BACKGROUND: Digitally delivered weight loss programmes can provide a convenient, potentially cheaper, and scalable treatment option for people who may need to lose weight. However, outcomes are often inferior to in-person interventions in the long-term. This trial will use principles from the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST) framework to test whether it can enhance the effectiveness of a commercial digital behavioural weight loss programme. This trial aims to identify an optimised combination of four intervention components to enhance weight loss over a 24-week period. We will also explore which components contribute to improvements in participant retention and engagement with the programme.
METHODS: Approximately 1400 adults with a BMI > 21 kg/m2 will be enrolled and randomised to one of 16 experimental conditions in a 24 factorial cluster design. The trial will test four intervention components: an introductory video call with the health coach, drop-in webchat sessions with the health coach, goal setting statements, and food diary review and feedback. All participants will receive the core digital behavioural weight loss programme and up to four new intervention components. Participation in the trial will last for 24 weeks. The primary outcome will be weight change at 16 weeks. Other outcomes, measured at 4, 16, and 24 weeks, include programme drop-out and engagement (number of interactions with the three main app functions). Fidelity and acceptability will be assessed using data on component adherence and self-report questionnaires. Decision-making for the enhanced programme will be based on components that contribute to at least a minimal improvement in weight loss, defined as ≥ 0.75kg, alone or in combination with other components.
CONCLUSIONS: The factorial design is an efficient way to test the efficacy of behavioural components alone, or in combination, to improve the effectiveness of digital weight loss programmes. This trial will test the implementation of the MOST framework in an industry setting, using routinely collected data, which may provide a better way to refine and evaluate these types of interventions in a model of continuous service improvement.
BACKGROUND: Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14407868. Registered 5 January 2024, 10.1186/ISRCTN14407868.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reporting of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach in systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in pediatric dentistry that reported the certainty of the evidence through the GRADE approach. Paired independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. The certainty of the evidence was extracted for each outcome. A descriptive analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Around 28% of pediatric dentistry reviews of interventions used the GRADE approach (n = 24). Twenty reviews reported 112 evidence outcomes from RCTs and 13 from NRSIs using GRADE evidence profile tables. The methodological quality was high (16.7%), moderate (12.5%), low (37.5%), and critically low (33.3%), fulfilling the majority of the AMSTAR 2 criteria. The certainty of the evidence for outcomes generated from RCTs and NRSIs was very low (40.2% and 84.6%), low (33.1% and 7.7%), moderate (17.8% and 7.7%), and high (9.8% and 0.0%). The main reasons to downgrade the certainty were due to (for RCTs and NRSIs, respectively): risk of bias (68.8% and 84.6%), imprecision (67.8% and 100.0%), inconsistency (18.8% and 23.1%), indirectness (17.8% and 0.0%), and publication bias (7.1% and 0.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of systematic reviews assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach was considered small, considering the total initial number of published pediatric dentistry reviews of intervention. The certainty of the evidence was mainly very low and low, and the main problems for downgrading the certainty of evidence were due to risk of bias and imprecision.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO database #CRD42022365443.

In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China\'s CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of multitarget neuroprotective drug DL-3-n-butylphthalide (NBP) in improving cognitive function has been confirmed in patients with vascular cognitive impairment without dementia. However, its efficacy in patients with symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer\'s disease remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NBP in improving cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) through a clinical randomised controlled trail.
METHODS: This study is a 12-month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentric trial, involving 270 patients with MCI. Subjects are randomly assigned to receive either NBP soft capsule (200 mg, three times per day) or placebo with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The efficacy and safety of NBP are assessed by comparing the results of neuropsychological, neuroimaging and laboratory tests between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in Alzheimer\'s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale after 12 months. All patients will be monitored for adverse events.
BACKGROUND: This study involving human participants has been reviewed and approved by Ethics Committee of Xuan Wu Hospital (No.2017058). The participants provide their written informed consent to participate in this study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals and disseminated to healthcare professionals at local and international conferences.
METHODS: V 3.0, 3 September 2022.
BACKGROUND: ChiCTR1800018362.

