-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2022Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36183671
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Oct 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis. Prevalence varied greatly according to countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis. Prevalence varied greatly according to countries (from 4.1% in Netherlands to 52.0% in Turkey) and continents (from 8.0% in Oceania to 26.9% in Africa). Osteoporosis is a common metabolic bone disorder in the elderly, usually resulting in bone pain and an increased risk of fragility fracture, but few summarized studies have guided global strategies for the disease. Therefore, we pooled the epidemiologic data to estimate the global, regional prevalence, and potential risk factors of osteoporosis. We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus, to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of osteoporosis based on the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021285555). Of the 57,933 citations evaluated, 108 individual studies containing 343,704 subjects were included. The global prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia was 19.7% (95%CI, 18.0%-21.4%) and 40.4% (95%CI, 36.9%-43.8%). Prevalence varied greatly according to countries (from 4.1% in Netherlands to 52.0% in Turkey) and continents (from Oceania 8.0% to 26.9% in Africa). The prevalence was higher in developing countries (22.1%, 95%CI, 20.1%-24.1%) than in developed countries (14.5%, 95%CI, 11.5%-17.7%). Our study indicates a considerable prevalence of osteoporosis among the general population based on WHO criteria, and the prevalence varies substantially between countries and regions. Future studies with robust evidence are required to explore risk factors to provide effective preventive strategies for the disease.
Topics: Aged; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Global Health; Humans; Osteoporosis; Prevalence; Risk Factors; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35687123
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06454-3 -
Nutrients Dec 2020The rise in obesity has emphasised a focus on lifestyle and dietary habits. We aimed to address the debate between low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets and compare their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The rise in obesity has emphasised a focus on lifestyle and dietary habits. We aimed to address the debate between low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets and compare their effects on body weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol, and triglycerides in an adult population.
METHOD
Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets up to September 2019. Three independent reviewers extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The meta-analysis was stratified by follow-up time using the random-effects models.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis of 38 studies assessed a total of 6499 adults. At 6-12 months, pooled analyses of mean differences of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat diets favoured the low-carbohydrate diet for average weight change (mean difference -1.30 kg; 95% CI -2.02 to -0.57), HDL (0.05 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08), and triglycerides (TG) (-0.10 mmol/L; -0.16 to -0.04), and favoured the low-fat diet for LDL (0.07 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12) and total cholesterol (0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.18). Conclusion and Relevance: This meta-analysis suggests that low-carbohydrate diets are effective at improving weight loss, HDL and TG lipid profiles. However, this must be balanced with potential consequences of raised LDL and total cholesterol in the long-term.
Topics: Adult; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Diet, Fat-Restricted; Humans; Lipids; Triglycerides; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33317019
DOI: 10.3390/nu12123774 -
PloS One 2021The ageing population brings about the appearance of age-related health disorders, such as osteoporosis or osteopenia. These disorders are associated with fragility... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The ageing population brings about the appearance of age-related health disorders, such as osteoporosis or osteopenia. These disorders are associated with fragility fractures. The impact is greater among postmenopausal women due to an acceleration of bone mineral density (BMD) loss.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the effectiveness of Pilates or Yoga on BMD in adult women.
METHODS
Five electronics databases were searched up to April 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and pre-post studies were included. The main outcome was BMD. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A random effects model was used to pool data from primary studies. Subgroup analyses based on the type of exercise were conducted.
RESULTS
Eleven studies including 591 participants aged between 45 and 78 years were included. The mean length of the interventions ranged from 12 to 32 weeks, and two studies were performed for a period of at least one year. The pooled effect size for the effect of the intervention (Pilates/Yoga) vs the control group was 0.07 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: -0.05 to 0.19; I2 = 0.0%), and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.18; I2 = 18.4%) for the secondary analysis of the pre-post intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite of the non-significant results, the BMD maintenance in the postmenopausal population, when BMD detrimental is expected, could be understood as a positive result added to the beneficial impact of Pilates-Yoga in multiple fracture risk factors, including but not limited to, strength and balance.
Topics: Adult; Bone Density; Exercise Movement Techniques; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Yoga
PubMed: 33961670
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251391 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Aug 2017To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long-term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long-term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long-term GC users.
