Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MDS-UPDRS”

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.

115 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus conventional holmium:YAG laser in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Anatomical endoscopic enucleation is an established treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Whether thulium fiber laser enucleation (ThuFLEP) improves outcomes over conventional holmium:YAG laser enucleation (HoLEP) remains uncertain. We compared the efficacy and safety of ThuFLEP versus non-MOSES-modulated HoLEP. METHODS: We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of randomised and comparative cohort studies comparing ThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP in adult men. Six databases were searched. Outcomes included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual volume, hospital stay, and complications. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with RoB 2/ROBINS-I and GRADE. RESULTS: Seven non-overlapping comparative populations in eight publications included 3,509 patients. ThuFLEP was associated with a small statistically significant reduction in IPSS at 3 months (mean difference [MD] -1.04 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.81 to -0.28) of uncertain clinical relevance. Qmax differences were small and directionally inconsistent across follow-up (favouring HoLEP at 3 months and ThuFLEP at 6 and 12 months) and derived mainly from retrospective cohorts, with neutral randomised subgroups. Stress and urge urinary incontinence were less frequent overall (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96, and RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.68), but both estimates depended on one large registry cohort and were not robust to its exclusion. Most other complications and hospital stay showed no clear between-group difference. Limitations include few studies per outcome, heterogeneity, sparse safety events, inconsistent prostate-specific antigen reporting, and mostly low/very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSION: ThuFLEP and conventional HoLEP are clinically comparable with no definitive superiority of either laser. Platform selection should be individualised according to surgeon expertise, institutional resources, and patient characteristics. Future trials should standardise cost-effectiveness outcomes and investigate whether the distinct laser-tissue interactions impact adenoma clearance, PSA reduction, enucleation completeness, and long-term durability.

Humans

Influence of Concave Versus Convex Emergence Profiles on Midfacial Mucosal Stability-A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the influence of concave versus convex emergence profiles on midfacial mucosal stability in partially edentulous patients restored with implant-supported single restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251139042). An electronic search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase was performed up to May 7, 2026. Eligible studies included RCTs comparing concave (test group) and convex (control group) transmucosal prosthetic designs and reporting midfacial mucosal level changes (mm). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2) were performed independently. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using weighted mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Four RCTs including 144 implants with a 12-month follow-up were included. Of these, 128 implants contributed to the quantitative synthesis, with 66 implants allocated to the concave/modified emergence profile group and 62 implants allocated to the convex/non-concave emergence profile group. The pooled analysis demonstrated a mean difference of -0.31 mm (95% CI -0.63 to 0.02; p = 0.064), indicating a trend toward greater midfacial mucosal recession with convex emergence profiles compared with concave designs. Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate (I2 = 28%), suggesting consistent findings across studies. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the direction of the effect, with pooled estimates ranging from -0.12 to -0.43 mm. Exclusion of one study resulted in a statistically significant difference favoring concave emergence profiles (-0.43 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.16; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Convex emergence profiles are associated with a tendency toward increased midfacial mucosal recession. Concave profiles are preferable to support peri-implant soft-tissue stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Emergence profile design should be considered an integral component of prosthetic and surgical planning. The use of concave transmucosal contours during provisionalization and definitive restoration may contribute to improved peri-implant soft tissue stability and enhanced esthetic outcomes.

Humans

Effect of walking training on blood glucose control and metabolic health in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the improvement effect of walking training on blood glucose control and metabolic health indicators in type 2 diabetes patients, and to explore the effect of different intervention program characteristics on the efficacy through subgroup analysis. METHOD: The system searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO databases, with a search period from the establishment of the database to March 15, 2026. Include a randomized controlled trial with the main intervention measures of walking behavior, with an intervention period of &#x2265;8&#xa0;weeks. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and bias risk assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, with mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect measures for continuous variables. Select fixed effects model or random effects model for combined analysis based on heterogeneity size, and conduct subgroup analysis according to intervention program characteristics. RESULTS: Totally 5 randomized controlled trials were included, including 483 patients with type 2 diabetes (241 cases in the intervention group and 242 cases in the control group). Participants had a mean age of 54.2&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;6.5&#xa0;years, BMI of 29.1&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;3.2&#xa0;kg/m2, and 48.5% were male. The meta-analysis results showed that walking training significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin levels, with a combined effect of -0.48% (95% CI: -0.60 to -0.36, P&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.00001), There is moderate heterogeneity among the studies (I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;67%). Subgroup analysis showed that the "walking&#xa0;+&#xa0;other interventions" subgroup (combined effect size -0.58%, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.20) and the "clear step target" subgroup (combined effect size -0.52%, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.39) had larger effect sizes and lower heterogeneity within the subgroups. The bias risk assessment shows that the overall quality of the included research methodology is good. CONCLUSION: Walking training can significantly improve the blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Combined with diet or behavioral intervention, setting clear goals for the number of steps may achieve better results. Walking training can be used as an effective auxiliary treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in clinical promotion. Due to limitations in the number and quality of studies included, the above conclusions still require more high-quality research to validate.

Humans

A Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Intervention for Workplace Mental Health: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Work-related stress has been widely associated with an increased risk of various mental disorders and poor mental well-being. The fast-growing mobile health services industry has provided new opportunities for workplace mental health. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial examined the effectiveness of Neurum (Neurum Limited), a smartphone-based intervention tool featuring ecological momentary assessments and interventions that aims to reduce workplace stress in real-time and real-world settings. METHODS: A total of 201 working adults were recruited for a 4-week smartphone-based intervention that incorporated cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness exercises, and self-regulation exercises delivered on Neurum. A simple randomization procedure was used. Participants in the intervention group were encouraged to log mood journals, complete mental health exercises, and provide user feedback whenever applicable. The key outcome was measured by the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 items (DASS-21; Cronbach &#x3b1;=0.87). RESULTS: The intervention group consisted of 102 participants, while the control group consisted of 99 participants. More participants dropped out from the intervention group (n=21) than from the control group (n=2; &#x3c7;21=18.259; P<.001). The final sample consisted of 178 participants (male: 85/178, 47.8%; female: 93/178, 52.2%; mean age of 34.65, SD 7.67 y). Analyses revealed that after the 4-week intervention, the DASS-21 scores decreased in the intervention group (mean difference [MD]post-pre intervention=-14.518) but increased in the control group (MDpost-pre intervention=3.319; F1,176=59.358, P<.001; &#x3b7;2=0.252). This effect was largely led by stress reduction (F1,176=64.679, P<.001; for the intervention group, MDpost-pre intervention=-6.692, while for the control group, MDpost-pre intervention=2.000). On average, participants completed 6.27 (SD 9.4) exercises and provided 9.74 (SD 18.2) mood journal logs, with a daily engagement of 4.95 (SD 6.89) minutes. However, the associations between the changes in DASS-21 scores and the numbers of exercises or mood journal logs did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: This study primarily established the effectiveness of Neurum in alleviating depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in noninstitutionalized working adults, with a satisfactory user retention rate. Despite potential health-related culture differences, Neurum contributed to evidence-based digital health in nonclinical settings for timely needs and general accessibility as an alternative to traditional, face-to-face, and high-cost mental health services. Future directions involving a personalized approach in online mental health services were discussed.

Humans

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

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n&#x2009;=&#x2009;209, ACCF n&#x2009;=&#x2009;240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans

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

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