METHODS: A systematic review on the classification and assessment techniques to measure breast ptosis was carried out based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, whereas the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) was used to evaluate randomized studies.
RESULTS: Of 2550 articles identified in the literature search, 16 observational and 2 randomized studies describing the classification and assessment techniques of breast ptosis were included in the review. A total of 2033 subjects were involved. Half of the total observational studies had a Newcastle-Ottawa scale score of 5 and above. In addition, all randomized trials recorded a low overall bias.
CONCLUSION: A total of 7 classifications and 4 measurement techniques for breast ptosis were identified. However, most studies did not demonstrate a clear derivation of sample size beside lacking robust statistical analysis. Hence, further studies that apply the latest technology to combine the strength of previous assessment techniques are needed to develop better classification system that is applicable to all affected women.
DATA SOURCES: None.
STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.
METHODS: The study prospectively enrolled 62 patients with IIC on EEG. The diagnosis of nonconvulsive status epilepticus was attempted with Salzburg criteria as well as clinical and neuroimaging data. IICs were dichotomized into patients with nonconvulsive status epilepticus and coma-IIC. The 2HELPS2B score was evaluated as the original proposal. The suppression ratio was analyzed with Persyst software.
RESULTS: Forty-seven cases (75.8%) were nonconvulsive status epilepticus-IIC and 15 cases (24.2%) were coma-IIC. Multivariate analysis revealed that the 2HELPS2B score was the only significant variable dichotomizing the spectrum of IIC (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-8.6; P = 0.03 for nonconvulsive status epilepticus-IIC). In addition, the suppression ratio was significantly negatively correlated with 2HELPS2B scores (Spearman coefficient = -0.37, P = 0.004 for left hemisphere and Spearman coefficient = -0.3, P = 0.02 for right hemisphere). Furthermore, patients with higher 2HELPS2B score (74% [14/19] in ≥2 points vs. 44% [14/32] in <2 points, P = 0.03 by χ 2 test) and lower suppression ratio (62% [23/37] in ≤2.18 vs. 35% [6/17] in >2.18, P = 0.06 by χ 2 test) seemed to be more responsive to subsequent anti-seizure drug.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2HELPS2B score and background suppression can be used to distinguish the spectrum of IIC and thereby predict the response to subsequent anti-seizure drug.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from the earliest record up to September 2022. Related studies on deep learning models for radiotherapy toxicity prediction were selected based on predefined PICOS criteria.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies of radiotherapy-treated patients on different types of cancer [prostate (n=2), HNC (n=4), liver (n=2), lung (n=4), cervical (n=1), and oesophagus (n=1)] were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Information regarding patient characteristics and model development was summarized. Several approaches, such as ensemble learning, data augmentation, and transfer learning, that were utilized by selected studies were discussed.
CONCLUSION: Deep learning techniques are able to produce a consistent performance for toxicity prediction. Future research using large and diverse datasets and standardization of the study methodologies are required to improve the consistency of the research output.
METHODS: This systematic review study was performed to determine the types of nutrients in breads consumed in Iran by searching reputable international databases including Scopus and Google scholar, PubMed, Science direct, ISI (Web of Science). Data were collected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and by searching for relevant keywords, emphasizing the types of nutrients in breads consumed in Iran. Qualitative data were collected using the standard PRISMA checklist (preferential reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis). After verifying the quality of the articles, the information was entered into a checklist such as the name of the first author and year of publication of the research, type of study, number of samples, type of nutrition, type of bread and amount of nutrition measured.
RESULTS: After reviewing the information and quality of articles, 10 articles were qualified for systematic review. The review of the articles showed that different breads were experimented, including: Sangak, Barbari, Taftoon, Lavash, French and local bread. The highest number of experimented bread samples was Sangak. Examination of the articles showed that 6 nutrients were experimented in different breads such as Fe, K, Mg, Ca, Cu and Zn. The highest number of experimented in breads was related to the amount of Zn (13 times) and Cu (10 times), respectively. The results of quality assessment of articles showed that most of the studies were of good quality. The results of articles on the amount of nutrients measured in different breads showed that only in two articles the amount of nutrients was reported to be desirable. In most articles, the amount of nutrients in breads was reported to be lower or higher than standard.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that the concentration of nutrients in most articles was undesirable. It is suggested that optimal methods of enrichment of breads and flours be done with interdisciplinary cooperation between food hygiene, environmental health, nutrition, farmers and bakers. It is recommended that food hygiene and environmental health researchers investigate other nutrients (including phosphorus, selenium, manganese, boron and molybdenum) in breads and other staple foods used by people to constructive and practical measures to increase public health.
METHODS: The study had hypothesized that the citizens who have lower trust in their government would be less inclined towards vaccination programs. To test this hypothesis, vaccination trends of nations under authoritarian rule were compared against democratic nations. Further, the study was synthesized with Cov-2 vaccination data which was sourced from Our World Data repository, which was sampled among 217 countries spread across the 6 continents. The study was analyzed with exploratory data analysis and proposed with relevance and impacting factor that was considered for vaccine dissemination in comparison with the literacy rate of the nations. Another impacting factor the study focused on for the vaccination dissemination trends was the health expenses of different nations. The study has been synthesized on political and socio-economic factors where the features were ardently study in retrospect of varied socio- economic features which may include country wise literacy rate, overall GDP rate, further we substantiated the work to address the political factors which are discussed as the country status of democratic or having other status.
RESULTS: The comparison of trends showed that dissemination of SARS-Cov-2 vaccines had been comparable between the two-opposing types of governance. The major impact factor behind the wide acceptance of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine was the expenditure done by a country on healthcare. These nations used a large number of vaccines to administer to their population and the trends showed positive growth. The overall percentage of vaccine utilized by countries in quantitative terms are Pfizer/BioNTech (17.55%), Sputnik V (7.08%), Sinovac (6.98%), Sinopharm/Beijing (10.04%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (19.56%), CanSino (2.85%), Moderna (12.05%), Covaxin (3.28%), JohnsonandJohnson (10.89%), Sputnik Light (3.07%), Novavax (3.49%). While the nations with the lowest healthcare expenses failed to keep up with the demand and depended on vaccines donated by other countries to protect their population.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis revealed strong indicators that the nations which spend more on healthcare were the ones that had the best SARS-Cov-2 vaccination rollout. To further support decision-making in the future, countries should address the trust and sentiment of their citizens towards vaccination. For this, expenses need to be made to develop and promote vaccines and project them as positive health tools.