SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MM”

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.

76 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Franseen Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions is essential for guiding treatment with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) being the preferred method. Among FNB designs, the three-pronged Franseen-tip needle demonstrates strong diagnostic performance, though direct head-to-head comparisons with other FNB designs remain limited. METHODOLOGY: This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251123856). Eligible studies enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-guided FNB, directly compared the Franseen-tip with other FNB needles. Six databases were systematically searched through July 2025, and study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (QUADAS-2 tool) were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled estimates were generated using random-effects and bivariate hierarchical models. RESULTS: Sixteen studies (2,010 Franseen vs. 2,811 comparator) were included. Bivariate analysis showed that sensitivity and specificity of the Franseen needle were comparable to newer-generation comparator needles (sensitivity 91.3% vs. 94.0%; specificity 99.99% vs. 99.15%), whereas older-generation needles demonstrated lower sensitivity (80.8%) and inferior discriminatory performance (Negative Likelihood Ratio [LR⁻] 0.19 vs. 0.09). Diagnostic accuracy was higher with the Franseen needle (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14; I2 = 69%). Sample adequacy was similar overall (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95-1.14) but superior to older-generation needles (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.41) and in lesions > 30 mm (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28, I2 = 81.2%). The Franseen needle achieved nominally strong diagnostic performance (DOR 116.6), although small-study effects were observed. Primary procedural outcomes were comparable between Franseen and comparator needles, including technical success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02) and histological core procurement (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17). The Franseen needle had fewer low-cellularity samples (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.69) and lower specimen bloodiness (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.90) but a slightly higher overall adverse event rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.57). CONCLUSION: The Franseen needle provides superior diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy compared to older-generation FNB needles with comparable performance to newer-generation designs. It reduces low-cellularity samples and specimen bloodiness, although adverse events are slightly increased, with other primary procedural outcomes remaining comparable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD420251123856).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

[Clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture at the motor area for Parkinson's disease with musculoskeletal pain: a randomized controlled trial].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) at the motor area for Parkinson's disease (PD) with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with PD accompanied by musculoskeletal pain were randomly assigned to an EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out) and a sham EA group (29 cases, 1 case dropped out). The EA group was treated with EA at the motor area contralateral to the painful side (for bilateral pain, the left motor area was selected), using disperse-dense wave (2 Hz/20 Hz), with a current intensity of 1-2 mA, and needles were retained for 30 min. The sham EA group was treated with sham EA at non-acupoint area located 5-20 mm posterior to the motor area contralateral to the painful side. The connection mode was the same as that in the EA group, but no electrical current was delivered, and the needles were retained for 30 min. Both groups were treated once daily for 5 consecutive days. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part Ⅲ (UPDRS-Ⅲ), 24-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-24), Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA), and 39-item Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores were evaluated before treatment, immediately after treatment, and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion in the two groups. Safety was also assessed in the two groups. RESULTS: In both groups, VAS scores for pain after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion were lower than those before treatment (P<0.01, P<0.05). VAS scores for pain in the EA group were lower than those in the sham EA group after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion (P<0.05). In the EA group, UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores after treatment and at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment completion were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05, P<0.01). In the sham EA group, there were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores at any post-treatment time point compared with those before treatment (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in UPDRS-Ⅲ, HAMD-24, HAMA, and PDQ-39 scores between the two groups at any post-treatment time point (P>0.05). No serious adverse events occurred during the trial. CONCLUSION: EA at the motor area could reduce pain intensity in patients with PD accompanied by musculoskeletal pain, and improve pain-related motor symptoms, emotional status, and quality of life, with a favorable safety profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms according to comorbidities, risk factors, country, and time period: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage declined between 1980 and 2010, which coincided with a decline in smoking and prevalence of hypertension. We aimed to investigate whether the decrease in subarachnoid haemorrhage incidence is paralleled by declines in unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) prevalence. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles published in any language from Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2025, and reassessed 68 articles published before March 1, 2011 from a 2011 systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they used a cross-sectional or case-control design and provided the crude number of participants and those with UIA. We only included studies reporting numbers of UIA separately from ruptured aneurysms and with ten or more patients. Summary data were independently extracted by JD with AZ or CB and conflicts were resolved by GJER. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with UIA. Relative to a hypothetical reference population (mean age 50 years, 50% women, and no comorbidities), age and/or sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for regions, comorbidities, and risk ratios (RRs) for female sex, smoking, and hypertension were estimated using generalised linear mixed models. A time trend analysis was done by binomial meta regression using the mid-year of data acquisition. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD420261296728. FINDINGS: Our search screened 4708 studies. 67 reassessed and 95 newly identified articles, reporting on 316 131 participants and 11 822 people with UIAs, were included in our meta-analysis. In the reference population, the estimated prevalence of UIAs was 3·9% (95% CI 3·0-5·1). The prevalence of UIAs in individuals with atherosclerosis was 5·5% (4·7-6·4; 2229 of 40970 participants) and the adjusted PR was 1·3 (95% CI 0·8-2·0) compared with the reference population. For positive family history of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) or UIA, the UIA prevalence was 7·9% (5·6-11·1; 412 of 4252 participants) and the adjusted PR was 2·4 (0·5-11·2). For connective-tissue disorder, the UIA prevalence was 10·3% (6·5-16·0; 94 of 879 participants) and the adjusted PR was 3·9 (2·0-7·6). For autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), the UIA prevalence was 12·8% (9·2-17·6; 293 of 1990 participants) and the adjusted PR was 4·4 (1·5-12·6). RRs were for current smoking 1·4 (1·2-1·6; 798 of 27911 participants), for having hypertension 1·6 (1·5-1·7, 4043 of 83053 participants), and for female sex 1·9 (1·8-2·0; 3415 of 65020 women and 2122 of 76130 men). In studies on healthy individuals with MR angiography or CT angiography as imaging modality, the prevalence in 2016-2022 was 6·6% (6·3-6·8; 2904 of 41191 participants). The adjusted PR was 1·8 (1·1-2·8) for 2016-2022 versus 2002-2015. Prevalence of UIAs of 5 mm or larger was 0·7% (0·6-0·8) in 2002-2015 and 1·4% (1·0-1·9) in 2016-2022. The UIA prevalence did not differ between countries. τ2 showed significant heterogeneity between studies. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. INTERPRETATION: Prevalence of UIA is increasing, particularly over the past two decades. This increase is only in part explained by improved detection of small UIAs and an ageing population, and other factors-such as environmental-are likely involved. Alongside patients with ADPKD and a positive family history of aSAH, patients with connective-tissue disorders had a higher prevalence of UIA than the reference population. Our findings warrant further investigation into the potential benefit of personalised screening and management strategies in groups at high risk for having UIAs. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