-
Epidemiology and Health 2020This report provides information on 14 behavioral and nutritional factors that can be addressed in stomach cancer prevention programs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This report provides information on 14 behavioral and nutritional factors that can be addressed in stomach cancer prevention programs.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2018. Reference lists were also screened. Observational studies addressing the associations between stomach cancer and behavioral factors were analyzed. Between-study heterogeneity was investigated using the χ2, τ2, and I2 statistics. The likelihood of publication bias was explored using the Begg and Egger tests and trim-and-fill analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of 52,916 identified studies, 232 (including 33,831,063 participants) were eligible. The OR (95% CI) of factors associated with stomach cancer were as follows: Helicobacter pylori infection, 2.56 (95% CI, 2.18 to 3.00); current smoking, 1.61 (95% CI, 1.49 to 1.75); former smoking 1.43 (95% CI, 1.29 to 1.59); current drinking, 1.19 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.29); former drinking, 1.73 (95% CI, 1.17 to 2.56); overweight/obesity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.08); sufficient physical activity, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02); consumption of fruits ≥3 times/wk, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63); consumption of vegetables ≥3 times/wk, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79); eating pickled vegetables, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.51); drinking black tea, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20); drinking green tea, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97); drinking coffee, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.11); eating fish ≥1 time/wk 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03); eating red meat ≥4 times/wk 1.31 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.96), and high salt intake 3.78 (95% CI, 1.74 to 5.44) and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.03), based on two different studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provided a clear picture of the behavioral and nutritional factors associated with the development of stomach cancer. These results may be utilized for ranking and prioritizing preventable risk factors to implement effective prevention programs.
Topics: Health Risk Behaviors; Humans; Nutritional Status; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32023777
DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2020004 -
European Journal of Clinical... Sep 2023Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce acid secretion in the stomach and rank as one of the most widely used acid-suppressing medicines globally. While PPIs are safe in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce acid secretion in the stomach and rank as one of the most widely used acid-suppressing medicines globally. While PPIs are safe in the short-term, emerging evidence shows risks associated with long-term use. Current evidence on global PPI use is scarce. This systematic review aims to evaluate global PPI use in the general population.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were systematically searched from inception to 31 March 2023 to identify observational studies on oral PPI use among individuals aged ≥ 18 years. PPI use was classified by demographics and medication factors (dose, duration, and PPI types). The absolute numbers of PPI users for each subcategory were summed and expressed as a percentage.
RESULTS
The search identified data from 28 million PPI users in 23 countries from 65 articles. This review indicated that nearly one-quarter of adults use a PPI. Of those using PPIs, 63% were less than 65 years. 56% of PPI users were female, and "White" ethnicities accounted for 75% of users. Nearly two-thirds of users were on high doses (≥ defined daily dose (DDD)), 25% of users continued PPIs for > 1 year, and 28% of these continued for > 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Given the widespread use PPIs and increasing concern regarding long-term use, this review provides a catalyst to support more rational use, particularly with unnecessary prolonged continuation. Clinicians should review PPI prescriptions regularly and deprescribe when there is no appropriate ongoing indication or evidence of benefit to reduce health harm and treatment cost.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Male; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Upper Gastrointestinal Tract; Health Care Costs; Prescriptions
PubMed: 37420019
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03534-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3 -
Dysphagia Apr 2023The pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is multifactorial. The severity of abnormal reflux burden corresponds to the dysfunction of the antireflux... (Review)
Review
The pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is multifactorial. The severity of abnormal reflux burden corresponds to the dysfunction of the antireflux barrier and inability to clear refluxate. The crural diaphragm is one of the main components of the esophagogastric junction and plays an important role in preventing gastroesophageal reflux. The diaphragm, as a skeletal muscle, is partially under voluntary control and its dysfunction can be improved via breathing exercises. Thus, diaphragmatic breathing training (DBT) has the potential to alleviate symptoms in selected patients with GERD. High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is a useful method for the assessment of antireflux barrier function and can therefore elucidate the mechanisms responsible for gastroesophageal reflux. We hypothesize that HRM can help define patient phenotypes that may benefit most from DBT, and that HRM can even help in the management of respiratory physiotherapy in patients with GERD. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current data supporting physiotherapeutic practices in the treatment of GERD and to illustrate how HRM may guide treatment strategies focused on respiratory physiotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Esophagogastric Junction; Manometry; Breathing Exercises
PubMed: 35842548
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-022-10494-6 -
Gut Dec 2020Gastric cancer is strongly associated with (). We conducted a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that suggested eradication therapy reduced future incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Gastric cancer is strongly associated with (). We conducted a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that suggested eradication therapy reduced future incidence of gastric cancer, but effect size was uncertain, and there was no reduction in gastric cancer-related mortality. We updated this meta-analysis, as more data has accumulated. We also evaluated impact of eradication therapy on future risk of gastric cancer in patients having endoscopic mucosal resection for gastric neoplasia.
