Diabetes, a chronic physiological dysfunction affecting people of different age groups and severely impairs the harmony of peoples’ normal life worldwide. Despite the availability of insulin preparations and several synthetic oral antidiabetic drugs, there is a crucial need for the discovery and development of novel antidiabetic drugs because of the development of resistance and side effects of those drugs in long-term use. On the contrary, plants or herbal sources are getting popular day by day to the scientists, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies all over the world to search for potential bioactive compound(s) for the discovery and development of targeted novel antidiabetic drugs that may control diabetes with the least unwanted effects of conventional antidiabetic drugs. In this review, we have presented the prospective candidates comprised of either isolated phytochemical(s) and/or extract(s) containing bioactive phytoconstituents which have been reported in several in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies possessing noteworthy antidiabetic potential. The mode of actions, attributed to antidiabetic activities of the reported phytochemicals and/or plant extracts have also been described to focus on the prospective phytochemicals and phytosources for further studies in the discovery and development of novel antidiabetic therapeutics.

No abstract

No abstract

To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk‐based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost‐effectiveness of risk‐based strategies (low‐risk, medium‐risk and high‐risk) with no screening and age‐based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film‐based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk‐stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk‐stratification (being considered as high‐risk). Risk‐stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low‐risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high‐risk women was more cost‐effective compared to no screening and age‐based screening. High‐risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality‐adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk‐stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk‐stratification methods.