Methods: This is a controlled semi-experimental study with a pre-test, post-test design. Ninety eligible ones of the elderly living in the Abadeh nursing homes and from July to September 2017, entered the study. Some of the criteria for entering the study include being over 60 years old, orientation, not having blindness and deafness, lack of physical and mental problems. After determining the intervention and control groups, the scale of depression and QOL was administered to the subjects and their scores were collected in the pre-test.

Results: Most of the study samples were in the intervention (35.55%) and control (37.77%) group in the age range of 60-69 years. In both intervention and control groups, respectively, 31.11% and 68.88% elderly were males and females. The mean scores of depression in the intervention group after LT (M = 2.57) were lower than those before the intervention (M = 6.87) [CI = -5.58-(-3.02)] and also the results of independent t-test showed a statistically significant difference before and after the intervention between the two groups (P < 0.001). The mean score of dimensions of QOL after LT was higher than that before in the intervention and there was a statistically significant difference in all dimensions with paired t-test (P < 0.001).

Methods: We included patients with histopathologically diagnosed head and neck cancers who had received radiation, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and age range of 15-60 years. Patients with prior radiotherapy and chemotherapy, edentulous status, total parotidectomy, sicca syndrome or on xerosis-induced medications were excluded. We assigned 15 patients each to the Oral7® and salt-soda groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in the mean Decayed, Missing and Filling Teeth (DMFT) score between groups. Head and neck cancer patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly better quality of life than those on salt-soda in relation to the swallowing problems, social eating, mouth opening, xerostomia and illness scales. Patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly lower xerostomia score than patients on salt-soda mouthwash. Patients on Oral7® had a significantly lower mucositis score in week 5-7 compared to patients in the salt-soda group.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to translate and validate UDI-6 and IIQ-7 in Malay language.

METHODS: A cross sectional study, which recruited 100 participants from two urogynecology clinics. Both questionnaires were initially translated from English to Bahasa Malaysia followed by back translation and final correction done by the professional translators. The participants were requested to maintain a urinary record of the upcoming week for three days that assisted in quantifying the severity of symptoms. None of the subjects were assigned any treatment during the study period. Validity and reliability of the translated questionnaires were determined by checking the internal consistency and also by doing test-retest.

RESULTS: The internal consistency levels of the UDI-6 and IIQ-7 Bahasa Malaysia questionnaires were 0.73 and 0.90 respectively with good test-retest (0.86 and 0.95). Incontinence episodes were strongly associated with obstructive, irritative, and stress symptoms. The factor of day time voiding had strong correlation with obstructive and irritative symptoms.

METHODS: Participants took 6 mg of lutein and 1 mg of zeaxanthin, along with 100 mg elderberry extract once daily for a duration of 20 days. Ocular health was assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), while immune status was evaluated with the Immune Status Questionnaire (ISQ).

RESULTS: Results showed that combined supplementation significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the OSDI scores in the intervention group from 38.15 ± 11.14 to 18.26 ± 5.57, reflecting a 52.2% reduction. A similar trend was observed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), indicating significant (p < 0.05) improvement from 5.31 ± 1.62 to 6.73 ± 1.74, equivalent to a 26.7% improvement. Although the intervention group showed a 15.9% improvement in ISQ scores by the study's end, this was not significantly different from the placebo group, suggesting that higher dosages or longer durations may be needed to observe a meaningful effect. Additionally, findings from the Food Frequency Questionnaire revealed that the average dietary intake of lutein and zeaxanthin among participants was only 663.49 µg, equating to just 5.5% of the suggested optimal daily intake. This low consumption is concerning, as it is inversely correlated with the risk of ocular diseases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of interventions used for the treatment of DS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until February 2022 (PROSPERO Reg no: CRD42021271366). Network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed the comparative efficacy of any form of intervention for the treatment of DS in denture wearers. Agents were ranked according to their effectiveness in the treatment of DS based on outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA).

