-
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jun 2023Spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) represents a widely adopted procedure in the presence of benign or low-grade malignant tumors. Splenic vessels... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy (SPDP) represents a widely adopted procedure in the presence of benign or low-grade malignant tumors. Splenic vessels preservation and resection (Kimura and Warshaw techniques respectively) represent the two main surgical modalities to avoid splenic resection. Each one is characterized by strengths and drawbacks. The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current high-quality evidence regarding these two techniques and analyze their short-term outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA, AMSTAR II and MOOSE guidelines. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of splenic infarction and splenic infarction leading to splenectomy. As secondary endpoints, specific intraoperative variables and postoperative complications were explored. Metaregression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of general variables on specific outcomes.
RESULTS
Seventeen high-quality studies were included in quantitative analysis. A significantly lower risk of splenic infarction for patients undergoing Kimura SPDP (OR = 0.14; p < 0.0001). Similarly, splenic vessel preservation was associated with a reduced risk of gastric varices (OR = 0.1; 95% p < 0.0001). Regarding all secondary outcome variables, no differences between the two techniques were noticed. Metaregression analysis failed to identify independent predictors of splenic infarction, blood loss, and operative time among general variables.
CONCLUSIONS
Although Kimura and Warshaw SPDP have been demonstrated comparable for most of postoperative outcomes, the former resulted superior compared to the latter in reducing the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices. For benign pancreatic tumors and low-grade malignancies Kimura SPDP may be preferred.
Topics: Humans; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Splenic Artery; Splenic Infarction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36941150
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.02.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased sensitivity to pain, which may affect clinical and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The use of drugs that reduce pain might be important in improving survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of opioid analgesics for neonates (term or preterm) receiving mechanical ventilation compared to placebo or no drug, other opioids, or other analgesics or sedatives.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 September 2020); Embase (1980 to 29 September 2020); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 29 September 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing opioids to placebo or no drug, to other opioids, or to other analgesics or sedatives in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We excluded cross-over trials. We included term (≥ 37 weeks' gestational age) and preterm (< 37 weeks' gestational age) newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We included any duration of drug treatment and any dosage given continuously or as bolus; we excluded studies that gave opioids to ventilated infants for procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each of the included trials, we independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, types of opioids) using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies (enrolling 2023 infants) published between 1992 and 2019. Fifteen studies (1632 infants) compared the use of morphine or fentanyl versus placebo or no intervention. Four studies included both term and preterm infants, and one study only term infants; all other studies included only preterm infants, with five studies including only very preterm infants. We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) Scale in the first 12 hours after infusion (MD -5.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.88 to -4.59; 50 participants, 2 studies) and between 12 and 48 hours after infusion (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.61; 963 participants, 3 studies) because of limitations in study design, high heterogeneity (inconsistency), and imprecision of estimates (very low-certainty evidence - GRADE). The use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.23 days, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.83; 1259 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of unclear risk of bias in most studies) and neonatal mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 1189 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of imprecision of estimates). We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 78 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence because of serious imprecision of the estimates and indirectness). Limited data were available for the other comparisons (i.e. two studies (54 infants) on morphine versus midazolam, three (222 infants) on morphine versus fentanyl, and one each on morphine versus diamorphine (88 infants), morphine versus remifentanil (20 infants), fentanyl versus sufentanil (20 infants), and fentanyl versus remifentanil (24 infants)). For these comparisons, no meta-analysis was conducted because outcomes were reported by one study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on pain and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months; the use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and neonatal mortality. Data on the other comparisons planned in this review (opioids versus analgesics; opioids versus other opioids) are extremely limited and do not allow any conclusions. In the absence of firm evidence to support a routine policy, opioids should be used selectively - based on clinical judgement and evaluation of pain indicators - although pain measurement in newborns has limitations.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bias; Child Development; Fentanyl; Heroin; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Midazolam; Morphine; Pain, Procedural; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Respiration, Artificial; Sufentanil
