EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This study was based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes) statement guidelines for a systematic review of the academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCOhost (SportDiscus), and Google Scholar. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included publications, which ranged from moderate to high quality. The systematic review protocol was registered on inplasy.com (INPLASY202380049).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 249 studies identified, 93 articles were evaluated as eligible, and after the screening, 18 studies were finally included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis results showed a significant enhancement on vertical jump height in the BFRT group compared to the control group (SMD=1.39, 95% CI=0.30-2.49, P=0.01). BFRT was able to significantly increase maximal oxygen uptake (SMD=1.65, 95% CI=0.56-2.74, P<0.01). While no significant improvement in sprint time was observed (SMD= -0.18, 95% CI=-1.18-0.82, P=0.115).
CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggests that BFRT is beneficial to athletes as this training method can be effective in enhancing physical and technical performance in athletes. Nevertheless, further analysis needs to be conducted to fully determine the effectiveness of the moderators of the intervention on sports performance.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to review epidemiological reports to determine the prevalence of MCI and its associated risk factors in LMICs.
METHODS: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until November 2019. Eligible articles reported on MCI in population or community-based studies from LMICs and were included as long as MCI was clearly defined.
RESULTS: 5,568 articles were screened, and 78 retained. In total, n = 23 different LMICs were represented; mostly from China (n = 55 studies). Few studies were from countries defined as lower-middle income (n = 14), low income (n = 4), or from population representative samples (n = 4). There was large heterogeneity in how MCI was diagnosed; with Petersen criteria the most commonly applied (n = 26). Prevalence of amnesic MCI (aMCI) (Petersen criteria) ranged from 0.6%to 22.3%. Similar variability existed across studies using the International Working Group Criteria for aMCI (range 4.5%to 18.3%) and all-MCI (range 6.1%to 30.4%). Risk of MCI was associated with demographic (e.g., age), health (e.g., cardio-metabolic disease), and lifestyle (e.g., social isolation, smoking, diet and physical activity) factors.
CONCLUSION: Outside of China, few MCI studies have been conducted in LMIC settings. There is an urgent need for population representative epidemiological studies to determine MCI prevalence in LMICs. MCI diagnostic methodology also needs to be standardized. This will allow for cross-study comparison and future resource planning.
METHODS: From 32,295 female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, we identified 93 TH (0.3 %). "Cases" were defined as TH, and "controls" were single mutations at BRCA1 (SH1) or BRCA2 (SH2). Matched SH1 "controls" carried a BRCA1 mutation found in the TH "case". Matched SH2 "controls" carried a BRCA2 mutation found in the TH "case". After matching the TH carriers with SH1 or SH2, 91 TH were matched to 9316 SH1, and 89 TH were matched to 3370 SH2.
RESULTS: The majority of TH (45.2 %) involved the three common Jewish mutations. TH were more likely than SH1 and SH2 women to have been ever diagnosed with breast cancer (BC; p = 0.002). TH were more likely to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer (OC) than SH2 (p = 0.017), but not SH1. Age at BC diagnosis was the same in TH vs. SH1 (p = 0.231), but was on average 4.5 years younger in TH than in SH2 (p
METHODS: We combined individual participant data for 16 cohorts from 15 countries (members of the COSMIC consortium) and used qualitative and quantitative (Item Response Theory/IRT) harmonization techniques to estimate SCD prevalence.
RESULTS: The sample comprised 39,387 cognitively unimpaired individuals above age 60. The prevalence of SCD across studies was around one quarter with both qualitative harmonization/QH (23.8%, 95%CI = 23.3-24.4%) and IRT (25.6%, 95%CI = 25.1-26.1%); however, prevalence estimates varied largely between studies (QH 6.1%, 95%CI = 5.1-7.0%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%; IRT: 7.8%, 95%CI = 6.8-8.9%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%). Across studies, SCD prevalence was higher in men than women, in lower levels of education, in Asian and Black African people compared to White people, in lower- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, and in studies conducted in later decades.
CONCLUSIONS: SCD is frequent in old age. Having a quarter of older individuals with SCD warrants further investigation of its significance, as a risk stage for AD and other dementias, and of ways to help individuals with SCD who seek medical advice. Moreover, a standardized instrument to measure SCD is needed to overcome the measurement variability currently dominant in the field.