SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “sensitivity”

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.

366 records · Page 21Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n = 209, ACCF n = 240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p < 0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p < 0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p < 0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p < 0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p = 0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Direct and spillover hospitalisation patterns during climate hazards across regions of different health-system resilience levels in China: a nationwide retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health-system resilience serves as a key contributor in mitigating adverse health impacts during climate hazards. However, quantitative insights into resilience-associated health-care utilisation patterns and targeted adaptation policies remain scarce. We aimed to capture the spatiotemporal health impacts in disaster-exposed counties and their neighbouring counties in China during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards or winter storms; understand the association between health-system resilience metrics and hazard-attributable hospitalisations; and develop evidence-based adaptation policies towards climate extremes. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational analysis of county-level aggregated hospitalisation data, we used a propensity score matching-difference-in-differences framework to assess the spatiotemporal changes of nine types of disease-specific hospitalisations in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions during storms, floods, tropical cyclones, and blizzards in China. We quantified the relative importance and health gains of health-system metrics during such hazards through random forest approach with interpretable partial dependence plots to derive evidence-based adaptation recommendations. FINDINGS: We included hospitalisation data from Jan 1, 2016 to Dec 31, 2023. In this period, 3241 county-hazard event combinations and 41 747 482 hospitalisations were recorded across 955 Chinese counties. The disaster-exposed regions experienced an initial decline in hospitalisation rates, followed by admission surges after disasters. For example, infectious disease admissions decreased by 11·92% (95% CI -10·53 to -13·31) during the flood-active period but increased by 7·68% (6·46-8·91) after 1-2 weeks of floods. Neighbouring zones were also affected through spillover effects, with infectious disease admissions increasing by 3·18% (1·76-4·61) after 1-2 weeks of the floods. Cardiovascular disease, injuries, infectious, respiratory, and mental disorders were more sensitive across all regions. Particularly for disaster-exposed counties, cardiovascular hospitalisations increased by 14·31% (7·34-21·29) during the tropical cyclone-active period. Notably, compared with low-resilience counties, high-resilience counties were associated with 19·48-30·03% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates during the hazard-active period and 27·07-31·08% smaller hazard-related relative changes in hospitalisation rates in post-hazard periods. For instance, during the storm-active period, the increase in respiratory hospitalisations was 7·21% (0·67-13·75) in high-resilience counties versus 12·13% (5·20-19·05) in low-resilience counties. Health workforce (relative importance 14·58% during the hazard-active period and 13·80% during the post-hazard period) and service delivery (14·10% during the hazard-active period and 14·17% during the post-hazard period) were identified as key contributors of health-system resilience. Empirical synergistic effects were observed when combining interventions during the post-hazard period, with the combined effect of service delivery (individual contribution 8%) and workforce (individual contribution 4%) exceeding the sum of their individual contributions (16% reduction in cumulative excess admissions) by 33%. INTERPRETATION: Climate hazards are associated with substantial changes in hospitalisation rates in both disaster-exposed and neighbouring regions. Health-system resilience is essential in addressing disaster-health challenges. Targeted adaptation interventions should be context-appropriate and threshold-aware, thereby maximising the public health benefits relative to resilience-oriented investments in health systems. FUNDING: Gates Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Effects of time-restricted eating on markers of glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of time-restricted eating (TRE) on glucose metabolism and regulation in individuals with prediabetes (fasting blood glucose of 5.6-6.9 mmol/l or HbA1c of 39-47 mmol/mol [5.7-6.4%]) or type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose ≥7 mmol/l or HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%]). METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 August 2025. Moreover, forward and backward citation searches were performed. Eligible studies were RCTs in adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, lasting ≥2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (≤12 h eating window) with a non-time-restricted control diet. Studies involving pregnancy, other fasting regimens, or non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Data were pooled as weighted mean differences with 95% CIs using random-effects generic inverse variance models in Cochrane Review Manager Web, and results are presented as forest plots. The certainty of evidence was defined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology, and risk of bias was estimated by using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: Out of 2043 records identified through the database search, as well as 1249 from forward and backward citation searches, ten RCTs including 599 participants were included. The mean