PubMed: 33729556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013732.pub2 -
Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) Mar 2022This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescents and adults with asthma. We searched... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Quantitative comparison of dose-effect and time-course of fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate in adult and adolescent patients with persistent asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescents and adults with asthma. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for placebo-controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time-course of the primary outcome (trough forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV ]). Secondary outcomes (asthma symptoms, quality of life and exacerbations) were also compared via a meta-analysis. A total of 14 articles were included in the analysis, involving 6640 subjects. The efficacy plateau of the two drugs could be reached in 2 weeks. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV (95% CI) at week 2 of FF at 200 and 100 μg/day were 0.168 L (0.064-0.199) and 0.127 L (0.048-0.163), respectively. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV (95% CI) at week 2 of FP at 1000, 500, 250 and 100 μg/day were 0.133 L (0.049-0.171), 0.127 L (0.043-0.163), 0.117 L (0.039-0.150) and 0.093 L (0.032-0.129), respectively. The efficacy of FP had reached a plateau at the maximum evaluated dose (1000 μg/day), while a plateau effect was not seen at the maximum evaluated dose of FF (200 μg/day). In terms of secondary outcomes, the relative effects of the two drugs relative to the placebo were similar and did not show obvious dose-effect relationships. In this study, the time-course and dose-effect characteristics of FP, FF and placebo were quantitatively evaluated, providing necessary quantitative information for asthma-related guidelines.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adult; Androstadienes; Asthma; Double-Blind Method; Fluticasone; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35043513
DOI: 10.1111/resp.14203 -
Medicine Sep 2021To identify the efficacy and safety of remifentanil when compared with other opioids in adult critically ill patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
To identify the efficacy and safety of remifentanil when compared with other opioids in adult critically ill patients.
METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE that had been published up to May 31st, 2019. Randomized clinical trials using remifentanil comparing with other opioids for analgesia were included. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. Duration of mechanical ventilation was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included weaning time, intensive care unit (ICU), length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, side effects, and costs.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 1233 patients were included. Remifentanil was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation in the adult ICU patients when compared with other opioids (P = .01). Remifentanil also reduced the weaning time (P = .02) and the ICU LOS when compared with other opioids (P = .01). There was no difference in the hospital LOS (P = .15), side effects (P = .39), and mortality (P = .79) between remifentanil and other opioids, what's more, remifentanil increased the costs of anesthesia (P < .001) but did not increase cost of hospitalization (P = .30) when comparing with other opioids.
CONCLUSIONS
Remifentanil reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation, weaning time, and ICU LOS when compared with other opioids in adult critically ill patients. Higher quality RCTs are necessary to prove our findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016041438.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Pain; Remifentanil; Respiration, Artificial; Time Factors; Ventilator Weaning
PubMed: 34559131
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027275 -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2024Up to 40% of UDCA-treated patients do not have an adequate clinical response. Farnesoid X receptor agonists, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Optimal drug regimens for improving ALP biochemical levels in patients with primary biliary cholangitis refractory to UDCA: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Up to 40% of UDCA-treated patients do not have an adequate clinical response. Farnesoid X receptor agonists, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists, and fibroblast growth factor 19 analogs were developed as adjunctive therapy. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of these drugs as add-on therapy for patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) refractory to UDCA in improving ALP levels.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies until 1 December 2023. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing the efficacy of different combination treatments and UDCA monotherapy in UDCA-refractory PBC patients were included in the analysis. Cumulative probability was used to rank the included treatments.
RESULTS
A total of 23 articles were eligible for our network meta-analysis. In terms of improving ALP levels, In terms of improving ALP biochemical levels, bezafibrate combined with UDCA (MD 104.49, 95% CI 60.41, 161.92), fenofibrate combined with UDCA (MD 87.81, 95% CI (52.34, 129.79), OCA combined with UDCA (MD 65.21, 95% CI 8.99, 121.80), seladelpar combined with UDCA (MD 117.39, 95% CI 19.97, 213.95), elafibranor combined with UDCA (MD 140.73, 95% CI 74.34, 209.98), saroglitazar combined with UDCA (MD 132.09, 95% CI 13.99, 247.04) was more effective than UDCA monotherapy. Elafibranor in combination with UDCA was the most likely (32%) to be the optimal drug regimen.
