Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Mobile application”

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.

328 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
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

Comparison of the clinical efficacy, safety and EEG functional connectivity changes between 18-Hz rTMS and iTBS of accelerated dTMS treatment for major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

Although the antidepressant efficacy of 18-Hz deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) has been validated, its prolonged treatment duration has considerable limitations for treatment capacity and patient adherence. Therefore, novel short-course protocols such as accelerated dTMS and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) present promising alternative options. Here we addressed the question of whether iTBS of accelerated dTMS achieves comparable therapeutic and electrophysiological effects to accelerated dTMS with the conventional 18-Hz rTMS protocol in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized controlled trial (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;73), participants received either 18-Hz rTMS of accelerated dTMS (rTMS-dTMS group), iTBS of accelerated dTMS (iTBS-dTMS group), or pharmacotherapy alone (drug group). Both dTMS protocols were administered twice daily for 10 days targeting the left lateral prefrontal cortex including the dorsolateral region. Results showed that Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score of the iTBS-dTMS group decreased significantly from 22.5&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;3.7 before treatment to 8.2&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;4.1 after treatment (t&#x2009;=&#x2009;15.900, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). HAMD score of the rTMS-dTMS group decreased significantly from 21.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;2.9 before treatment to 8.0&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;3.8 after treatment (t&#x2009;=&#x2009;17.232, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). The drug group also exhibited significantly improved patients' mood symptoms, and the HAMD score decreased from 24.7&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;6.8 to 14.0&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;5.0 (t&#x2009;=&#x2009;6.363, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). The treatment response rate was 85.7% in the iTBS-dTMS group and 76.9% in the rTMS-dTMS group, which was much higher than that of the drug group (42.1%). The remission rate was 50.0% in the iTBS-dTMS group and 42.3% in the rTMS-dTMS group, which was significantly higher than 10.5% of the drug group. We demonstrate here that both accelerated dTMS protocols significantly reduced HAMD scores, improved the response rates, and remission rates, outperforming pharmacotherapy alone. Resting-state EEG analysis further revealed unique frequency-specific functional connectivity (FC) modulation effects: the rTMS-dTMS group primarily exhibited weakened alpha-band functional connectivity within the fronto-occipital, fronto-temporal and fronto-central networks after treatment, whereas the iTBS-dTMS group predominantly demonstrated reduced theta-band functional connectivity within the fronto-parietal, fronto-occipital and fronto-temporal pathways after treatment. These findings indicate that iTBS of accelerated dTMS demonstrates comparable efficacy and tolerability to 18-Hz rTMS of accelerated dTMS, whilst inducing treatment-specific network-level neurophysiological alterations. In the rTMS-dTMS group, relative changes in FC between the frontal and temporal/precentral regions showed significant negative correlation with HAMD score reduction rates, while relative changes in FC between the frontal lobe and parietal lobe showed a significant positive correlation with the rate of HAMD score reduction for the iTBS-dTMS group. This study revealed novel mechanisms by which accelerated dTMS protocols modulate brain networks, providing evidence for the clinical application of accelerated iTBS-dTMS as an efficient, evidence-based treatment for MDD.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Thymosin-&#x251;1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-&#x251;1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-&#x3b1;1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-&#x251;1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-&#x3b1;1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-&#x3b1;1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-&#x251;1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-&#x251;1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-&#x251;1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I&#xb2; = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I&#xb2; = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I&#xb2; = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin&#x2011;&#x3b1;1 administration for any outcome (P &#x2265; 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-&#x3b1;1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