Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ERCP/S+LC and LC+LCBDE in cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Methods A fully recursive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in any language. By using a defined search strategy, both the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials on comparing ERCP/ S+LC with LC+LCBDE in cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis were identified. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included trials was evaluated. Meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0.2 software. Results Fourteen controlled clinical trials (1 544 patients) were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) There were no significant difference in the stone clearance rate between the two groups (RR=0.96, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.01, P=0.14); b) There were no significant difference in the residual stone rate between the two groups (OR=1.05, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.72, P=0.83); c) There were no significant difference in the complications morbidity between the two groups (OR=1.12, 95%CI 0.85 to 1.55, P=0.48); d) There were no significant difference in the mortality during follow-up visit between the two groups (RD= 0.00, 95%CI –0.03 to 0.03, P=0.84); e) The length of hospital stay in the LC+LCBDE group was shorter than that of the ERCP/S+LC group with significant difference (WMD= 1.78, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.62, Plt;0.000 1); and f) The LC+LCBDE group was superior to the ERCP/S+LC group in the aspects of procedure time and total hospital charges. Conclusion Although there aren’t differences in the effectiveness and safety between the ERCP/S+LC group and the LC+LCBDE group, the latter is superior to the former in procedure time, length of hospital stay and total hospital charges. For the influencing factors of lower quality and astable statistical outcomes of the included studies, this conclusion has to be verified with more strictly designed large scale RCTs.
ObjectiveTo investigate the expression and biological function of centromere protein F (CENPF) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the association with prognosis.MethodsThrough retrieving and analyzing the bioinformatics data such as Oncomine database, Human Protein Atlas (HPA), Kaplan-Meier Plotter, STRING and DAVID database, the expression of CENPF in both normal tissues and cancer tissues of lung cancer patients was identified, and the protein interaction network analysis, functional annotation and pathway analysis of CENPF with its associated genes were carried out.ResultsCENPF was overexpressed in lung adenocarcinoma tissues, but not in normal tissues. The median overall survival (OS) of NSCLC patients with low expression of CENPF was significantly longer than that of patients with high expression of CENPF. Further sub-analysis showed that low expression group from lung adenocarcinoma patients had longer median disease-free survival and OS compared with high expression group patients. CENPF and its associated hub genes mainly affected the protein K11-linked ubiquitination in biological process, anaphase-promoting complex (APC) in cell composition, ATP binding in molecular function, and cell cycle in KEGG pathway.ConclusionCENPF is regulated in tumorigenesis and progression of NSCLC, and its protein expression level has the value of early diagnosis and prognosis evaluation in lung adenocarcinoma. It is suggested that CENPF gene can be a potential target for molecular targeted therapy of NSCLC.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews of the efficacy of cancer patient decision aids (PDAs) for treatment decision-making. MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, JBI, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the systematic reviews relevant to the objective from inception to September 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of the included literature, and summary and grading of the evidence were carried out independently by two researchers, and duplication of original studies in the included systematic evaluations was investigated using the corrected covered area (CCA). ResultsA total of 17 systematic reviews were included, of which 13 (76.47%) were low- or very low-quality studies. A total of 64 pieces of evidence were included, of which only 26 (40.62%) were of moderate quality, and the original studies included in the included literature had a low degree of overlap (CCA=0.05). The results of meta-analysis showed that PDAs could increase decision-related knowledge, reduce decision conflict and regret in cancer patients' treatment decision (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in decision satisfaction, anxiety or depression (P>0.05). ConclusionPDAs can improve cancer patients' knowledge related to treatment decision, reduce decision conflicts and regrets, and have no significant negative effects on decision preparation, satisfaction, anxiety, and depression. However, the existing systematic reviews are of low quality and limited to a few cancer types.
Objective To study the clinical characteristics, therapy strategies and the outcomes of female patients with acute aortic dissection during late pregnancy and puerperal period. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 7 patients with acute aortic dissection during late pregnancy and puerperal period in Shanghai Changhai Hospital between August 2012 and June 2017. Five of the 7 patients were late stage pregnancy, 2 were puerperal period (1 at the postpartum night, 1 in 18 days after delivery). There were 6 patients of Stanford type A aortic dissection (85.7%), and 1 patient of type B aortic dissection (14.3%). The age of the patients ranged from 26 to 34 (30.8±3.1) years. Cardiac ultrasonography of patients with type A showed that the maximum diameter of the ascending aortas was 4.2–5.7 (4.7±0.6) cm, of which 2 patients were aneurysm of aortic sinus, 3 patients were with Marfan syndrome. Bentall procedure was conducted in 1 patient, Bentall+Sun’s surgery in 2 patients, ascending aorta replacement+Sun’s+coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in 1 patient, aortic root remodeling+ascending aorta replacement+Sun’s surgery in 2 patients. One patient with Stanford type B acute aortic dissection was performed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) after cesarean section. Results Aortic blocking time ranged from 51 to 129 (85.5±22.9) min. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was 75–196 (159.0±44.0) min. Moderate hypothermic circulation arrest with selective cerebral perfusion time was 20–30 (23.8±3.5) min. All maternal and fetuses survived. The infant whose mother received aortic repair in early stage and then received cesarean section was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Maternal and fetuses were followed up for 9 months to 4 years. During the follow up period, all the fetuses grew well except the cerebral palsy one, and all maternal recovered well. The patient who received aortic repair in the early stage, had a sigmoid rupture during cesarean section and was treated with sigmoid colostomy. Another patient with Stanford type A dissection was diagnosed as left renal vein entrapment syndrome after 2 years. Conclusion Type A aortic dissection is more common in late pregnancy and puerperal patients. And Marfan syndrome is a high-risk factor for acute aortic dissection in pregnancy women. Early and appropriate surgical treatment strategy based on the type of aortic dissection and gestational age are the key points to achieve good outcomes both for maternal and fetus.