Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a gastrointestinal disorder affecting 7–12% of the population, is characterized by abdominal pain, bloating, and alternating bowel patterns. Data on risk and protective influences have yielded conflicting evidence on the effects of alternative interventions, such as vitamin D. This review focuses on the effects of vitamin D on IBS. A systematic review and meta-analysis considered all articles published until 4 April 2022. The search for randomized controlled trials assessing vitamin D efficacy in IBS with outcomes, primary (Irritable Bowel Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS)) and secondary (IBS quality of life (IBS-QoL) and serum level of calcifediol (25(OH)D)), was performed on six databases, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed (MEDLINE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included six trials with 616 patients. The pooled analysis found no difference between vitamin D and placebo in improving IBS-SSS (MD: −45.82 with 95% CI [−93.62, 1.98], p = 0.06). However, the pooled analysis favored vitamin D over placebo in improving the IBS-Qol (MD: 6.19 with 95% CI [0.35, 12.03], p = 0.04) and serum 25(OH)D (MD: 25.2 with 95% CI [18.41, 31.98], p = 0.00001). Therefore, further clinical trials are required to reach clinically applicable and generalizable findings.
Objective
Lymphatic filariasis is a serious public health issue. Recent studies showed that a single dosage of triple therapy (Ivermectin, Diethylcarbamazepine, and Albendazole) is more effective than dual therapy (Ivermectin plus Albendazole or Diethylcarbamazepine plus Albendazole) for clearing microfilaria from the blood. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy versus dual therapy in patients infected with microfilaria and communities endemic to lymphatic filariasis.
Methods
For this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science until 24th June 2021. We included randomized control trials that compared triple with dual therapy given to patients with lymphatic filariasis or endemic communities. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021266724).
Results
We included eight articles after the screening process. Triple therapy caused more clearance of microfilaria in the blood (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.02; p = 0.003), while dual therapy caused more clearance of the circulating filariae antigen in the blood (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.88; p = 0.0003), both 12 months after drug administration. The triple therapy had a similar adverse effect compared with the dual therapy group.
Conclusion
Based on the greater efficacy in the clearance of microfilaria and the safety of triple therapy, it constitutes a better strategy for the eradication programs of lymphatic filariasis in endemic regions. However, further studies are needed to confirm our results.
Inguinal hernia is a common disease. Many researches were done to evaluate the different methods of treatment yet there is no ideal method for treatment till now. Since the use of laparoscopy in hernia repair evolved, it is probably becoming the treatment of choice for hernia.Objectives: This is a prospective randomized trial that aimed at comparing the outcome of using absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks as mesh fixation devices in patients undergoing laparoscopic transabdominal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) regarding postoperative groin pain and early recurrence.Patients and Methods: Thirty patients were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A included 15 patients who underwent TAPP with mesh fixation by non absorbable tack (NAT) and group B included 15 patients who underwent TAPP with mesh fixation by absorbable tack (AT). Follow up was done at the first day, second week, sixth month and one year postoperatively.
Results:The 2 groups had similar features regarding demographics, operation time, postoperative hospital stay and morbidity. The 2 fixation methods were found similar for postoperative pain and recurrence with no significant difference.
Radial artery spasm (RAS) is the most common cause of transradial access site crossover and is a common intra‐procedural complication. RAS incidence can lead to radial artery occlusion (RAO) postprocedure, preventing the radial artery as a future access site. We evaluated the efficacy of nitroglycerin preventing RAS and RAO during transradial catheterization discussing the different routes of administration, including topical, subcutaneous, and intra‐arterial. A systematic review and meta‐analysis included all relevant articles until April 23, 2022. We searched six databases Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed (MEDLINE), and CENTRAL. We registered our review protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022330356. We included 11 trials with 5814 patients. Compared to placebo, the pooled analysis favored subcutaneous nitroglycerin in preventing RAS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.57 with 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43–0.77], p = .0003) and RAO (RR: 0.39 with 95% CI [0.16–0.98], p = .05). In contrast to the intra‐arterial nitroglycerin that showed nonstatistically significant results in preventing RAS and RAO (RR: 0.8 with 95% CI [0.63–1.02], p = .07)‐ (RR: 0.78 with 95% CI [0.6–1.01], p = .06)), respectively. Also, topical nitroglycerin did not prevent RAS (RR: 0.73 with 95% CI [0.42–1.24], p = .24). Compared with placebo, subcutaneous nitroglycerin during transradial catheterization reduced the incidence of RAS and RAO. Meanwhile, Intra‐arterial and topical nitroglycerin did not show statistically significant outcomes. Subcutaneous nitroglycerin may be a practical and cost‐effective technique to facilitate transradial catheterization; however, more RCTs are needed to evaluate the subcutaneous versus intra‐arterial nitroglycerin administration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.