SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Registries”

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.

85 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Desmodium styracifolium Total Flavone Capsules for Urolithiasis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: No oral medication is currently approved for the management of urolithiasis. Guang Jing Qian Cao (Desmodium styracifolium total flavone capsules; hereinafter, Guang Jing), a traditional Chinese herbal extract, has shown clinical benefits for urolithiasis, but randomized clinical trials are needed to assess its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether Guang Jing improves stone passage rates (SPRs) compared with placebo in adults with urolithiasis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 34 sites in China from December 2017 to April 2020. Participants included adults (aged 18-70 years) with diagnosed ureteral stones. Data analysis was conducted on November 4, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral Guang Jing (0.6 g) or matching placebo 3 times daily for 28 days, in addition to investigator-prescribed background medication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was SPR by day 28, confirmed by computed tomography. Secondary outcomes included SPR by day 14, stone migration rate, and stone migration distance. Between-group comparisons were performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical outcomes and t tests for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 606 participants were randomly assigned to receive Guang Jing (n = 458) or placebo (n = 148). Their mean (SD) age was 43.0 (12.0) years, 474 (78.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) stone size was 0.6 (0.1) cm. The SPR by day 28 was significantly higher for the Guang Jing group compared with the placebo group (204 of 457 [44.6%] vs 50 of 148 [33.8%]; relative risk, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.03-1.69]; P = .03), with an absolute risk difference of 10.9 (95% CI, 2.0-19.7) percentage points. No significant between-group differences in SPR by day 14 (Guang Jing vs placebo: 133 [29.1%] vs 33 [22.3%]; P = .14) or stone migration distance (mean [SD], 29.5 [51.8] mm vs 29.7 [43.8] mm; P = .11) were observed. Adverse event rates were similar for the Guang Jing and placebo groups (88 [19.3%] vs 27 [18.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, treatment with Guang Jing significantly increased the expulsion of 5- to 10-mm ureteral stones by day 28, with a favorable safety profile. These findings suggest that Guang Jing may be an additional medical expulsive therapy option for appropriately selected patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR-IIR-17013275.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation versus acupressure on the trajectories of multidimensional adverse reactions to chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for breast cancer often induces multidimensional adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. These symptoms are interrelated and may evolve dynamically, impacting patients' treatment outcomes and quality of life. As non-pharmacological interventions, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) and self-acupressure (SA) have shown potential in alleviating symptoms. However, their long-term effects on the joint developmental trajectories of these multidimensional symptoms (nausea and vomiting, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify potential trajectory class of multidimensional adverse reactions in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and to explore the differential effects of TEAS and SA on different trajectory subgroups. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 189 breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were included. The Group-Based Multi-Trajectory Model (GBMTM) was employed to identify joint developmental trajectories of acute/delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), anxiety, depression, and sleep quality during chemotherapy. Subsequently, causal forest was used to analyze the average treatment effects (ATE) of TEAS (vs. control group) and SA (vs. control group) on patients' symptom trajectory. RESULTS: Multidimensional adverse reactions were classified into two heterogeneous trajectories: a "High Symptom Burden-Persistent (HSBP)" type (n = 101) and a "Low Symptom Burden-Relieving (LSBR)" type (n = 88). The persistent high incidence of acute CINV contrasted sharply with the comprehensive relief of other symptoms in the latter group. Causal forest suggested that both TEAS and SA significantly increased the probability of patients being classified into the "LSBR" trajectory. The ATE was 0.147 (95% CI: 0.143, 0.151) for TEAS, slightly lower (P < 0.05) than 0.176 (95% CI: 0.162, 0.190) for SA.  CONCLUSION: Multidimensional adverse reactions in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy exhibit heterogeneity in their trajectories. Both TEAS and SA were associated with a higher probability of patients being classified into a more favorable symptom trajectory-LSBR. The multidimensional trajectory identification with treatment effect estimation may serve as a useful analytical strategy for future longitudinal research in cancer chemotherapy-induced adverse reactions symptom management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300077667 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), Registered 15 November 2023.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Vitamin D Deficiency During Pregnancy Is Associated With Greater LDL-C Increase, Elevated β-Hydroxybutyrate and Altered Neonatal Metabolic Markers-A Secondary, Pooled Analysis of the Randomized, Controlled Vitamin D and Lifestyle for Gestational Diabetes Prevention Trial (DALI).

INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D (vitD) plays a role in metabolic regulation, including lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity. During pregnancy, profound physiological changes in lipid handling and ketogenesis occur to support fetal development. However, the extent to which maternal vitamin D status influences these metabolic adaptations and fetal metabolic markers remains unclear. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, we examined lipid distribution throughout pregnancy-from before 20 weeks' gestation to delivery-in women with overweight or obesity, stratified by vitamin D status (deficiency, insufficiency, or sufficiency), assessing both maternal and cord blood. Main inclusion criteria were: age > =18 years, singleton pregnancy, < 20 weeks' gestation, BMI ≥ 29 kg/m2. Women with GDM < 20 weeks' gestation were excluded. In total, 962 pregnant women were divided into vitD deficient (< 30 nmol/L, n = 102), insufficient (30-50 nmol/L, n = 222) and sufficient (> 50 nmol/L, n = 638) groups. VitD levels and lipid concentrations were assessed at < 20, 24-28 and 35-37 weeks' gestation and in cord blood. RESULTS: Compared with vitD sufficient women, women with vitD deficiency had significantly larger increases in LDL-C throughout pregnancy and ß-OH-butyrate at 24-28 weeks' gestation, in adjusted analysis. VitD in cord blood was highest in offspring of mothers with vitD sufficiency. In cord blood, significantly higher ß-OH-butyrate was observed with vitD deficiency; lipid concentrations were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early vitamin D deficiency before 20 weeks of gestation was associated with altered metabolic trajectories during pregnancy, including greater increases in LDL cholesterol and ketone body concentrations in women with overweight or obesity, as well as higher cord blood ketone levels in their offspring. These findings suggest that early maternal vitamin D status may influence maternal and fetal metabolic adaptations, although causal relationships and clinical implications require further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered at ISRCTN registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70595832) trial number ISRCTN70595832. Registration date 02/12/2011.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions on stress outcomes in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stress symptoms were the most common psychological problem in pregnancy. Cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions are effective for antenatal depression and anxiety symptoms; but there are fewer studies for stress symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to (1) examine the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions in reducing stress outcomes (pregnancy-specific stress symptoms, generic symptoms, and objective stress) in pregnant women, and (2) identify significant moderators affecting the effectiveness of the intervention. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We conducted a three-step search (12 databases, 4 clinical registries, and citation searches) in English and Chinese up to July 24, 2025, by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were performed using the R software. Quality assessment and certainty of the evidence were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. RESULTS: We included 20 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 6966 pregnant women from nine countries. Random-effects meta-analyses found that interventions significantly alleviated pregnancy-specific stress symptoms (Hedges' g = -0.84, 95% Confidence Interval, CI -1.42, -0.26, p < .01, I2 = 92.3%), reduced generic stress symptoms (g = -0.64, 95% CI -1.09, -0.20, p < .01, I2 = 87.4%) with median and large effect sizes at post-intervention. No effect was found in lowering cortisol levels (g = -0.99, 95% CI -2.58, -0.60, p = .12, I2 = 84%) at post-intervention. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that region, age of participants, use of intention-to-treat, missing data management analyses, frequency, modalities, and approaches of interventions, use of different comparators, and attrition rate were significant factors affecting the effectiveness of interventions. Subgroup analyses suggested that the intensity of intervention should be more than once per week using a blended mode among Asian populations. Multivariate meta-regression analyses indicated that both younger age (β = 0.13, p = .02) and a lower attrition rate (β = 0.03, p = .03) significantly improved the effectiveness of interventions. The overall certainty of the evidence was rated as either very low or low. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions can supplement antenatal care to alleviate pregnancy-specific stress symptoms and generic stress symptoms, particularly in young Asian women. However, the evidence has some uncertainties. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Well-designed trials on a large-scale with long-term follow-ups were needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420251115913.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Remotely Supervised, Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder affects over 280 million people worldwide, and access to effective treatment remains limited. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive option, and portable devices now allow for home-based delivery under varying degrees of remote supervision. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy, safety, feasibility, and acceptability of home-based and remotely supervised tDCS for depressive disorders. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to July 2025, with backward and forward citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 12 distinct studies (16 reports), of which 6 (50%) were randomized sham-controlled trials forming the meta-analytic pool. Active home-based tDCS produced a small, statistically significant improvement over sham (pooled Hedges g=0.36, 95% CI 0.06-0.66; P=.03; I2=34.3%). The effect was not robust to removal of the single largest positive trial (omitting the one study from 2025: g=0.39, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.91), and trial-level results were mixed: the 2 largest trials (one unsupervised [n=210] and one self-administered [n=141]) were negative on their primary depression outcomes, whereas the largest real-time supervised trial (n=174) was positive (between-group 95% CI 0.51-4.01; P=.01). This estimate was concordant in direction with an independent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of overlapping trials, which reported a pooled Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.74, 95% CI -4.19 to -1.29) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale reduction (weighted mean difference -2.24, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.49), attenuating to nonsignificance (P>.05) in major depressive disorder without comorbid cognitive impairment. The pooled effect fell at or near the minimal clinically important difference. GRADE certainty was moderate. Adverse events were predominantly mild: one pilot study was terminated early for skin lesions, and one nonfatal suicide attempt occurred in an unsupervised trial. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based and remotely supervised tDCS produces a small, statistically significant but clinically modest antidepressant effect that is sensitive to the inclusion of the largest positive trial, with the 2 largest trials being negative. The available controlled evidence does not establish supervision intensity as a determinant of efficacy. Current data are insufficient to recommend routine clinical adoption; adequately powered trials with standardized supervision and longer follow-up are needed.

