No abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to study the effects of low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors (search performed on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus databases). A total of 23 reports, corresponding to 17 clinical investigations, were identified as meeting the pre-specified criteria. Meta-analysis carried out on data obtained in 1,141 obese patients, showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in body weight (-7.04 kg [95% CI -7.20/-6.88]), body mass index (-2.09 kg m(-2) [95% CI -2.15/-2.04]), abdominal circumference (-5.74 cm [95% CI -6.07/-5.41]), systolic blood pressure (-4.81 mm Hg [95% CI -5.33/-4.29]), diastolic blood pressure (-3.10 mm Hg [95% CI -3.45/-2.74]), plasma triglycerides (-29.71 mg dL(-1) [95% CI -31.99/-27.44]), fasting plasma glucose (-1.05 mg dL(-1) [95% CI -1.67/-0.44]), glycated haemoglobin (-0.21% [95% CI -0.24/-0.18]), plasma insulin (-2.24 micro IU mL(-1) [95% CI -2.65/-1.82]) and plasma C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1.73 mg dL(-1) [95%CI 1.44/2.01]). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and creatinine did not change significantly, whereas limited data exist concerning plasma uric acid. LCD was shown to have favourable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors; however the effects on long-term health are unknown.

Aim:To assess the validity of the measurement of pepsinogen I and II as a screening test for gastric cancer and pre-malignant lesions, namely low-grade dysplasia, both in the general population and in selected groups of patients. Methods:A meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity results from individual papers on the use of the pepsinogen test. An intrinsic cut-off effect was assumed and a random effect model was used for pooling.Results: Forty-two data sets were included: 27 (64%) population-based screening studies (n=296,553) and 15 (36%) sets of selected individuals (n=4385). Homogenous sensitivity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) estimates were found in studies using both pepsinogen I levels and pepsinogen I/II ratio calculations. Pooled pairs of sensitivity and false positive rates (FPr) for pepsinogen I ≤70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3, pepsinogen I ≤50; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3, and pepsinogen I ≤30; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤2, were sensitivity 77%/FPr 27%, sensitivity 68%/FPr 31%, and sensitivity 52%/FPr 84%, respectively. Positive predictive values (PPV) varied between 0.77% and 1.25%, and negative predictive values (NPV) varied between 99.08% and 99.90%. In selected groups, pooling was only possible when considering pepsinogen I ≤70; pepsinogen I/II ratio ≤3: giving sensitivity 57%, specificity 80%, PPV 15% and NPV 83%. As for the diagnosis of dysplasia, studies considering pepsinogen I <50; pepsinogen I/II ratio <3 obtained sensitivity 65% and specificity ranging from 74%-85%, both with NPV >95%. Conclusion:Pepsinogen test definition should include pepsinogen I/II ratio as consistency was obtained, both in population based studies and in selected groups for those studies that used pepsinogen I serum levels together with pepsinogen I/II ratio for screening for gastric cancer in highincidence regions other than Japan. Further studies of this test in the management of high-risk patients seem to be worthwhile.

No abstract