RESULTS: A total of 25 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Topical antifungal agents (risk ratio [RR]=4.37[95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15,8.90), topical antimicrobial agents used along with systemic antifungal agents (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.79,10.33]), systemic antifungal agents (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.79,10.10]), photodynamic therapy (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.75,8.98]), and topical plant products (RR=3.40[95% CI: 1.59,7.26]) were found to effectively improve DS. Microwave disinfection concurrently administered with topical antifungal agents (RR=7.38(95% CI: 2.75,19.81), microwave disinfection 7.38[95% CI: 2.75,19.81]), topical antifungal agents (RR=4.88[95% CI: 1.92,12.42]), topical plant products (RR=4.49[95% CI: 1.70,11.82]), systemic antifungal agents together with topical antimicrobial agents (RR=3.85[95% CI: 1.33,11.10]), topical antimicrobial agents (RR=3.39[95% CI: 1.17,9.81]), systemic antifungal agents (RR=3.37[95% CI: 1.21,9.34]), and photodynamic therapy or photochemotherapy (PDT) (RR=2.93[95% CI: 1.01,8.47]) were found to effectively resolve mycological DS. Topical antifungals ranked highest in the SUCRA ranking for clinical improvement, whereas microwave disinfection concurrently administered with topical antifungal agents ranked highest for mycological resolution. None of the agents demonstrated significant side effects except for topical antimicrobial agents which demonstrated altered taste and staining of oral structures.

METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older with SLE were followed up from May 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2020 in a prospective, multinational, longitudinal cohort study. Patients were recruited from 25 centres in 12 countries. Multi-failure time-to-event analyses were used to assess the effect of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage accrual (primary outcome; measured with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index) and flare (key secondary outcome; measured with the SELENA Flare Index), with dose exposure and threshold effects studied. Sustained LLDAS or remission were defined as two or more consecutive visits over at least 3 months in the respective state. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941.

FINDINGS: 3449 patients were followed up for a median of 2·8 years (IQR 1·1-5·6), totalling 37 662 visits. 3180 (92·2%) patients were women, and 3031 (87·9%) were of Asian ethnicity. 2506 (72·7%) patients had sustained LLDAS at least once. Any duration of sustained LLDAS or remission longer than 3 months was associated with reduced damage accrual (LLDAS: hazard ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·51-0·71], p<0·0001; remission: 0·66 [0·57-0·76], p<0·0001) and flare (LLDAS: 0·56 [0·51-0·63], p<0·0001; remission: 0·66 [0·60-0·73], p<0·0001), and increasing durations of sustained LLDAS corresponded to increased protective associations. Sustained DORIS remission or steroid-free remission were less attainable than LLDAS.

INTERPRETATION: We observed significant protective associations of LLDAS and remission against damage accrual and flare, establish a threshold of 3 months sustained LLDAS or remission as protective, and demonstrate deepening protection with longer durations of sustained LLDAS or remission.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.

OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.

RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.

FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is double-blind randomised controlled trial, with parallel group, concealed allocation, blinding of patients and assessors, and intention-to-treat analysis. 240 adult participants who had median sternotomy from eight hospitals in Malaysia will be recruited. Sample size calculations were based on the unsupported upper limb test. All participants will be randomised to receive either standard or early supervised incremental resistance training. The primary outcomes are upper limb function and pain. The secondary outcomes will be functional capacity, multidomain recovery (physical and psychological), length of hospital stay, incidence of respiratory complications and quality of life. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise data. Data will be analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. The primary hypothesis will be examined by evaluating the change from baseline to the 4-week postoperative time point in the intervention arm compared with the usual care arm. For all tests to be conducted, a p value of <0.05 (two tailed) will be considered statistically significant, and CIs will be reported. The trial is currently recruiting participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by a central ethical committee as well as the local Research Ethics Boards of the participating sites (UKM:JEP-2019-654; Ministry of Health: NMMR-50763; National Heart Centre: IJNREC/501/2021). Approval to start was given prior to the recruitment of participants commencing at any sites. Process evaluation findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant academic conferences.