RESULTS
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate-to-high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment, are also made.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium, Dietary; Consensus; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Rheumatic Diseases; Rheumatology; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide; United States; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28585373
DOI: 10.1002/art.40137 -
Nutrients Jan 2021Calcium supplementation and fortification are strategies widely used to prevent adverse outcome in population with low-calcium intake which is highly frequent in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Calcium supplementation and fortification are strategies widely used to prevent adverse outcome in population with low-calcium intake which is highly frequent in low-income settings. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of calcium fortified foods on calcium intake and related health, or economic outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis involving participants of any age or gender, drawn from the general population. We searched PubMed, Agricola, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, EconLit, the FAO website and Google until June 2019, without language restrictions. Pair of reviewers independently selected, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Covidence software. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed meta-analyses using RevMan 5.4 and subgroup analyses by study design, age group, and fortification levels. We included 20 studies of which 15 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were non-randomised studies and two were economic evaluations. Most RCTs had high risk of bias on randomization or blinding. Most represented groups were women and children from 1 to 72 months, most common intervention vehicles were milk and bakery products with a fortification levels between 96 and 1200 mg per 100 g of food. Calcium intake increased in the intervention groups between 460 mg (children) and 1200 mg (postmenopausal women). Most marked effects were seen in children. Compared to controls, height increased 0.83 cm (95% CI 0.00; 1.65), plasma parathyroid hormone decreased -1.51 pmol/L, (-2.37; -0.65), urine:calcium creatinine ratio decreased -0.05, (-0.07; -0.03), femoral neck and hip bone mineral density increased 0.02 g/cm (0.01; 0.04) and 0.03 g/cm (0.00; 0.06), respectively. The largest cost savings (43%) reported from calcium fortification programs came from prevented hip fractures in older women from Germany. Our study highlights that calcium fortification leads to a higher calcium intake, small benefits in children's height and bone health and also important evidence gaps for other outcomes and populations that could be solved with high quality experimental or quasi-experimental studies in relevant groups, especially as some evidence of calcium supplementation show controversial results on the bone health benefit on older adults.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Calcium; Calcium, Dietary; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Food, Fortified; Hip Fractures; Humans; Infant; Male
PubMed: 33499250
DOI: 10.3390/nu13020316 -
The International Journal of Behavioral... Nov 2020Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evidence on physical activity and osteoporosis prevention for people aged 65+ years: a systematic review to inform the WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.
BACKGROUND
Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the prevention of osteoporosis in older people is unclear. The aim of this review was to investigate the association between physical activity and osteoporosis prevention in people aged 65 years and above.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted and searches for individual studies were conducted in PubMed (January 2010 to March 2020) and for systematic reviews were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus (January 2008 to July 2020). Records were screened according to the following eligibility criteria: i) population: adults aged 65 years and older; ii) exposure: greater volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iii) comparison: no physical activity or lesser volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iv) outcome: osteoporosis related measures (e.g., bone mineral density). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and meta-analysis summarised study effects. The GRADE approach was used to rate certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included a total of 59 studies, including 12 observational studies and 47 trials. Within the included trials, 40 compared physical activity with no intervention controls, 11 compared two physical activity programs, and six investigated different doses of physical activity. Included studies suggest that physical activity interventions probably improve bone health among older adults and thus prevent osteoporosis (standardised effect size 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25, 20 trials, moderate-certainty evidence, main or most relevant outcome selected for each of the included studies). Physical activity interventions probably improve lumbar spine bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve hip (femoral neck) bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.21, 14 trials, low-certainty evidence). Higher doses of physical activity and programs involving multiple exercise types or resistance exercise appear to be most effective. Typical programs for which significant intervention impacts were detected in trials were undertaken for 60+ mins, 2-3 times/week for 7+ months. Observational studies suggested a positive association between long-term total and planned physical activity on bone health.
CONCLUSIONS
Physical activity probably plays a role in the prevention of osteoporosis. The level of evidence is higher for effects of physical activity on lumbar spine bone mineral density than for hip. Higher dose programs and those involving multiple exercises and resistance exercises appear to be more effective.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; World Health Organization
PubMed: 33239014
DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-01040-4 -
Health & Place Jul 2022Living in compact neighbourhoods that are walkable, well connected, with accessible green space can benefit physical and mental health. However, the pandemic raises... (Review)
Review
Compact cities and the Covid-19 pandemic: Systematic review of the associations between transmission of Covid-19 or other respiratory viruses and population density or other features of neighbourhood design.
