Search

Abstract Background Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments, along with potentially relevant factors. Methods To identify eligible SRs on AD treatments, four databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 instrument was used for quality appraisal of SRs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine factors related to methodological quality. Results A total of 102 SRs were appraised. Four (3.90%) SRs were considered as high quality; 14 (13.7%), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) were as moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of SRs registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane SRs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81–266.9) and SRs of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27–12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of SRs. Conclusion Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory, especially among non-Cochrane SRs and SRs of non-pharmacological interventions. Improvement in the following methodological domains requires particular attention due to poor performance: registering and publishing protocols a priori, justifying study design selection, providing a list of excluded studies, and reporting funding sources of primary studies.

Abstract Background The clinical utility of personal genomic information in identifying individuals at increased risks for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular diseases remains unclear. Methods We used data from Biobank Japan (n = 70,657–128,305) and developed novel East Asian-specific genome-wide polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for four lipid traits. We validated (n = 4271) and subsequently tested associations of these scores with 3-year lipid changes in adolescents (n = 620), carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in adult women (n = 781), dyslipidemia (n = 7723), and coronary heart disease (CHD) (n = 2374 cases and 6246 controls) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Results Our PRSs aggregating 84–549 genetic variants (0.251

Abstract Background Ventricular strain measurements vary depending on cardiac chamber (left ventricle [LV] or right ventricle [RV]), type of strain (longitudinal, circumferential, or radial), ventricular level (basal, mid, or apical), myocardial layer (endocardial or epicardial), and software used for analysis, among other demographic factors such as age and gender. Here, we present an analysis of ventricular strain taking all of these variables into account in a cohort of patients with no structural heart disease using a vendor-independent speckle-tracking software. Methods LV and RV full-thickness strain parameters were retrospectively measured in 102 patients (mean age 39 ± 15 years; 62% female). Within this cohort, we performed further layer-specific strain analysis in 20 subjects. Data were analyzed for global and segmental systolic strain, systolic strain rate, early diastolic strain rate, and their respective time-to-peak values. Results Mean LV global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain values for the entire cohort were − 18.4 ± 2.0%, − 22.1 ± 4.1%, and 43.9 ± 12.1% respectively, while mean RV global and free wall longitudinal strain values were − 24.2 ± 3.9% and − 26.1 ± 5.2% respectively. Women on average demonstrated higher longitudinal and circumferential strain and strain rate than men, and longer corresponding time-to-peak values. Longitudinal strain measurements were highest at the apex compared with the mid ventricle and base, and in the endocardium compared with the epicardium. Longitudinal strain was the most reproducible measure, followed closely by circumferential strain, while radial strain showed suboptimal reproducibility. Conclusions We present an analysis of ventricular strain in patients with no structural heart disease using a vendor-independent speckle-tracking software.

Abstract Background Aortic stenosis (AS) causes left ventricular (LV) pressure overload, leading to adverse LV remodeling and dysfunction. Identifying early subclinical markers of LV dysfunction in patients with significant AS is critical as this could provide support for earlier intervention, which may result in improved long-term outcomes. We therefore examined the impact of severe AS and its consequent increase in LV afterload on myocardial deformation and rotational mechanics by 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) speckle-tracking echocardiography. Methods We prospectively measured various strain parameters in 168 patients (42% female, mean age 72 ± 12 years) with severe AS and LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%, and compared them to normal values found in literature. 2D and 3D images were analyzed for global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), global radial strain (GRS), basal rotation, apical rotation, and peak systolic twist. We further assessed the degree of concordance between 2D and 3D strain, and examined their association with measures of LV preload and afterload. Results Patients with severe AS exhibited significantly lower GLS and GRS but higher GCS, apical rotation, and twist by 2D and 3D echocardiography compared with published normal values (P = 0.003 for 3D twist, P