BACKGROUND: The social determinants of health contribute to poorer health outcomes for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and are barriers to families accessing health services. At an individual level, social determinants of health are experienced as unmet social needs, for example, unsafe housing conditions. There is emerging evidence that clinical pathways for the systematic identification and referral to services for unmet social needs can support families to address these needs. These clinical pathways have not been implemented for children with CP. The objectives are to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of two co-designed social needs clinical pathways for parents/caregivers of children with CP-social prescribing (ie, Community Linker plus resource pack) compared with resource pack only.
METHODS: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run at the three tertiary paediatric rehabilitation services in New South Wales, Australia. A total of 120 participants will be recruited, with randomisation stratified by study site. A survey tool will be used to identify families experiencing unmet social needs. Parents/caregivers who report one or more unmet social need/s and consent will be eligible. The active control group will receive a resource pack containing information on community services to support unmet social needs. The social prescribing intervention group will receive one-on-one Community Linker support, in addition to the resource pack. The survey tool, intervention, logic model, and resource pack were co-designed with patient families and their healthcare workers. Feasibility of the research design and the clinical pathways will be evaluated using the number/proportion of parents/caregivers who complete the survey tool, consent, engage with the intervention, and complete research measures. Acceptability will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews.
BACKGROUND: Human research ethics approval was granted by the Sydney Children\'s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH01688). Participants and stakeholders will receive updates and findings via regular communication channels including meetings, presentations, and publications.
BACKGROUND: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: 12622001459718.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome as defined by The National Cholesterol Education Panel-Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEPATP III), is the presence of obesity, dyslipidaemia, the elevation of arterial blood pressure, and glucose intolerance. It affects 25% to 40% of the adult population of Malaysia and is associated with other medical conditions, especially cardiovascular disease. In this systematic review, the objective is to assess the effects of Nigella Sativa on parameters that reflect metabolic syndromes, such as lipid profile, blood pressure, blood glucose, and anthropometry indices.
METHODS: This systematic review was conducted by performing searches for relevant publications on two databases (PubMed and Scopus). The publication period was limited from January 2011 to December 2021. Cochrane collaboration tools were used for the risk of bias assessment of each trial.
RESULTS: Six out of 8 randomised controlled trials (n:776) demonstrated a significant improvement in lipid profile (p <0.05), 5 out of 7 trials (n:701) showed a significant reduction in glycaemic indices (p <0.05), 1 out of 5 trials (n:551) demonstrated significant improvements in blood pressure (p <0.05), and 2 out of 7 trials (n:705) showed a significant reduction in anthropometric measurements (p <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Nigella Sativa has proved to have a significant positive effect on lipid profile and glycaemic index. The results showed in the parameters of blood pressure and anthropometric indices are less convincing, as results were inconsistent across studies. Nigella Sativa can therefore be recommended as an adjunct therapy for metabolic syndrome.
BACKGROUND: Le syndrome métabolique, tel que défini par le National Cholesterol Education Panel-Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III), se caractérise par la présence d\'obésité, de dyslipidémie, d\'hypertension artérielle et d\'intolérance au glucose. Il affecte 25% à 40% de la population adulte en Malaisie et est associé à d\' autres affections médicales, notamment les maladies cardiovasculaires. L\'objectif de cette revue systématique est d\'évaluer les effets de Nigella Sativa sur des paramètres reflétant le syndrome métabolique, tels que le profil lipidique, la pression artérielle, la glycémie et les indices anthropométriques.
UNASSIGNED: Cette revue systématique a été réalisée en effectuant des recherches de publications pertinentes dans deux bases de données (PubMed et Scopus). La période de publication était limitée de janvier 2011 à décembre 2021. Les outils de la collaboration Cochrane ont été utilisés pour évaluer le risque de biais de chaque essai.
UNASSIGNED: Six des huit essais contrôlés randomisés (n : 776) ont montré une amélioration significative du profil lipidique (p <0,05), cinq des sept essais (n : 701) ont montré une réduction significative des indices glycémiques (p <0,05), un des cinq essais (n : 551) a démontré des améliorations significatives de la pression artérielle (p<0,05), et deux des sept essais (n : 705) ont montré une réduction significative des mesures anthropométriques (p <0,05).
