trials are needed to confirm its utility in rehabilitation.

Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Tendon Release for Trigger Finger Compared With Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trigger finger (also known as stenosing tenosynovitis) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the fingers and causes discomfort and functional impairment. It is estimated to affect 2-3.6% of the population and is more common in manual laborers and individuals engaged in repetitive hand activities. This study comprehensively compares the efficacy of ultrasound-guided release versus traditional open surgery in treating trigger fingers. MATERIALS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating ultrasound-guided release of trigger finger (grade 2 and higher) compared with open surgical release. A meta-analysis was performed by Revman software 5.4.1 to assess efficacy, utilizing appropriate statistical methods to address heterogeneity. Primary outcome measures included "Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand" (QDASH) scores, Grip strength, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included Days of stopping analgesia, full-digit flexion and extension, days to return to normal activities, pinch strength, Quinnell grading score, and bow strengthening. RESULTS: Out of the initial pool of 820 studies, five met the inclusion criteria, including 275 patients with 283 trigger digits. The analysis revealed significant differences favoring the ultrasound-guided release group over the surgical group for improvement in Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score in the first month (MD -0.48, 95% CI: 0.75 to -0.2, P = .0007, I2 = 20%). The difference was not statistically significant in the 3-month follow-up period (MD -2.25, 95% CI: -0.54 to 0.05, P = .1, I2 = 0%). Additionally, there is a significant difference in the days required for return to normal activities in favor of the ultrasound release approach (MD -13.78, 95% CI: -16.68 to 10.89, P = .00001, I2 = 68%). The data displayed heterogeneity, which was resolved through sensitivity analysis that also favored the ultrasound-guided group. In terms of grip strength, full-digit flexion and extension, VAS, and days of stopping analgesia no significant differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided release showed advantages over open surgical release, resulting in improved QDASH score and quicker return to normal activities. This offers a minimally invasive, successful alternative to open surgery, reducing associated risks. Further studies with long-term follow-up are recommended.