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining effect of eradication therapy on subsequent occurrence of gastric cancer in healthy -positive adults, and in -positive patients with gastric neoplasia undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection. The control arm received placebo or no treatment. Follow-up was for ≥2 years. We estimated the relative risk (RR) number needed to treat (NNT), and evaluated the disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) gained from screening from the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 10 RCTs, seven recruited 8323 healthy individuals, and three randomised 1841 patients with gastric neoplasia. In healthy individuals, eradication therapy reduced incidence of gastric cancer (RR=0.54; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.72, NNT=72), and reduced mortality from gastric cancer (RR=0.61; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, NNT=135), but did not affect all-cause mortality. These data suggest that 8 743 815 DALYs (95% CI 5 646 173 to 11 847 456) would be gained if population screening and treatment was implemented globally. In patients with gastric neoplasia, eradication therapy also reduced incidence of future gastric cancer (RR=0.49; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70, NNT=21). Adverse events were incompletely reported.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate evidence to suggest that eradication therapy reduces the incidence of gastric cancer in healthy individuals and patients with gastric neoplasia in East Asian countries. There also appears to be a reduction in gastric cancer-related mortality.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Helicobacter Infections; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Statistics as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32205420
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320839 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2021Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly failed. The advent of immunotherapy has brought hope for the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and the long-term survival of patients who were diagnosed as gastric esophageal cancer and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
METHOD
Studies on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy of advanced gastric esophageal cancer published before February 1, 2020 were searched online. The survival (e.g. 6-month overall survival, 12-month overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR)) and adverse effects of immunotherapy were compared to that of control therapy (physician's choice of therapy).
RESULTS
After screening 185 studies, 4 comparative cohort studies which reported the long-term survival of patients receiving immunotherapy were included. Compared to control group, the 12-month survival (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.12, P < 0.0001) and 18-month survival (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.81, P = 0.0001) were significantly longer in immunotherapy group. The 3-month survival rate (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.36 to 3.06, P = 0.92) and 18-month survival rate (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.12, P = 0.07) were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group. The ORR were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.65 to 3.66, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis pointed out that in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 sub group population, the immunotherapy could obviously benefit the patients in tumor response rates (OR = 3.80, 95% CI: 1.89 to 7.61, P = 0.0002).
CONCLUSION
For the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer, the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy or palliative care.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Immunotherapy; Stomach Neoplasms; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 33618535
DOI: 10.1177/1073274821997430 -
Environmental Research Jul 2022Pollution of water sources, largely from wide-scale agricultural fertilizer use has resulted in nitrate and nitrite contamination of drinking water. The effects on human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pollution of water sources, largely from wide-scale agricultural fertilizer use has resulted in nitrate and nitrite contamination of drinking water. The effects on human health of raised nitrate and nitrite levels in drinking water are currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on the association of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water with human health with a specific focus on cancer.
METHODS
We searched eight databases from 1 January 1990 until 28 February 2021. Meta-analyses were conducted when studies had the same exposure metric and outcome.
RESULTS
Of 9835 studies identified in the literature search, we found 111 studies reporting health outcomes, 60 of which reported cancer outcomes (38 case-control studies; 12 cohort studies; 10 other study designs). Most studies were set in the USA (24), Europe (20) and Taiwan (14), with only 3 studies from low and middle-income countries. Nitrate exposure in water (59 studies) was more commonly investigated than nitrite exposure (4 studies). Colorectal (15 studies) and gastric (13 studies) cancers were the most reported. In meta-analyses (4 studies) we identified a positive association of nitrate exposure with gastric cancer, OR = 1.91 (95%CI = 1.09-3.33) per 10 mg/L increment in nitrate ion. We found no association of nitrate exposure with colorectal cancer (10 studies; OR = 1.02 [95%CI = 0.96-1.08]) or cancers at any other site.
CONCLUSIONS
We identified an association of nitrate in drinking water with gastric cancer but with no other cancer site. There is currently a paucity of robust studies from settings with high levels nitrate pollution in drinking water. Research into this area will be valuable to ascertain the true health burden of nitrate contamination of water and the need for public policies to protect human health.
Topics: Drinking Water; Humans; Nitrates; Nitrites; Nitrogen Oxides; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 35217009
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.112988 -
JAMA Oncology Oct 2022Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of PD-L1 Expression and Other Variables With Benefit From Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 17 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.
IMPORTANCE
Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has generated controversy. Exploratory analyses from individual trials indicate a lack of meaningful benefit from ICI in patients with absent or low PD-L1 expression; however, analysis of a single variable while ignoring others may not consider the instability inherent in exploratory analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically examine the predictive value of tissue-based PD-L1 status compared with that of other variables for ICI benefit in aGEC to assess its stability.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register (2000-2022).
STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included of adults with aGEC (adenocarcinoma [AC] or squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) randomized to anti-PD-1 or PD-L1-containing treatment vs standard of care (SOC). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 5752 records screened, 26 were assessed for eligibility; 17 trials were included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary end point was overall survival. The mean hazard ratio (HR) for ICI vs SOC was calculated (random-effects model). Predictive values were quantified by calculating the ratio of mean HRs between 2 levels of each variable.
