SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

245 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Hamstring Injury Prevention in Football Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hamstring strain injury is a leading time-loss injury in football, yet trials have evaluated diverse exercise-based prevention programs with limited direct head-to-head evidence. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing hamstring injuries in football players using exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-aligned systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in football players comparing exercise-based interventions to prevent hamstring injuries. Searches covered PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to January 5, 2026. Interventions were modeled as separate nodes (Nordic hamstring exercise [NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 + , FIFA 11 + Kids, bounding exercise program [BEP], usual training). The primary effect measure was incidence rate ratio (IRR) versus usual training, with ranking by P-scores; exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by sex-restricted male-only evidence and age group. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 9,282 participants were included. The network was connected but largely star-shaped, with most evidence comparing active interventions against usual training and no direct active-active comparisons. FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence versus usual training (IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84). FIFA 11 + Kids showed a favorable but imprecise estimate, whereas NHE showed a modest non-significant reduction and FIFA 11 and BEP showed no clear benefit. Male-only findings were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. Age-stratified analyses suggested that the apparent hierarchy was not fully identical across age strata, but subgroup networks were sparse and exploratory. RoB 2 judged three studies as high risk and eight as having some concerns; no trial was judged as overall low risk. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and treatment rankings were, therefore, interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: In this IRR-based network meta-analysis, FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence compared with usual training. However, certainty across the primary comparisons ranged from low to very low because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, sparse direct evidence for several nodes, reliance on indirect active-active comparisons, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and moderate-to-high risk of bias across the included studies. The treatment hierarchy should, therefore, be interpreted as a low-to-very-low-certainty, population-level summary rather than as a basis for firm recommendations. Further well-reported, age- and population-specific head-to-head trials with consistent exposure, injury-definition, adherence, and intervention-dose reporting are needed. Registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD420251243576).

FIFA 11 + ↗

PubMed2026

Quo vadis, BGA? A collaborative EDNAP exercise on the challenges and progress in forensic biogeographical ancestry inference.

There is a broad consensus that forensic tests for the prediction of externally visible characteristics (EVC) and analysis of biogeographic ancestry (BGA) of an individual are technically reliable. However, interpretation of the results and population-specific genotype distribution patterns remains challenging. EVC and BGA analyses provide valuable information for population genetics studies and as investigative leads for criminal cases, as well as for historical and contemporary identification tests. However, inaccurate or incorrect predictions, for example, from subjective bias in the interpretations made, have the potential to misdirect police investigations. The legal situation regarding EVC and BGA testing varies by country: ranging from countries where it is explicitly prohibited, to those without specific regulations on biogeographic ancestry prediction, and others that have already enacted laws governing its use. The reluctance to utilize these analyses is not only due to legal restrictions and data protection concerns, but also to initial limited sets of sufficiently comprehensive forensic DNA assays. Forensic BGA marker panels typically contain up to ∼300 SNPs. This relatively small number of genetic markers, along with limited reference population data, complicates the interpretation of results from donors of unknown origin. This paper presents the results of a collaborative EDNAP study, which, for the first time, evaluated the approach to reporting EVC and BGA data between international laboratories. For the study, DNA from nine individuals with self-reported ancestry was collected and analysed using various forensic panels differing in the number and composition of ancestry-informative markers genotyped, comprising: the Precision ID mtDNA Whole Genome Panel, the VISAGE Basic Tool and the VISAGE Enhanced Tool for Appearance and Ancestry Prediction, and the Ion AmpliSeq™ PhenoTrivium Panel. To ensure full data protection, all SNP genotypes and uniparental marker haplotypes obtained were not shared with third parties. Instead, the genetic data were analysed using a range of commonly used population analysis software packages. These analysis outcomes were then distributed to twelve European forensic laboratories (both academic and law enforcement institutions), who were asked to prepare reports based on their interpretation of the phenotypes and ancestry they inferred from the analysis data. A questionnaire sent alongside the genetic information, aimed to evaluate which difficulties were encountered by the participants in processing the BGA analysis data they were given.