ObjectiveThe detailed associations between type 2 diabetes (T2D) and total stroke and magnesium intake as well as the dose–response trend should be updated in a timely manner.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were rigorously searched from inception to 15 March 2019.Eligibility criteriaProspective cohort studies investigating these two diseases were included.Data synthesisRelative risk (RR) and 95% CI in random effects models as well as absolute risk (AR) were pooled to calculate the risk of T2D and stroke. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsForty-one studies involving 53 cohorts were included. The magnitude of the risk was significantly reduced by 22% for T2D (RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.81); p<0.001; AR reduction 0.120%), 11% for total stroke (RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.94); p<0.001; AR reduction 0.281%) and 12% for ischaemic stroke (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.95); p=0.001; AR reduction 0.246%) when comparing the highest magnesium intake to the lowest. The inverse association still existed when studies on T2D were adjusted for cereal fibre (RR 0.79; p<0.001) and those on total stroke were adjusted for calcium (RR 0.89; p=0.040). Subgroup analyses suggested that the risk for total and ischaemic stroke was significantly decreased in females, participants with ≥25 mg/m2body mass index and those with ≥12-year follow-up; the reduced risk in Asians was not as notable as that in North American and European populations.ConclusionsMagnesium intake has significantly inverse associations with T2D and total stroke in a dose-dependent manner. Feasible magnesium-rich dietary patterns may be highly beneficial for specific populations and could be highlighted in the primary T2D and total stroke prevention strategies disseminated to the public.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018092690.

Background: The superiority of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) compared to SBRT alone as the first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficiency and safety of SBRT combined with TACE (ST group) and SBRT alone (SA group). Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for related studies. We analyzed overall survival (OS), local control survival (LCS), progression-free survival (PFS), the response rate and adverse effects (AEs) between the 2 groups. Results: Ten articles were included, with a total of 980 patients. The results showed that the ST (SBRT + TACE) group had a longer OS (95% CIs 0.60-0.85, p = 0.0002), a higher 5-year OS rate (95% CI 1.01-2.04, p = 0.04), a higher rate of complete response (95% CI 1.08-1.90, p = 0.01), and a higher disease control rate (95% CI 1.02-1.16, p = 0.02) than the SA (SBRT alone) group. No significant difference was found in LCS, PFS and total AEs of all grades and grades 3-5 AEs between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analysis, the patients with HCC + PVTT or treated with SBRT followed by TACE in the ST group had the same OS as those in the SA group, and the patients in the ST group had a higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever than those in the SA group. Conclusion: SBRT + TACE appears to be more effective than SBRT alone in treating unresectable HCC. However, its higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever need to be monitored. and PFS. When HRs with 95% CIs were < 1, the result supports the superiority of ST. We extracted HR data directly from Buckstein et al. [21]. We extracted data from Kaplan-Meier curves using methods described by Tierney et al. [22]. Risk ratios with 95% CI were used to analyze the dichotomous variables (response rates, AEs). We conducted subgroup analyses of OS, LCS, and PFS to determine whether the results changed according to nation, patient type, treatment priority, tumor stage, Child-Pugh class, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I 2 statistic and χ 2 test. If I 2 was > 50% or p was < 0.1, the fixed effects model was used, reflecting the lack of significant heterogeneity; otherwise, we used the random effects model. The sensitivity analysis in this study was performed with STATA. Begg's rank correlation and Egger's linear regression tests were used to evaluate the publication bias. Statistical significance existed when p was < 0.05.

Background The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse events (AEs) in patients on this schedule. An alternative schedule, 2 weeks on/1 week off (2/1), may overcome this issue. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness and toxicity between the 2/1 and 4/2 sunitinib dosing schedules. Methods We acquired relevant studies by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our main endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and AEs. Results We identified 9 medium- and high-quality studies. Both schedules were effective for mRCC, with comparable OS and similar ORR. However, the 2/1 schedule had better PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.99, P= 0.04), higher DCR (risk rate (RR) = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.47, P= 0.04) and fewer dosage interruptions (RR= 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.84, P= 0.003). Additionally, the 2/1 schedule elicited fewer specific severe AEs, including thrombocytopenia/platelet disorder, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension and fatigue. In our subanalysis, PFS was better among East Asians using the 2/1 schedule than among other populations (HR= 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58-0.98, P= 0.03), and patients administered an initial dosage of 50 mg/d on the 2/1 schedule had superior PFS (HR= 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.97, P= 0.03) than those others. Conclusions These findings suggest that the 2/1 schedule is more suitable for mRCC than 4/2, due to superior PFS, better DCR and fewer AEs. Nevertheless, more large-scale studies with good quality are needed.

Background: Both 3-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and 2-dimensional (2D) LG are commonly used for gastric cancer (GC). To investigate their safety and efficacy, we performed this meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The total number of lymph node dissections (LNDs), operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and hospitalization cost were extracted as major endpoints. Results: Among 904 articles that were enrolled, 9 studies were included for analysis. The 3D group was observed to have shorter operation times [95% confidence interval (CI): −0.54 to −0.06; P = .01] and less blood loss (95% CI: −0.41 to −0.19; P < .00001) than the 2D group. Compared with the 2D group, slightly higher hospitalization cost was found in the 3D group (95% CI: 0.06–0.37; P = .008). However, the outcomes among the total LNDs, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were similar. Subgroup analysis suggested that the 3D LG group had more 11p (2.22 ± 1.80 vs 1.47 ± 1.99, P = .019) and 8a (2.52 ± 1.88 vs 1.48 ± 1.43, P = .001) LNDs compared to the 2D LG group. Conclusions: 3D LG has advantages for GC, with shorter operation times, less blood loss, and possibly more LNDs. However, the cost was slightly higher than that of 2D LG.