Assembling power: A mitochondrial supercomplex fuels metastasis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Editorial↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Editorial”
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.
Association between packed red blood cell transfusion and clinical deterioration in neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: No systematic review has evaluated the existing evidence regarding the association between packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion and clinical worsening of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in neonates. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to address this knowledge gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed for studies on pRBC transfusion and NEC published before May 10, 2025. Relevant articles were selected through title, abstract, and full-text screening. English-language case-control studies or cohort studies, or randomized controlled trials involving newborns with NEC that compared pRBC transfusion with no transfusion and reported changes in NEC clinical status were included. Review articles, systematic reviews, case reports, editorials, animal studies, duplicate publications, and studies with incomplete data were excluded. RESULTS: Five studies involving 971 neonates with NEC were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated a potential association between pRBC transfusion and clinical deterioration of NEC in neonates (odds ratio: 6.05, 95% confidence interval: 3.02-12.14). CONCLUSIONS: pRBC transfusion was associated with an exacerbation of NEC in neonates. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the small number of eligible studies included in this meta-analysis, and future large-scale, well-designed studies are needed to confirm the observed association.
Humans↗
Pharmacogenomics of antipsychotic-induced weight gain: A systematic review.
BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) is a major clinical concern, affecting approximately 30% of patients. Clinical predictors explain only part of AIWG risk. Genetic and molecular variations are hypothesized to contribute to susceptibility. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent results to identify replicated and novel findings. STUDY DESIGN: Applying PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (May 2018-May 2026) for studies on genetic and molecular associations with AIWG, extending our prior review. Reviews, editorials, and conference abstracts were excluded. We extracted study characteristics (design, diagnosis, antipsychotic exposure, sample size, ancestry, genetic variants, and AIWG outcomes) (e.g., ≥7% weight gain, BMI change). RESULTS: Fifty-three studies met inclusion criteria. In candidate gene studies, the most consistently replicated genes associated with AIWG were observed for DRD2, HTR2C, and MC4R. Multiple novel associations were identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (e.g., MAP2K1, ZDBF2, PEPD), polygenic risk scores (PRS) (e.g., body mass index PRS), gene expression (e.g., CYP3A4, EP300), and epigenetic analyses (e.g., cg12034943 at CRTC1). CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphisms in candidate genes related to neurotransmission and appetite regulation continue to be investigated for associations with AIWG, while novel findings have emerged from GWAS, gene expression, and epigenetic studies. Evidence remains inconsistent due to limited replication, methodological variability, sparse ancestry data, and geographical underrepresentation. No single genetic variant is ready for clinical use, and multi-omic and multi-ancestry models are needed to improve prediction and clinical utility.
Humans↗
What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.
Humans↗
Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.
BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70 years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5 months vs. threshold < 12.0 months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold ≥ 50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold < 5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold ≥ 75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45 days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of ≥ 95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3 months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.
Humans↗