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Hypoxaemia and mortality in children with lower respiratory infection in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemic lower respiratory infections (LRIs) are a leading cause of childhood mortality, with the highest burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Hypoxaemia-low peripheral capillary oxyhaemoglobin saturation (SpO2)-is a marker of severity, and WHO recommends hospitalisation and oxygen administration for patients with SpO2 <90%. We aimed to update estimates from a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis examining the association between hypoxaemia and mortality among children with LRIs in LMICs by incorporating studies published over the subsequent decade and evaluating mortality risk across multiple SpO2 thresholds. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed studies published between Jan 1, 2015, and June 18, 2025, with combined terms related to pneumonia, children, mortality, and LMICs. We also included selected earlier studies through citation checking. Eligible studies reported associations between hypoxaemia and mortality in children younger than 5 years with LRIs in LMICs. We excluded case reports and case series with fewer than five deaths, studies focused exclusively on the neonatal period, and those limited to children with specific comorbidities or to postoperative patients, for consistency with the original review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Eligible studies were combined with those from the original review and analysed using random-effects models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) by hypoxaemia threshold subgroup. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023433946). FINDINGS: We identified 7734 records; 26 new studies met inclusion criteria and were combined with 18 from the original review. The 44 studies were published between 1993 and 2024 and were primarily from Africa (25 [57%] of 44) or Asia (19 [43%]); some studies spanned multiple locations. Data from 33 studies including 155 633 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. Hypoxaemia of any threshold was associated with higher odds of LRI mortality (OR 4·36 [95% CI 3·52-5·39]) compared with no hypoxaemia. For SpO2 <90% versus 90-100%, OR for death was 4·75 (95% CI 3·42-6·58). For SpO2 90-94% versus 95-100%, mortality risk was more than twice as high (OR 2·27 [95% CI 1·22-4·25]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 64-85% across analyses), and eight (24%) of 33 studies in the primary meta-analysis had a high overall risk of bias; however, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low or moderate risk of bias yielded similar results. INTERPRETATION: SpO2 <90% strongly predicts mortality in children with LRIs in LMICs. Children with SpO2 90-94% also have elevated risk, suggesting that paediatric LRI and pneumonia treatment algorithms should consider management at this hypoxaemia threshold. FUNDING: None.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Comparative Efficacy of Different AI Systems for Polyp Detection by Size During Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (≥18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (≤5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and τ2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed2026

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Musculoskeletal Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity, but their effects on musculoskeletal health remain completely misunderstood. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review/meta-analysis aims to synthesise clinical data on the effects of GLP-1 RAs on key relevant bone, muscle, and joint outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (both via Ovid® platform) and Embase were searched from inception to March 2025 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or real-world evidence (RWE) studies to be included. This bibliographic search was completed manually. A random-effect model meta-analysis was performed for any outcome reported in at least 2 studies. Subgroup analyses were performed on the type of GLP-1 RAs, type of comparator used and study design. Sensitivity analyses (i.e., leave-out sensitivity analyses and analyses restricted to the most adjusted effect estimate) were performed to test the robustness of the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This work has been performed in adherence with PRISMA statement. (PROSPERO Record ID: CRD420251024082). RESULTS: From 1148 potentially relevant references, 60 articles (46 RCTs, 13 RWE studies and 1 pharmacovigilance study, comprising 1,250,717 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. Different GLP-1 RAs were represented across the panel of studies, i.e., semaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide (dual agonist gastric inhibitory polypeptide [GIP]/GLP-1) and others. No effect on bone outcomes (i.e., bone mineral density [all sites] and fractures [all sites]) were observed when the meta-analytical models included the most adjusted effect size. Regarding muscle outcomes, a significant decrease of lean body mass/fat-free mass was consistently observed with GLP-1 RAs