MATERIAL AND METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Relevant literature was searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Ebscohost databases from inception until 31 August 2020. The risk of bias in each study was determined based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool. Results from random-effect meta-analyses were presented as summary estimates of odds ratios (ORs) for seropositivity and standardised mean difference (SMD) of autoantibody levels with 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity tests and meta-regression were performed to assess the robustness of the results and potential cause of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The electronic and manual searches gathered 932 articles. Following screening and full-text assessment, a total of 29 studies were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight published observational studies were included in the quantitative analysis in the form of random-effect meta-analysis which revealed that PD was associated with anti-citrullinated proteins autoantibodies (ACPAs) and Rheumatoid Factor (RF) seropositive RA patients (OR for ACPA seropositivity: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.13-2.93) (OR for RF seropositivity: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.05-2.24). Also, RA patients with PD had increased serum levels of ACPA and RF. However, high heterogeneity among studies' results, partially ascribed to the unstandardised case definition of PD and laboratory testing of autoantibodies. Apart from ACPA and RF in serum, studies which reported on other RA-related autoantibodies, as well as autoantibody levels in saliva and GCF were scarce.
CONCLUSION: RA patients with PD tend to have greater ACPA and RF levels in their serum when compared with the RA patients without PD supporting the plausible role of PD in the development of systemic autoimmunity in RA patients.
Methods: A total of 30 patients were recruited and randomly divided into control (anastrozole 1 mg daily) and intervention (anastrozole 1 mg + T honey 20 g daily). The BPE of the contralateral breast before and six months following treatment was compared using the sign test.
Results: There was a decrease in BPE in 10% of the women (p = 0.317) who received only anastrozole, which resulted in a change of BPE category from moderate to mild. However, the combination of anastrozole and T honey evoked a decrease in BPE in 42% of the patients (p = 0.034).
Conclusions: The combination of T honey and anastrozole maybe more efficacious than anastrozole alone in decreasing breast BPE in breast cancer patients. These findings support the medicinal value of T honey as an adjuvant treatment to anastrozole.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.