CONCLUSIONS: Nigella Sativa a prouvé avoir un effet positif significatif sur le profil lipidique et les indices glycémiques. Les résultats concernant les paramètres de la pression artérielle et des indices anthropométriques sont moins convaincants, car les résultats étaient incohérents entre les études. Nigella Sativa peut donc être recommandée comme thérapie adjuvante pour le syndrome métabolique.
UNASSIGNED: Nigella Sativa, Graines de nigelle, Essai contrôlé randomisé, Syndrome métabolique.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have primarily focused on the effects of exercise-based prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes and ignored the role of nutritional intervention. In this study, we filled this gap by investigating the effect of nutrition-based prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy and gastrectomy.
METHODS: Five electronic databases, namely, PubMed, the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, were searched. Adults diagnosed with esophagogastric cancer who were scheduled to undergo surgery and had undergone uni- or multimodal prehabilitation, with at least a week of mandatory nutritional intervention, were included. Forest plots were used to extract and visualize the data from the included studies. The occurrence of any postoperative complication was considered the primary endpoint.
RESULTS: Eight studies met the eligibility criteria, with five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies. In total, 661 patients were included. Any prehabilitation, that is, unimodal (only nutrition) and multimodal prehabilitation, collectively decreased the risk of any postoperative complication by 23% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-0.90). A similar effect was exclusively observed for multimodal prehabilitation (risk ratio [RR] = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.66-0.93); however, it was not significant for unimodal prehabilitation. Any prehabilitation significantly decreased the length of hospital stay (LOS) (weighted mean difference = -0.77, 95% CI = -1.46 to -0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition-based prehabilitation, particularly multimodal prehabilitation, confers protective effects against postoperative complications after esophagectomy and gastrectomy. Our findings suggest that prehabilitation slightly decreases LOS; however, the finding is not clinically significant. Therefore, additional rigorous RCTs are warranted for further substantiation.

This meta-analysis aimed to summarise clinical evidence regarding the effect of supplementation with cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) on different cardiometabolic outcomes. An extensive literature survey was carried out until 10 April 2024. A total of 415 participants from six eligible studies were included. The overall results from the random-effects model indicated that cornelian cherry supplementation significantly reduced body weight (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.27, confidence interval [CI]: -0.52, -0.02, p = 0.03), body mass index (SMD = -0.42, CI: -0.73, -0.12, p = 0.007), fasting blood glucose (SMD = -0.46, CI: -0.74, -0.18, p = 0.001), glycated haemoglobin (SMD = -0.70, CI: -1.19, -0.22, p = 0.005), and HOMA-IR (SMD = -0.89, CI: -1.62, -0.16, p = 0.02), while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly increased (SMD = 0.38, CI: 0.10, 0.65, p = 0.007). A sensitivity analysis showed that cornelian cherry supplementation significantly reduced total plasma triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and insulin levels. Cornelian cherry supplementation did not significantly affect waist circumference and liver parameters among the participants. Considering these findings, this meta-analysis indicates that supplementation with cornelian cherry may impact diverse cardiometabolic risk factors among individuals considered to be at a high risk.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disorder with gut microbiota imbalance playing a significant role. There are increasing numbers of research studies exploring treatment options involving probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is superior. The research was conducted on various databases and unpublished trial data (up to February 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened for adult patients with IBS comparing interventions with placebo. Probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and FMT were assessed for their impact using mean difference and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Out of 6528 articles, 54 were included for probiotics, 7 for prebiotics/synbiotics, and 6 for FMT. Probiotics showed improvement in IBS symptoms, particularly with Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus strains. Prebiotics and synbiotics did not show significant improvement. Network meta-analysis indicated the favorable effects of probiotics (OR = 0.53, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59) and FMT (OR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.64) on IBS, with no serious adverse events reported. In short, probiotics and FMT are effective for managing IBS, with Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus being dominant strains. However, the most effective probiotic combination or strain remains unclear, while prebiotics and synbiotics did not show significant improvement.