in the global model (k = 28, standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8; -0.23, I2 88%, p-value for heterogeneity <0.0001), which remained robust in all sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses showed that the effect was mainly driven by liraglutide and semaglutide, with a decrease in lean body mass/fat-free mass observed when GLP-1 RAs were compared with placebo. No publication bias was found. Regarding joint outcome, models revealed no significant change in The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, physical function and stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis is the first to investigate the effects of GLP-1 RAs on a large panel of musculoskeletal health outcomes. While no significant effects were observed on bone- or joint-related outcomes, GLP-1 RAs were associated with reductions in lean body mass/fat-free mass, although the certainty of evidence was low and these changes appeared largely related to weight loss. Whether these changes translate into clinically meaningful impairments in muscle function or physical performance remains uncertain. Further studies in this field, including those looking at muscle function, strength or performance and using multivariate models considering confounding are needed to better reinforce the models and final findings.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Prevalence of Claudin 18.2 Expression in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a clinically validated therapeutic target in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma following the regulatory approval of zolbetuximab in combination with first-line chemotherapy. Accurate prevalence data at the clinically validated immunohistochemical threshold are essential for patient selection, healthcare resource planning, and treatment strategy. Reported prevalence estimates vary widely across studies due to differences in populations, methodologies, and immunohistochemical protocols. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to generate a robust pooled prevalence estimate of CLDN18.2 expression at the threshold used in pivotal phase III trials. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception through March 12th, 2026. Studies reporting CLDN18.2 expression in gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma using the ≥ 75% moderate-to-strong membranous staining threshold were included. Prevalence proportions were pooled using a random-effects model with logit transformation and restricted maximum-likelihood estimation of between-study variance. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q test, and a 95% prediction interval was calculated. Pre-specified subgroup analyses assessed antibody clone and geographic region, with additional exploratory analyses according to disease setting and specimen type. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the pooled estimate. RESULTS: Twenty-two predominantly retrospective cohort studies comprising 12,173 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of CLDN18.2 positivity using a random-effects model was 33.99% (95% CI: 30.13%-38.07%; 95% prediction interval: approximately 18%-55%), with high between-study heterogeneity (I² = 92.4%). Subgroup analysis by antibody clone showed no statistically significant difference between studies using the 43-14 A clone (32.79%, 95% CI: 28.86%-36.97%) and those using other reported antibody clones (41.74%, 95% CI: 26.76%-58.42%; p = 0.281). One study with an unreported antibody clone was excluded from this subgroup analysis. Geographic subgroup analysis excluding the multinational Shitara et al. cohort demonstrated a non-significant trend toward higher prevalence in non-Asian populations (37.85%, 95% CI: 31.59%-44.54%) compared with Asian populations (32.10%, 95% CI: 27.28%-37.34%; p = 0.169). All three sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the pooled estimate. No significant evidence of publication bias was detected (Egger's test p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma express CLDN18.2 at the clinically validated ≥ 75% threshold. However, because the included studies encompassed heterogeneous disease settings and were predominantly HER2-unselected, the pooled estimate should not be interpreted directly as the proportion of patients eligible for zolbetuximab. The estimate was robust across sensitivity analyses and provides an evidence base for understanding CLDN18.2 prevalence and biomarker-testing requirements. Standardisation of immunohistochemical assessment methods is warranted to reduce between-study heterogeneity in future research.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus and acute gastroenteritis mortality: an analysis of pooled case-control studies from the MNSSTER-V dataset.