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

Arthroscopic Correction of Pincer-Type FAI in the Presence of Acetabular Retroversion Results in Excellent Patient-Reported Outcomes With Low Risk of Reoperation or Conversion to Arthroplasty at Minimum 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion is a distinct morphologic variation that may result in pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The role of arthroscopic management within this cohort is not fully understood. PURPOSE: To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and survivorship at 5-year follow-up in a series of cases undergoing arthroscopic correction of pincer-type FAI with acetabular retroversion. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A single-center, prospective hip preservation registry was reviewed for all cases undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAI between January 2014 and July 2020, with documented radiographic assessment of acetabular retroversion (ie, presence or absence of crossover sign, ischial spine sign, and/or posterior wall sign on a standing, standardized anteroposterior radiograph). Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, concomitant pathologies (protrusio, Perthes disease, avascular necrosis), excessive pelvic rotation or tilt on radiographs, and/or no crossover sign. Cases were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: moderate-global retroversion group (study group: crossover sign plus either or both ischial spine sign and posterior wall sign) or control group (crossover sign only). Case-control (1:1) fuzzy matching was performed based on age (±2 years), sex, and Tönnis grade (exact). Clinical outcome evaluation included assessment of PROMs (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], 36-item Short Form [SF36], University of California-Los Angeles Activity Scale [UCLA], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), achievement of Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), satisfaction, rates of revision arthroscopy, and arthroplasty-free survivorship, both preoperatively and 5 years postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v29. RESULTS: A total of 201 cases (120 global, 81 moderate) in the moderate-global retroversion group were matched with 201 control cases. Mean age was 30.6 ± 10.2 years; the sample was 90% male. The rate of revision arthroscopy was similar: n = 11 (6%) in both groups (P = .974). No conversion to periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) occurred in either group. Arthroplasty-free survivorship was 98.2% (retroversion group) and 98.8% (control group) (χ2 = 0.189; df = 1; P = .664). Significant improvements in PROMs from baseline were noted (P < .001 for all, in both groups). In total, 81% (moderate-global retroversion group) and 73% (control group) were satisfied at 5 years (P = .103). No significant difference was seen in PASS achievement rates for any of the PROMs between groups: mHHS, 62.1% versus 65.9% (P = .498); UCLA, 60.0% versus 52.2% (P = .192); SF36, 59.8% versus 64.7% (P = .458); WOMAC, 63.5% versus 67.3% (P = .553), for moderate-global retroversion and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy for moderate and global acetabular retroversion resulted in significant improvement in clinical outcomes, with high satisfaction and arthroplasty-free survivorship at 5 years, consistent with a case-control matched group without acetabular retroversion (focal retroversion, pincer FAI). Arthroscopy alone, without anteverting PAO, was an effective surgical management approach for symptomatic FAI in the presence of acetabular retroversion.