CONCLUSION
As second-line therapy for UDCA-refractory PBC, PPAR agonists were more effective than any other drugs with other mechanisms in improving ALP biochemical levels, with elafibranor being the best.
Topics: Humans; Liver Cirrhosis, Biliary; Ursodeoxycholic Acid; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Propionates; Chalcones
PubMed: 38287391
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02460-0 -
Medicine Apr 2021Awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation (AFOI) is the primary strategy for managing anticipated difficult airways. Adequate sedation, most commonly being achieved with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Awake fiberoptic endoscope intubation (AFOI) is the primary strategy for managing anticipated difficult airways. Adequate sedation, most commonly being achieved with remifentanil and dexmedetomidine, is integral to this procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of these 2 sedatives.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Springer, and Web of Science with no language restrictions. Studies comparing safety and efficacy between the sole use of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine among patients who underwent AFOI were included. Eight randomized controlled trials, comprising 412 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were first attempt intubation success rate and incidence of hypoxia. The secondary outcomes were the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation, memory recall of endoscopy, and unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation.
RESULTS
Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during AFOI (risk ratio: 2.47; 95% confidence [CI]: 1.32-4.64]) compared with remifentanil; however, the first intubation success rates were equivalent (risk ratio: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.87-1.46]. No significant differences between the 2 sedatives were found for the Ramsay Sedation Scale score at intubation (mean difference: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.66-0.38) or unstable hemodynamic parameters during intubation (risk ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59-1.17). Dexmedetomidine reduced memory recall of endoscopy (risk ratio: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.13-1.72).
CONCLUSIONS
While both remifentanil and dexmedetomidine are effective for AFOI and well-tolerated, dexmedetomidine may be more effective in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and memory recall of endoscopy.
PROSPERP REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020169612.
Topics: Conscious Sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Endoscopy; Fiber Optic Technology; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypoxia; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil
PubMed: 33832107
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025324 -
PloS One 2023This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis aimed to analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension under general anesthesia. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases, as well as dissertations and conference papers, to obtain randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil and dexmedetomidine applied respectively for controlled hypotension before August 23, 2021. The primary outcomes included hemodynamic profiles, surgical field score, and blood loss. Extubation time, sedation and pain score at the PACU, and perioperative adverse events were the secondary outcomes. Nine randomized controlled trials with 543 patients (272 in the dexmedetomidine group and 271 in the remifentanil group) were eventually included. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between dexmedetomidine and remifentanil in terms of surgical field score, blood loss, minimum values of mean arterial pressure (MD 0.24 with 95% CI [-1.65, 2.13], P = 0.80, I2 = 66%) and heart rate (MD 0.42 [-1.33, 2.17], P = 0.64, I2 = 40%), sedation scores at the PACU (MD -0.09 [-0.69, 0.50], P = 0.76, I2 = 92%), and incidence of bradycardia (OR 2.24 [0.70, 7.15], P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). Compared with remifentanil, dexmedetomidine as the controlled hypotensive agent showed a lower visual analogue score at the PACU (MD -1.01 [-1.25, -0.77], P<0.00001, I2 = 0%) and incidence of shivering (OR 0.22 [0.08, 0.60], P = 0.003, I2 = 0%), nausea, and vomiting (OR 0.34 [0.13, 0.89], P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). However, extubation time was shorter in the remifentanil group (MD 3.34 [0.75, 5.93], P = 0.01, I2 = 90%). In conclusion, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil are both effective in providing satisfactory controlled hypotension and surgical conditions. Dexmedetomidine is better in easing postoperative pain at the PACU and reducing the occurrence of shivering, nausea, and vomiting. Meanwhile, remifentanil is a fast-track anesthesia with a shorter extubation time. Given the limitations of this meta-analysis, further studies are needed for a more definitive comparison of the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil.
