Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Error minimization”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

185 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Risk of mortality and complications in people with depressive disorder and co-occurring diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: People with depressive disorder have increased premature mortality and higher rates of diabetes mellitus than general population. Evidence shows that diabetes may further increase their risk of premature death from diabetes-related complications, especially cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Earlier studies examining depression-associated outcomes in diabetes patients have shown mixed results and were hindered by important limitations, especially the use of self-reported questionnaires to ascertain depression, causing misclassification bias by identifying subclinical symptoms or diabetes distress. Associations of depression with specific diabetes complications have not been systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the risk of mortality and complications among patients with depression and co-occurring diabetes (depression-diabetes group) relative to patients with diabetes-only (diabetes-only group), on their all-cause mortality rates, and if applicable cause-specific mortality rates, and occurrence of specific diabetes complications. METHODS: We systematically reviewed and quantitatively synthesized diabetes-related outcomes in patients with depression by searching Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Web-of-Science from inception to 20 December 2024, and included studies that examined mortality and complication outcomes in depression-diabetes group relative to diabetes-only group. Results were synthesized by random-effects meta-analytic models, with stratified-analyses (subgroup analyses and meta-regression) by study-level characteristics, including age, gender, study period, geographic region, follow-up duration and nature of diabetes sample. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024595145). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were identified from nine geographic regions. Regarding mortality risk, depression-diabetes group exhibited increased risks of all-cause mortality (RR = 1.30 [95% CI: 1.21-1.39]) and CVD-specific mortality (1.15 [1.02-1.29]) relative to diabetes-only group. Regarding complication risk, depression-diabetes group showed increased risk of complications (1.28 [1.18-1.40]) relative to diabetes-only group, especially in incident-diabetes sample signifying advanced disease stage upon presentation, with stratified-analyses showing higher risk of metabolic complications (1.63 [1.33-1.99]) and cardiovascular complications (1.20 [1.11-1.29]), and lower likelihood of retinopathy (0.84 [0.76-0.94]), albeit comparable rates of cerebrovascular complications (1.36 [0.99-1.87]), nephropathy (1.09 [0.93-1.27]) and peripheral-vascular complications (0.97 [0.79-1.18]). Both overall mortality and complication risks were present in various regions and persisted over time. Heterogeneities were noted and could not be entirely explained by stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that patients with depression and co-occurring diabetes were associated with elevated overall mortality risk and complication risk (particularly metabolic and cardiovascular-complications) than non-depressed counterparts, suggesting an overall poorer glycemic control that might eventually drive their earlier death. Comprehensive and multipronged interventions are needed for individualized risk estimation of diabetes-related outcomes, with consequent early interventions to minimize the avoidable physical morbidity and premature mortality in this vulnerable population.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Beyond Glycaemia: Fear of Hypoglycaemia, Cognition and Functional Mobility After Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomised, Single-Centre Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on psychological, cognitive and functional outcomes of advanced diabetes technologies in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains limited. We evaluated whether initiation of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) therapy was associated with changes in fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, psychological well-being, cognition, frailty-related measures and mobility-related function in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D. METHODS: This prespecified, exploratory secondary analysis was conducted within a single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial including adults aged ≥ 65 years with long-standing T1D. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to initiate AHCL therapy using the MiniMed 780G system or to continue standard diabetes treatment. The secondary outcomes included WHO-5, the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II (HFS-II), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Fried frailty phenotype and performance-based functional measures. No formal sample-size calculation was performed for these secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were randomised and 29 completed 12 months of follow-up and were included in the treatment-effect analyses. In the baseline-adjusted primary analysis, AHCL therapy was associated with a lower HFS-II score than standard treatment (adjusted mean difference -18.9; 95% CI: -32.4 to -5.4; nominal p = 0.008), although this finding did not remain statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.104) or in an exploratory model additionally adjusted for sex (difference -13.6; 95% CI: -32.2 to 5.0; p = 0.145). Diabetes distress, psychological well-being, global cognition and processing speed did not differ between groups. In sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, the between-group differences remained statistically significant for 6-min walk distance (92.6 m; 95% CI: 36.8 to 148.3; p = 0.002) and Timed Up and Go performance (-2.27 s; 95% CI: -4.28 to -0.27; p = 0.028), but not for gait speed (0.27 m/s; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.59; p = 0.099). At 12 months, 12 of 14 AHCL participants were robust and 2 were pre-frail; in the control group, 11 of 15 were robust and 4 were pre-frail. No participant was classified as frail at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, selected cohort, AHCL therapy was associated with a nominally lower fear-of-hypoglycaemia score and better performance on selected mobility-related tests over 12 months. The fear-of-hypoglycaemia finding did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons or additional adjustment for sex. Six-minute walk distance and Timed Up and Go remained statistically significant in the exploratory sex-adjusted sensitivity analyses, whereas the gait-speed difference did not. No measurable between-group deterioration in global cognition or processing speed was observed. These exploratory findings require confirmation in larger studies with balanced representation by sex and direct measurement of physical activity. These findings also support a person-centred clinical message: older age alone should not be regarded as a barrier to AHCL when treatment is introduced with individualised education and appropriate ongoing support.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