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Assessment and CommuniCation ExcelLEnce foR sAfe paTient outcomEs (ACCELERATE): A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a nurse-led assessment and handover communication intervention on patient adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to experience harm from undetected deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. We aimed to implement and evaluate an organisational, ward-level nurse-led assessment and communication intervention to proactively reduce patient adverse events. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised Trial over 12-months was conducted at three metropolitan hospitals. Our intervention comprised a comprehensive, systematic patient assessment at shift commencement; a structured patient-centred bedside nurse-to-nurse clinical handover; and multidisciplinary communication consisting of nurse participation in medical ward rounds. Evidence-based implementation strategies informed intervention delivery to nine clusters (20-35 bed-wards with ≥70% permanent nurses) over three sequential 14-week steps. Routinely collected patient-level data were used to measure intervention effect. The primary outcome was a composite measure of medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls; and stage 2-4 pressure injuries. Secondary outcomes were: individual measures of the primary outcome; nurse-reported perceptions of safety culture; organisational readiness to change; barriers to physical assessment; staff engagement; and patient-reported experience measures of safety and overall hospital experience. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, hospital, pre/post intervention, and Trial step (fortnight), with random effects for ward and patient. RESULTS: There were 13,753 eligible admissions. No change was observed in the primary composite outcome measure (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.99 [0.77, 1.28]; p = 0.95). There was no significant difference in medical emergency team calls (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.75, 1.39]; p = 0.91); unplanned intensive care unit admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.35 [0.57, 3.20]; p = 0.50) and falls (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.96, 2.45]; p = 0.07). However, stage 2-4 pressure injuries significantly decreased by 41% (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.38, 0.93]; p = 0.02); a significant absolute effect improvement of 0.8% ([95% CI: 0.3%-1.3%], p < 0.01). There were statistically significant improvements in nurses' overall perceptions of Safety Attitudes (Pre: 74.6, Post: 79.7; p = 0.02), and the Organisational Readiness to Change subscales of, leader culture (Pre: 3.73, Post 3.91; p = 0.02), leadership behaviour (Pre: 3.85, Post: 4.11; p = 0.03), and general resources (Pre: 3.06, Post: 3.30; p = 0.03). A statistically significant decrease in Barriers to Physical Assessment (Pre: 2.48, Post: 2.24; p <0.001) and in six of seven sub-scales was observed. Patients' overall Measure of Safety remained high, but unchanged (Pre: 3.94 Post: 3.92; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The ACCELERATE Trial demonstrated that nurse-driven initiatives, emphasising structured physical assessments by nurses, patient-centred clinical handovers, and multidisciplinary communication, significantly: reduced pressure injuries; decreased nurses' perceived barriers to performing physical assessments; and improved leadership behaviour, communication, and ward safety culture perceptions. Results highlight the transformative potential of this approach, which now warrants testing at scale for broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000265875.

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

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

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↗