Topics: Humans; Remifentanil; Dexmedetomidine; Hypotension, Controlled; Anesthesia, General; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 36649357
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278846 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2021Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR...
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors' objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Allergic Agents; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Phthalazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 34082425
DOI: 10.1159/000516417 -
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Jun 2024Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an advanced subtype of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). NASH prevalence is increasing exponentially and carries a high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an advanced subtype of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). NASH prevalence is increasing exponentially and carries a high risk for disease progression, cirrhosis, and liver-related mortality. Aldafermin, a fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) analog, is one of the evolving therapeutic agents with the potential to regulate multiple pathways involved in the pathogenesis of NASH. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of aldafermin in patients with NASH.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched till November 2023 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD), while dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval. A subgroup meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the two doses (1 mg and 3 mg) of aldafermin.
RESULTS
Four RCTs with a total of 491 patients were included. Aldafermin showed a dose-dependent improvement in the ≥30 % reduction in the liver fat content (RR: 2.16, 95 % CI [1.41 to 3.32]) and (RR: 5.00, 95 % CI [1.34 to 18.64]), alanine aminotransferase levels (MD: -19.79, 95 % CI [-30.28 to -9.3]) and (MD: -21.91, 95 % CI [-29.62 to -14.21]), aspartate aminotransferase levels (MD: -11.79, 95 % CI [-18.06 to -5.51]) and (MD: -13.9, 95 % CI [-18.59 to -9.21]), and enhanced liver fibrosis score (ELF) (MD: -0.13, 95 % CI [-0.29 to 0.02]) and (MD: -0.33, 95 % CI [-0.50 to -0.17]), in the 1 mg and 3 mg subgroups respectively. No significant differences were detected in the aldafermin group regarding histologic endpoints, lipid profile, metabolic parameters, and overall adverse effects, except for the increased occurrence of diarrhea in the aldafermin 3 mg subgroup.
CONCLUSION
Aldafermin is a promising well-tolerated therapeutic agent for NASH with evidence supporting its ability to reduce liver fat content, fibrosis serum biomarkers, and liver enzymes. However, its effectiveness in improving histologic fibrosis, while showing numerical trends, still lacks statistical significance. Larger and longer NASH trials are warranted to enhance the robustness of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Fibroblast Growth Factors; Propionates; Chalcones
PubMed: 38688423
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2024.102357 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2022The beneficial role of gut microbiota and bacterial metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), is well recognized, although the available literature around... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The beneficial role of gut microbiota and bacterial metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), is well recognized, although the available literature around their role in colorectal cancer (CRC) has been inconsistent.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the associations of fecal SCFA concentrations to the incidence and risk of CRC. Data extraction through Medline, Embase, and Web of Science was carried out from database conception to June 29, 2022. Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria led to the selection of 17 case-control and six cross-sectional studies for quality assessment and analyses. Studies were categorized for CRC risk or incidence, and RevMan 5.4 was used to perform the meta-analyses. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Studies lacking quantitation were included in qualitative analyses.
RESULTS
Combined analysis of acetic, propionic, and butyric acid revealed significantly lower concentrations of these SCFAs in individuals with a high-risk of CRC (SMD = 2.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.74, P = 0.02). Additionally, CRC incidence was higher in individuals with lower levels of SCFAs (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.72, P = 0.0009), compared to healthy individuals. Qualitative analyses identified 70.4% of studies reporting significantly lower concentrations of fecal acetic, propionic, butyric acid, or total SCFAs in those at higher risk of CRC, while 66.7% reported significantly lower concentrations of fecal acetic and butyric acid in CRC patients compared to healthy controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, lower fecal concentrations of the three major SCFAs are associated with higher risk of CRC and incidence of CRC.
Topics: Butyrates; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cross-Sectional Studies; Fatty Acids, Volatile; Feces; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 36184594
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02529-4