Living in compact neighbourhoods that are walkable, well connected, with accessible green space can benefit physical and mental health. However, the pandemic raises concern up to what extent features of compact neighbourhood design affect transmission of viral respiratory infections. We conducted a systematic review to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence reporting associations between transmission of respiratory viruses, including Covid-19, and dwelling or population density or other features of neighbourhood design. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies used different measures of neighbourhood design, contributing to inconsistent findings. Whereas no convincing conclusion can be drawn here, the outcome of this review indicates that robust, global evidence is warranted to inform future policies and legislation concerned with compact neighbourhood design and transmission of respiratory and viral infection.
Topics: COVID-19; Cities; Environment Design; Humans; Population Density; Residence Characteristics; Viruses; Walking
PubMed: 35642837
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102827 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022Over the last three decades, researchers have investigated population density and health outcomes at differing scale. There has not been a systematic review conducted in... (Review)
Review
Over the last three decades, researchers have investigated population density and health outcomes at differing scale. There has not been a systematic review conducted in order to synthesise this evidence. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed quantitative evidence published since 1990 on population density and non-communicable disease (NCD) within Westernised countries. Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated utilising a quality assessment tool for ecological studies. High population density appears to be associated with higher mortality rates of a range of cancers, cardiovascular disease and COPD, and a higher incidence of a range of cancers, asthma and club foot. In contrast, diabetes incidence was found to be associated with low population density. High and low population density are therefore risk markers for a range of NCDs, indicating that there are unidentified factors and mechanisms underlying aetiology. On closer examination, our synthesis revealed important and complex relationships between population density, the built environment, the nature of greenspace and man-made exposures. In light of increasing rates of morbidity and mortality, future research is required to investigate these associations in order to establish causative agents for each NCD.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Developed Countries; Humans; Neoplasms; Noncommunicable Diseases; Population Density
PubMed: 35270337
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052638 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2023Interventions provided after hip fracture surgery have been shown to reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes. While some systematic studies have evaluated the...
BACKGROUND
Interventions provided after hip fracture surgery have been shown to reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes. While some systematic studies have evaluated the efficacy of post-surgery interventions, there lacks a systematically rigorous examination of all the post-surgery interventions which allows healthcare providers to easily identify post-operative interventions most pertinent to patient's recovery.
OBJECTIVES
We aim to provide an overview of the available evidence on post-surgery interventions provided in the acute, subacute and community settings to improve outcomes for patients with hip fractures.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). We included articles that were (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) involved post-surgery interventions that were conducted in the acute, subacute or community settings and (3) conducted among older patients above 65 years old with any type of non-pathological hip fracture that was surgically treated, and who were able to walk without assistance prior to the fracture. We excluded (1) non-English language articles, (2) abstract-only publications, (3) articles with only surgical interventions, (4) articles with interventions that commenced pre-surgery or immediately upon completion of surgery or blood transfusion, (5) animal studies. Due to the large number of RCTs identified, we only included "good quality" RCTs with Jadad score ≥ 3 for data extraction and synthesis.
RESULTS
Our literature search has identified 109 good quality RCTs on post-surgery interventions for patients with fragility hip fractures. Among the 109 RCTs, 63% of the identified RCTs (n = 69) were related to rehabilitation or medication/nutrition supplementation, with the remaining RCTs focusing on osteoporosis management, optimization of clinical management, prevention of venous thromboembolism, fall prevention, multidisciplinary approaches, discharge support, management of post-operative anemia as well as group learning and motivational interviewing. For the interventions conducted in inpatient and outpatient settings investigating medication/nutrition supplementation, all reported improvement in outcomes (ranging from reduced postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay, improved functional recovery, reduced mortality rate, improved bone mineral density and reduced falls), except for a study investigating anabolic steroids. RCTs involving post-discharge osteoporosis care management generally reported improved osteoporosis management except for a RCT investigating multidisciplinary post-fracture clinic led by geriatrician with physiotherapist and occupational therapist. The trials investigating group learning and motivational interviewing also reported positive outcome respectively. The other interventions yielded mixed results. The interventions in this review had minor or no side effects reported.
CONCLUSIONS
The identified RCTs regarding post-surgery interventions were heterogeneous in terms of type of interventions, settings and outcome measures. Combining interventions across inpatient and outpatient settings may be able to achieve better outcomes such as improved physical function recovery and improved nutritional status recovery. For example, nutritional supplementation could be made available for patients who have undergone hip fracture surgery in the inpatient settings, followed by post-discharge outpatient osteoporosis care management. The findings from this review can aid in clinical practice by allowing formulation of thematic program with combination of interventions as part of bundled care to improve outcome for patients who have undergone hip fracture surgery.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density; Hip Fractures; Osteoporosis; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37231406
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06512-9