1.
Effect of Different Glucose Monitoring Methods on Bold Glucose Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Wang, Y, Zou, C, Na, H, Zeng, W, Li, X
Computational and mathematical methods in medicine. 2022;2022:2851572
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases in China, with a high prevalence rate of 12.8%. Diabetes is divided into type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Monitoring blood glucose levels is also very important to keep the blood glucose level at a normal level. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in maintaining glycaemic control among patients with type 1 diabetes. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen studies Results showed that the level of haemoglobin A1C in the CGM group decreased by 2.69 mmol/mol compared with the SMBG group. Furthermore, compared with the SMBG group, the risk of severe hypoglycaemic events in the CGM group was reduced by 48%, which is inconsistent with the results of other meta-analyses. Finally, there was no difference between the two methods in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis [is a serious complication of diabetes that can be life-threatening]. Authors conclude that for patients with type 1 diabetes, CGM is a better method for monitoring blood glucose.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of different glucose monitoring methods on blood glucose control and the incidence of adverse events among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Using the method of literature review, the databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were retrieved to obtain relevant research literature, and the selected studies were analyzed and evaluated. This study used Cochrane software RevMan5.4 to statistically analyze all the data. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this study, including 10 randomized controlled trials and 5 crossover design trials, with a total of 2071 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) could significantly reduce the HbA1c level of patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) = -2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-4.25, -1.14), and P < 0.001 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Meanwhile, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in the CGM group was significantly decreased, risk ratio (RR) = 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.77, and P = 0.001. However, there was no statistical difference in the probability of diabetic ketoacidosis between CGM and SMBG groups, RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.57-3.15, and P = 0.5. Conclusion: Continuous blood glucose monitoring is associated with lower blood glucose levels than the traditional blood glucose self-test method.
2.
Short- and potential long-term adverse health outcomes of COVID-19: a rapid review.
Leung, TYM, Chan, AYL, Chan, EW, Chan, VKY, Chui, CSL, Cowling, BJ, Gao, L, Ge, MQ, Hung, IFN, Ip, MSM, et al
Emerging microbes & infections. 2020;9(1):2190-2199
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) has infected millions of people worldwide and there is evidence that it affects many systems in the human body. This rapid review summarises the current evidence on short-term negative health outcomes of Covid-19. It also assesses the risk of potential long-term negative effects by looking at data from the other coronaviruses; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The burden for caring for Covid-19 survivors is likely to be huge and so policy makers need suitable data to put the appropriate care strategies in place. The review is divided into sections as per body system affected: Immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic and renal, neurological, dermatological, mental health, pregnancy and prenatal exposure. The evidence (short-term and long-term) is then reviewed by experts in those fields. Further large-scale studies are needed to monitor the adverse effects and to measure the long-term health consequences.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of patients infected worldwide and indirectly affecting even more individuals through disruption of daily living. Long-term adverse outcomes have been reported with similar diseases from other coronaviruses, namely Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 adversely affects different systems in the human body. This review summarizes the current evidence on the short-term adverse health outcomes and assesses the risk of potential long-term adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Major adverse outcomes were found to affect different body systems: immune system (including but not limited to Guillain-Barré syndrome and paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome), respiratory system (lung fibrosis and pulmonary thromboembolism), cardiovascular system (cardiomyopathy and coagulopathy), neurological system (sensory dysfunction and stroke), as well as cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations, impaired hepatic and renal function. Mental health in patients with COVID-19 was also found to be adversely affected. The burden of caring for COVID-19 survivors is likely to be huge. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to develop comprehensive strategies in providing resources and capacity in the healthcare system. Future epidemiological studies are needed to further investigate the long-term impact on COVID-19 survivors.
3.
Probiotics for prevention and treatment of respiratory tract infections in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Wang, Y, Li, X, Ge, T, Xiao, Y, Liao, Y, Cui, Y, Zhang, Y, Ho, W, Yu, G, Zhang, T
Medicine. 2016;95(31):e4509
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. Probiotics are thought to be able to balance the gut microbiota and interact with the immune system, which may promote resistance against pathogens. There are conflicting results from studies investigating the effect of probiotics on RTI infection. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide the latest and convincing evidence of the effect of probiotic consumption on RTIs in children. 32 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 23 in the quantitative meta-analysis. All trials were randomised, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled. Probiotic supplementation had a significant effect on the reduction of number of subjects having at least 1 respiratory symptom episode, on the number of days the children were ill and the number of days absent from day care/school. There was no significant statistical difference of illness episode duration. There was statistical heterogeneity among the trials, and subgroup analysis did not highlight the source of this. It was noted, however, that the probiotic strain, the duration of regimens, administration forms, doses, and follow-up times differed across the included studies, as did the age of children. The authors conclude that probiotic consumption may decrease the incidence and illness duration of RTIs, and that further research is needed to establish optimal probiotic strains, dosing, administration form, time of intervention, and long-time follow-up.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) represent one of the main health problems in children. Probiotics are viable bacteria that colonize the intestine and affect the host intestinal microbial balance. Accumulating evidence suggests that probiotic consumption may decrease the incidence of or modify RTIs. The authors systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the effect of probiotic consumption on RTIs in children. METHODS MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for RCTs regarding the effect of probiotics on RTIs in children. The outcomes included number of children experienced with at least 1 RTI episode, duration of illness episodes, days of illness per subject, and school/day care absenteeism due to infection. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled relative risks, or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS A total of 23 trials involving 6269 children were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. None of the trials showed a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence of outcomes was moderate. The age range of subjects was from newborn to 18 years. The results of meta-analysis showed that probiotic consumption significantly decreased the number of subjects having at least 1 RTI episode (17 RCTs, 4513 children, relative risk 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96, P = 0.004). Children supplemented with probiotics had fewer numbers of days of RTIs per person compared with children who had taken a placebo (6 RCTs, 2067 children, MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.02, P = 0.03), and had fewer numbers of days absent from day care/school (8 RCTs, 1499 children, MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.15, P = 0.02). However, there was no statistically significant difference of illness episode duration between probiotic intervention group and placebo group (9 RCTs, 2817 children, MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.30, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION Based on the available data and taking into account the safety profile of RCTs, probiotic consumption appears to be a feasible way to decrease the incidence of RTIs in children.