Notesdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb108/eb108e1225c6a34726896a3a71243e18df6f7721" alt="what is notes.io? What is notes.io?"
![]() ![]() Notes - notes.io |
Background and aims Multiple pharmacologic treatments are available for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and a large body of evidence has been presented. However, the strength and credibility of the evidence have not been comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to review the systematic reviews and meta- analyses of pharmacologic treatments for IBS and evaluate the credibility of the findings. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2019 for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments for IBS. We summarized relative ratios (RR), evaluated the credibility of the evidence and classified the evidence into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, and weak. Results We included 11 systematic reviews with 40 meta-analyses (330 randomized controlled trials and 86,459 participants) assessing 10 treatment categories and 2 drugs. Most of the pharmacologic treatments were significantly superior over placebo as reported by the included meta-analyses. Midostaurin cost The evidence for 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 antagonists (RR=1.56, 95%CI 1.43-1.71), antispasmodics (RR=1.19, 95%CI 1.02-1.39), and alosetron (RR=1.46, 95%CI 1.26-1.71) were highly suggestive for relieving global IBS symptoms. 5-HT4 agonists (RR= 1.26, 95%CI 1.19-1.34) and guanylate cyclase-C (GCC) agonists (RR=1.73, 95%CI 1.54-1.95) were found to give convincing evidence for the improvement of the responder rate. 5-HT3 antagonists (RR=1.32, 95%CI 1.26-1.38) offered convincing evidence for relieving abdominal pain. Conclusions Evidence for 5-HT3 antagonists, 5-HT4 agonists and GCC agonists, antispasmodics, and alosetron were suggestive for the treatment of IBS. However, owing to the risk of bias in randomization methods, the results for GCC should be interpreted with caution.Background and aims The latest meta-analysis on the role of aspirin on various cancers was published in early 2018. By including the latest and updated primary observational studies, we aimed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize stronger evidence on the role of aspirin in reducing gastric cancer (GC) risk. Methods The PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched up to December 2019 to identify relevant studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate summary ORs and 95%CI for I 2 >50%. If the heterogeneity is not significant, the fixed-effects model was used. Overall analysis of the studies, inverse variance weighting after transforming the estimates of each study into log OR and its standard error were used. Results 21 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that aspirin significantly reduced the GC risk (OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.54-0.76) with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 =96%). Effect of GC risk reduction in low dose (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.59-1.09) is slightly greater than high dose aspirin (OR=1.08, 95%CI=0.77-1.52). Protective effect of aspirin uses >5 years (OR=0.67, 95%CI=0.34-1.31) was greater than less then 5 years (OR=1.01, 95%CI=0.72-1.43) Conclusion In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that low dose aspirin with longer duration of more than 5 years were associated with a statistically significant reduction in GC risk. However, due to possible confounding variables and bias, these results should be cautiously treated.Aims Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of transient elastography (TE) and Virtual Touch Quantification (VTQ), a point Shear Wave Elastography (pSWE) technique, using Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) technology, for liver fibrosis assessment, as compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (LB), in patients with chronic hepatitis B or C. Methods We analyzed 157 patients (80 with chronic hepatitis B and 77 with chronic hepatitis C) with reliable liver stiffness (LS) measurements, in whom we compared TE and VTQ to the LB performed during the same session (evaluated according to the Metavir scoring system F0-F4). LS was assessed by TE (FibroScan, EchoSens, Paris, France) and VTQ using the Siemens Acuson S2000TM ultrasound system (Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany). We defined reliable LS measurements as the median value of 10 measurements with an IQR/M less then 30% for both TE (obtained using the M probe) and VTQ. The areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were used to assess the diagnostic performance of TE and VTQ. Correlation analysis determined the relationship between LSM values and liver histology. Results On LB 31 (19.7%) patients had no fibrosis, 35 (22.3%) had F1, 43 (27.4%) had F2, 28 (17.8%) had F3 and 20 (12.7%) had cirrhosis. The mean size of the liver specimen in LB was 27 mm. A strong, linear correlation (Spearman ρ=0.826; p less then 0.001) with 95% confidence interval for rho (0.769- 0.870), was found between the TE and VTQ measurements. By comparing the AUROC curves, TE and VTQ had similar predictive values for the presence of F≥1 Metavir AUROC TE=0.876, AUROC VTQ=0.832, p=0.358, for F≥2 Metavir AUROC TE=0.826, AUROC VTQ=0.862, p=0.313, for F≥3 Metavir AUROC TE=0.907, AUROC VTQ=0.880, p=0.434 and for F=4 Metavir AUROC TE=0.981, AUROC VTQ=0.974, p= 0.423. Conclusions Both methods, TE and VTQ (pSWE) offer excellent diagnostic accuracy for liver fibrosis assessment in patients with chronic hepatitis B or C with similar performance.Background and aims The importance of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) in the pathogenesis of colorectal carcinoma has been recently established. These are supposed to cause the so-called "interval cancer", having a rapidly progressive growth and being difficult to detect and to obtain an endoscopic complete resection. We aimed to establish the most important metabolic risk factors for sessile serrated lesions. Methods We performed a retrospective case-control study, on a series of 2918 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Târgu-Mureș, Romania between 1 st of January 2015-31 th of December 2017. In order to evaluate the metabolic risk factors for polyps' development, enrolled participants were stratified in two groups, a study group, 33 patients with SSLs lesions, and a control group, 138 patients with adenomatous polyps, selected by systematic sampling for age and anatomical site. Independent variables investigated were gender, smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, arterial hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperuricemia, nonalcoholic liver disease.
Website: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/midostaurin-pkc412.html
![]() |
Notes is a web-based application for online taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000+ notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 14 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team