Association of serum leptin and ghrelin levels with smoking status on body weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Smoking cigarettes is a major global health problem that affects appetite and weight. The aim of this systematic review was to determine how smoking affected plasma leptin and ghrelin levels. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid was conducted using a well-established methodology to gather all related publications. Results: A total of 40 studies were included in the analysis of 11,336 patients. The overall effect showed a with a mean difference (MD) of -1.92[95%CI; -2.63: -1.20] and p = 0.00001. Subgroup analysis by study design revealed significant differences as well, but with high heterogeneity within the subgroups (I2 of 82.3%). Subgroup by sex showed that there was a significant difference in mean difference between the smoking and non-smoking groups for males (MD = -5.75[95% CI; -8.73: -2.77], p = 0.0002) but not for females (MD = -3.04[95% CI; -6.6:0.54], p = 0.10). Healthy, pregnant, diabetic and CVD subgroups found significant differences in the healthy (MD = -1.74[95% CI; -03.13: -0.35], p = 0.01) and diabetic (MD = -7.69[95% CI, -1.64: -0.73], p = 0.03). subgroups, but not in the pregnant or cardiovascular disease subgroups. On the other hand, the meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in Ghrelin serum concentration between smokers and non-smokers (MD = 0.52[95% CI, -0.60:1.63], p = 0.36) and observed heterogeneity in the studies (I2 = 68%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates a correlation between smoking and serum leptin/ghrelin levels, which explains smoking's effect on body weight. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero/display_record.php, identifier (Record ID=326680).

Comparative effects of minimally invasive approaches vs. conventional for obese patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches like mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) showed impressive outcomes. However, their advantages for obese patients are questionable. We aimed in this network meta-analysis to compare three surgical approaches: Full sternotomy (FS), Mini-sternotomy (MS), and Mini-thoracotomy (MT) for obese patients undergoing AVR. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA extension for this network meta-analysis. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane searched through March 2023 for relevant articles. The analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3. RESULTS: Out of 344, 8 articles met the criteria with 1392 patients. The main outcomes assessed were perioperative mortality, re-exploration, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, ICU stay, hospital stay, cross-clamp time, and bypass time. In favor of MS, the length of ICU stay and hospital stay was significantly lower than for FS [MD -0.84, 95%CI (-1.26; -0.43)], and [MD -2.56, 95%CI (-3.90; -1.22)], respectively. Regarding peri-operative mortality, FS showed a significantly higher risk compared to MS [RR 2.28, 95%CI (1.01;5.16)]. Also, patients who underwent minimally invasive approaches; MT and MS, required less need of re-exploration compared to FS [RR 0.10, 95%CI (0.02;0.45)], and [RR 0.33, 95%CI (0.14;0.79)], respectively. However, Intraoperative timings; including aortic cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass time, were significantly lower with FS than for MS [MD -9.16, 95%CI (-1.88; -16.45)], [MD -9.61, 95%CI (-18.64; -0.59)], respectively. CONCLUSION: Our network meta-analysis shows that minimally invasive approaches offer some advantages for obese patients undergoing AVR over full sternotomy. Suggesting that these approaches might be considered more beneficial alternatives for obese patients undergoing AVR.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor-agonists treatment for cardio-metabolic parameters in schizophrenia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor-agonists (GLP-1RA) treatment on cardio-metabolic parameters among antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia. Methods: We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus for relevant Randomized Clinical trials (RCTs) from inception until 1 August 2022. Documents were screened for qualified articles, and all concerned outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) in the meta-analysis models using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Pooling data from 7 RCTs (398 patients) showed that GLP-1 RA was superior to placebo with regard to body weight [MD = - 4.68, 95% CI (-4.90,-4.46), P < 0.00001], waist circumference [MD = - 3.66, 95% CI (-3.89,-3.44), P < 0.00001], body mass index (BMI) [MD = - 1.09, 95% CI (-1.25,-0.93), P < 0.00001], systolic blood pressure (SBP) [MD = - 3.07, 95% CI (-3.61,-2.53), P < 0.00001], and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [MD = - 2.02, 95% CI (-2.42,-1.62), P < 0.00001]. The total effect did not favor either of the two groups with respect to insulin and respiratory adverse events {[MD = - 0.06, 95% CI (-0.36, 0.24), p = 0.70], [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.31, 1.40), p = 0.28]; respectively}. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that GLP-1 RA treatment is safe and effective on cardio-metabolic parameters over control in antipsychotic-treated patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, the present evidence is not sufficient to confirm the safety and efficacy of GLP-1RA treatment on insulin and respiratory adverse events. Therefore, further studies are recommended. Systematic review registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022333040.

Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability.

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.

Could the New BA.2.75 Sub-Variant Cause the Emergence of a Global Epidemic of COVID-19? A Scoping Review.

With over 58 million cases and 6 million deaths by August 2022, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), causing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARs-CoV-2), has had an insurmountable impact on the world's population. This is one of the worst health crises since 1918's influenza pandemic. There are four subvariants of Omicron; BA.1, BA.1.1, BA.2 and BA.3. As a result of new mutations in its spike protein, most of which occur in its receptor binding site, the Omicron variant appears to be more transmissible and less resistant to vaccination and antibody response. Understanding Omicron's virology and mutations is essential to developing diagnostic and therapeutic methods. A thorough assessment of control measures, as well as timely adjustment of control measures, requires addressing such issues as re-infection risk, vaccine response, booster vaccine doses, and the increased rate of Omicron infections. This review article aims to look at the current information about the different types of SARs-CoV-2, focusing on the new subtype BA.2.75.