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus accounts for an estimated 25% of diarrhoea deaths in children under 5 years globally, and more than 140 countries have included rotavirus vaccines in their routine national infant vaccination programmes. We aimed to calculate rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus-positive and all-cause acute gastroenteritis deaths. METHODS: The Multi-National Subpopulations Study to Evaluate Rotavirus Vaccines (MNSSTER-V) dataset combines child-level data from test-negative case-control studies of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness that enrolled children under 5 years of age seeking care for acute gastroenteritis at hospitals or emergency departments in 24 countries between July 1, 2007, and Aug 24, 2023. Children were included in this study if they were: younger than 5 years, met the acute gastroenteritis case definition (had at least three episodes of diarrhoea in a 24-h period, had non-bloody and non-chronic diarrhoea, and were enrolled within 7 days of diarrhoea onset), met vaccine card quality metrics, had vaccine delivery dates if the child was reported to have received a rotavirus vaccine, and had a reported outcome of death or discharge. In-hospital acute gastroenteritis deaths were characterised, and rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against all-cause and rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality was calculated using an unconditional logistic regression model with adjustment for national under-5 mortality strata and child's age. Vaccine effectiveness analyses against all-cause and rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality were restricted to children aged at least 3 months who received any routine vaccines from countries reporting at least one acute gastroenteritis death. FINDINGS: From the MNSSTER-V dataset, we included 27 252 children younger than 5 years enrolled from 22 countries; outcomes of patients were not available for two countries. At least one in-hospital acute gastroenteritis death was reported from 16 countries including 21 522 children; in total, 183 all-cause acute gastroenteritis deaths and 25 rotavirus-positive deaths were reported. Among children aged at least 3 months who had received any routine vaccines, receiving at least one dose of a rotavirus vaccine had an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 75·8% (95% CI 28·4 to 91·8; n=13 630) against rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality and 20·8% (-47·0 to 57·3; n=20 005) against all-cause acute gastroenteritis mortality. INTERPRETATION: Rotavirus vaccines are effective in preventing rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality. Continued efforts to improve vaccine delivery could help to reduce acute gastroenteritis mortality due to rotavirus worldwide. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Distal versus proximal radial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: comparative outcomes and learning curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to proximal transradial access (pTRA) for neuroangiography, but comparative real-world data and evidence on its early learning curve remain limited. We compared procedural performance and access-site complications between dTRA and pTRA and evaluated the early learning curve of dTRA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 470 diagnostic cerebral angiography procedures, representing 421 unique patients, performed via radial access at a single center between January 2025 and February 2026, including 237 dTRA and 233 pTRA procedures. Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, procedural performance, and clinically assessed access-site events were compared between groups. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was assessed by postoperative bedside pulse examination and confirmed with Doppler ultrasound when clinical findings were uncertain. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of RAO, persistent bleeding or repeated compression, hand edema, and a composite access-site event endpoint. Because repeated procedures occurred in a subset of patients and event counts were limited, first-procedure sensitivity analysis and analyses of infrequent outcomes were interpreted cautiously. The dTRA learning process was assessed in the first 100 dTRA cases performed by a single operator using multivariable regression, cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, segmented trend analysis, and phase-based comparisons. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, including age, male sex, BMI category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use. Compared with pTRA, dTRA was associated with more puncture attempts (3.0 [2.0-4.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0], P < 0.001), longer puncture time (2.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0] min, P = 0.003), lower first-pass success (19.4% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001), and a higher crossover rate (11.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.037). However, dTRA was associated with a lower clinically assessed RAO rate (2.5% vs 7.7%, P = 0.011). On multivariable analysis, pTRA was independently associated with higher odds of RAO (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.26-8.49, P = 0.015) and the composite access-site event endpoint (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.55-6.28, P = 0.001). Similar findings were observed in a sensitivity analysis restricted to the first procedure per patient. In the first 100 dTRA cases, cumulative dTRA experience was independently associated with shorter total procedure time (beta = -0.074 min/case, P = 0.009), while CUSUM and moving-average analyses suggested that the major learning effect occurred within approximately the first 10-15 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-operator cohort, dTRA was associated with lower clinically assessed RAO than pTRA despite greater access difficulty. The early learning effect was mainly reflected in shorter total procedure time. These findings support the feasibility of dTRA but should be interpreted cautiously given the study's observational design and limited anatomical data.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