Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Sports injury prevention”

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.

437 records · Page 25Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing.

BACKGROUND: For suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity troponins (hs-cTn) in accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADPs) with 0/1-hour recommended over 0/3-hour ADP. However, implementation of these ADPs, with universal use of hs-cTns, has not been directly compared in randomized trials OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficiency and safety of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour and a 0/3-hour ADP when implemented in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, noninferiority implementation trial compared the safety and efficiency of clinician decision making using these 2 pathways. To prevent incorporation bias, an independent hs-cTnI was used for formal adjudication using the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI). Efficiency was judged by the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours. The safety endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days (adjudicated index or representation type 1 MI, cardiovascular death, and urgent coronary revascularization) for those who were considered not to have ACS and discharged. The noninferiority margin, for absolute difference in sensitivity, between the ESC 0/1-hour and the 0/3-hour ADP was set at 3%, assessed with a 1-sided 97.5% CI. RESULTS: From December 2021 to July 2024, of 13,983 screened 3,543 individual patients with suspected ACS were recruited and consented from 2 major emergency departments in North-West England, with 100% follow-up achieved for all representations to any national hospital. The median age was 60 years (IQR: 49.5-70.5 years), 53% were men, 6.7%, and 7.6% had adjudicated index type 1 MI and MACE within 30 days, respectively. The turnaround time from sample to result for central laboratory hs-cTnT was 81 minutes (IQR: 69-101 minutes). The proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours was relatively low and did not differ substantially (21.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.07). In addition, the 0/1-hour pathway was noninferior for safety, in patients discharged, compared with the 0/3-hour pathway, absolute difference in sensitivity was +4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI: -2.5) in favor of the 0/1-hour pathway. The calculated sensitivities were 93.7% (95% CI: 88.4%-97.1%) vs 89.5% (95% CI: 82.7%-94.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour pathway failed to discharge significantly more patients within 4 hours of presentation compared with the 0/3-hour ADP. In addition, The ESC 0/1-hour was noninferior to the 0/3-hour hs-cTn pathway for safety of discharge, although safety for both pathways was less than that imputed by observational studies. This trial demonstrates that perceived benefits to emergency department efficiency of a reduced sampling interval are mitigated by central laboratory turnaround times as well as system constraints. (Pragmatic Randomised Trial of the ESC 0/​1 Versus 0/​3 Hour Troponin Pathway [MACROS2]; NCT05322395).

Acute Coronary Syndrome↗
PubMed2026

Validation of a Turkish Translation of the Stress in Emergency Healthcare Professionals: The Stress Factors and Manifestations Scale.

AIM: The primary duties of emergency healthcare professionals (EHPs) are to provide emergency patient care to acutely ill and injured individuals. Due to the nature of their work, EHPs operate under constant stress, often requiring rapid decision-making, swift action, and the delivery of necessary medical care in life-or-death situations, sometimes under inadequately safe conditions. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Emergency Healthcare Professional Stress Factors and Symptoms (SEHP:SFMS) Scale in Turkish for identifying stress factors and symptoms in emergency medical care professionals providing emergency patient care services. DESIGN: A methodological study design was used in this study. METHODS: The study was conducted with the participation of 211 EHPs from employees working in emergency care institutions affiliated with the Muğla Provincial Health Directorate between November 2023 and June 2024. Data were collected via a face-to-face survey. Data were analysed using Lawshe content validity ratio, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient, Bartlett test, exploratory factor analysis, principal component analysis, Varimax factor rotation method, confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficient, convergent validity, discriminant validity, test-retest, and Spearman correlation coefficient tests. RESULTS: The linguistic translation and cultural adaptation of the SEHP:SFMS showed strong performance. The scope validity index of the scale is 0.83. The item-total correlation values of the scale were found to be between 0.486 and 0.794, and the factor loadings were between 0.474 and 0.816. Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices: χ2 = 248.727; df = 101; n = 211; p = 0.000; χ2/df = 2.463; RMSEA = 0.083; CFI = 0.914, SRMR = 0.052, which was found to be compatible and acceptable with the proposed 3-factor model. The Cronbach's α reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.931, and the total variance was 61.97%. CONCLUSIONS: SEHP:SFMS is a valid and reliable tool to assess stress factors and symptoms of Turkish emergency healthcare professionals. Its use improves the quality of emergency care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: These study findings have been used to create a tool with Turkish validity and reliability that allows for the examination of stress factors among healthcare professionals working in emergency and critical services. Identifying and reducing stress factors among healthcare professionals is crucial for the delivery of quality healthcare services. It can also be used to develop targeted interventions and ongoing strategies to facilitate improved clinical supervision and mentoring. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses in emergency departments, which are among the most stressful, dynamic, intense, life-saving, and critical environments in healthcare institutions, and where life-saving treatment is administered, are at high risk of experiencing psychological trauma. Trauma experienced in the work environment is a significant problem for nursing. The consequences of trauma negatively affect nurses and institutions. Studies show that post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout are commonly observed in emergency department nurses. In this sense, understanding the stress and stress factors experienced by nurses can guide future interventions. The results of this study are considered important in making visible the stress and stress factors experienced by nurses in the emergency department, and also in guiding managers and nurses working in this field in terms of preventive and protective measures.

Humans↗
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 &#x2265;7 mmol/l or HbA1c &#x2265;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 &#x2265;2 weeks, reporting markers of glucose metabolism and regulation, comparing TRE (&#x2264;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

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

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↗