length of the studies was 4 months, and the eating windows ranged from 4 to 10 h per day. The pooled meta-analysis showed no overall effect of TRE on HbA1c (-3.33 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.87, 0.20 (-0.30% points; -0.63, 0.02); p=0.06, moderate certainty). Nevertheless, following stratification by subgroups, TRE resulted in a reduction in HbA1c of 0.93 mmol/mol (-1.70, -0.17 [-0.09% points; -0.16, -0.02]; p=0.02) in individuals with prediabetes but not in individuals with type 2 diabetes (-4.68 mmol/mol; -10.08, 0.72 (-0.43% points; -0.92, 0.07); p=0.09). TRE reduced fasting blood glucose in the pooled analysis (-0.30 mmol/l; -0.53, -0.07; p<0.01, moderate certainty) as well as in the subgroup analyses in individuals with prediabetes (-0.14 mmol/l; -0.27, -0.01; p=0.03) and with type 2 diabetes (-0.48 mmol/l; -0.78, -0.17; p<0.01). Moreover, TRE lowered body weight by 1.6 kg (-2.2, -1.0; p<0.001) in the pooled analysis. The evidence was limited by imprecision arising from wide confidence intervals in some of the included studies, which may be due to small sample sizes. Lastly, the effects of TRE on markers of insulin sensitivity, beta cell function and continuous glucose monitoring measurements were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that TRE reduces fasting blood glucose but not HbA1c. The subgroup analyses revealed that TRE improved HbA1c and fasting glucose in individuals with prediabetes and improved fasting glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Future large-scale studies should investigate long-term effects of TRE in prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024523591 FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Three authors (JS, A-DT, THA) are employed at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, a public hospital and research institution under the Capital Region of Denmark, partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-assisted detection and optical differentiation of colorectal lesions in Lynch syndrome surveillance (CADLY2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CADe) systems improve adenoma detection in average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Meanwhile, evidence in Lynch syndrome surveillance is sparse and inconsistent. We assessed the effect of CADe on adenoma detection during Lynch syndrome surveillance. Computer-aided optical diagnosis (CADx) performance for optical differentiation of colorectal lesions was evaluated as a secondary aim. METHODS: CADLY2 was an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial at nine specialised hereditary cancer surveillance centres in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Adults aged 18 years or older with genetically confirmed Lynch syndrome scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy were randomly assigned (1:1) to high-definition white-light (HD-WL) colonoscopy alone or to HD-WL colonoscopy with computer-aided assistance from CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). CAD EYE was used for CADe during withdrawal and for CADx after lesion detection. Randomisation was done centrally through a secure web-based system using Pocock's minimisation algorithm with a stochastic component and was stratified by centre, sex, previous colorectal cancer, underlying pathogenic variant, and interval since previous colonoscopy. Allocation concealment was ensured through the centralised web-based system. Patients were masked to group allocation until the start of withdrawal in procedures with mild sedation, or until completion of the procedure in procedures with propofol-based sedation. Endoscopists were not masked. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate, defined as the proportion of patients with at least one histopathologically confirmed adenoma, analysed in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly allocated patients with available data for the primary outcome). The diagnostic performance of the CADx system was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The safety analysis set comprised all randomly allocated patients who underwent a study colonoscopy. This study is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00030695, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2023, and Oct 30, 2025, 757 patients were randomly allocated to HD-WL colonoscopy (377 patients) or to AI-assisted colonoscopy (380 patients); 733 patients were included in the full analysis set (369 HD-WL and 364 AI-assisted). The median age was 49 years (IQR 38-59) in the HD-WL group and 50 years (38-59) in the AI-assisted group; 213 (58%) were female and 156 (42%) male in the HD-WL group, and 207 (57%) were female and 157 (43%) male in the AI-assisted group. The adenoma detection rate was 30·9% (114 of 369 patients) with HD-WL versus 33·8% (123 of 364 patients) with CADe assistance (odds ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·83-1·57], p=0·41). For CADx differentiation of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions in the paired lesion-level analysis, with histopathology as the reference standard and sessile serrated lesions and traditional serrated adenomas classified as non-neoplastic, CADx sensitivity was 85·9% (95% CI 82·0-89·1) and specificity was 91·4% (89·4-93·0). Three adverse events occurred in the AI-assisted group: two mild post-polypectomy bleedings and one serious pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis unrelated to the procedure. No adverse events occurred in the HD-WL group. INTERPRETATION: CADe-assisted colonoscopy did not show the absolute improvement in adenoma detection rate that was assumed in the prespecified sample-size calculation. CADx did not clearly improve lesion differentiation beyond expert optical diagnosis in expert Lynch syndrome surveillance settings. FUNDING: Third-party research funding of the National Center for Hereditary Tumor Syndromes, University Hospital Bonn.

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↗