RESULTS
In all, 17 RCTs (9 first line, 8 after first line) at low risk of bias and 14 predictive variables were included, totaling 11 166 participants (5067 with SCC, 6099 with ACC; 77.6% were male and 22.4% were female; 59.5% of patients were younger than 65 years, 40.5% were 65 years or older). Among patients with SCCs, PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was the strongest predictor of ICI benefit (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68] for high TPS; and HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95] for low TPS), yielding a predictive value of 41.0% favoring high TPS (vs ≤16.0% for other variables). Among patients with AC, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) was the strongest predictor (after microsatellite instability high status) of ICI benefit (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.81] for high CPS; and HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07] for low CPS), yielding a predictive value of 29.4% favoring CPS-high (vs ≤12.9% for other variables). Head-to-head analyses of trials containing both levels of a variable and/or having similar design generally yielded consistent results.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Tissue-based PD-L1 expression, more than any variable other than microsatellite instability-high, identified varying degrees of benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC among patients with aGEC in 17 RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Adenocarcinoma; B7-H1 Antigen; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Esophageal Neoplasms; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Microsatellite Instability; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms; United States
PubMed: 36006624
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3707 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021The main goal of enteral nutrition (EN) is to manage malnutrition in order to improve clinical outcomes. However, EN may increase the risks of vomiting or aspiration... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The main goal of enteral nutrition (EN) is to manage malnutrition in order to improve clinical outcomes. However, EN may increase the risks of vomiting or aspiration pneumonia during gastrointestinal dysfunction. Consequently, monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV), that is, to measure GRV periodically and modulate the speed of enteral feeding according to GRV, has been recommended as a management goal in many intensive care units. Yet, there is a lack of robust evidence that GRV monitoring reduces the level of complications during EN. The best protocol of GRV monitoring is currently unknown, and thus the precise efficacy and safety profiles of GRV monitoring remain to be ascertained.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of GRV monitoring during EN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for relevant studies on 3 May 2021. We also checked reference lists of included studies for additional information and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), randomized cross-over trials, and cluster-RCTs investigating the effects of GRV monitoring during EN. We imposed no restrictions on the language of publication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results for eligible studies and extracted trial-level information from each included study, including methodology and design, characteristics of study participants, interventions, and outcome measures. We assessed risk of bias for each study using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We followed guidance from the GRADE framework to assess the overall certainty of evidence across outcomes. We used a random-effects analytical model to perform quantitative synthesis of the evidence. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies involving 1585 participants. All studies were RCTs conducted in ICU settings. Two studies (417 participants) compared less-frequent (less than eight hours) monitoring of GRV against a regimen of more-frequent (eight hours or greater) monitoring. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of frequent monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.37; I² = 8%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.83; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD 2.00 days, 95% CI -2.15 to 6.15; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.09; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (500 participants) compared no GRV monitoring with frequent (12 hours or less) monitoring. Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of no monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.53 days, 95% CI -4.47 to 1.40; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). One study (322 participants) assessed the impact of GRV threshold (500 mL per six hours) on clinical outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the threshold for GRV at time of aspiration on mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.38; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.90 days, 95% CI -2.60 to 4.40; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (140 participants) explored the effects of returning or discarding the aspirated/drained GRV. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of discarding or returning the aspirated/drained GRV on the incidence of vomiting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.63; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and volume aspirated from the stomach (MD -7.30 mL, 95% CI -26.67 to 12.06, I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) We found no studies comparing the effects of protocol-based EN strategies that included GRV-related criteria against strategies that did not include such criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GRV on clinical outcomes including mortality, pneumonia, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Residual Volume; Stomach
PubMed: 34596901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013335.pub2 -
Nutrients Oct 2022Aim: The effect of dietary salt intake on the risk of gastric cancer is not clear. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between dietary salt intake... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aim: The effect of dietary salt intake on the risk of gastric cancer is not clear. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between dietary salt intake and the risk of gastric cancer. Methods: Three major databases were searched to retrieve case-control studies published in English before 1 July 2022. Random effects model analysis was used to obtain the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between dietary salt intake and risk of gastric cancer. Subgroup analyses were used to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-eight case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis (total population: n = 37,225). The pooled ORs showed a significantly positive association between high salt intake and gastric cancer compared with low salt intake (OR = 1.55, 95% CI (1.45, 1.64); p < 0.001). In subgroup meta-analysis for geographic region, estimation method for dietary salt intake and the source of controls, this association was not changed. Conclusion: Higher dietary salt intake increased the risk of gastric cancer. This study has implications for the prevention of gastric cancer.
Topics: Humans; Case-Control Studies; Nutritional Status; Risk Factors; Sodium Chloride, Dietary; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 36296944
DOI: 10.3390/nu14204260