Zobrazení zdroje stránky Hubbardcalhoun4123

This review will be disseminated in print by peer-review.<br /><br /> The identified LncRNAs may be closely linked with NP and may act as potentially useful biomarkers.<br /><br /> The private information from individuals will not publish. This systematic review also will not involve endangering participant rights. Ethical approval is not available. The results may be published in a peer- reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences.<br /><br /> DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ZRX7C.<br /><br />DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ZRX7C.<br /><br /> Previous epidemiological studies displayed that long non-coding RNA (LncRNA) polymorphisms are associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease, while the results are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to more accurately determine the association between LncRNA polymorphism and the risk of coronary artery disease.<br /><br /> PubMed, EmBase and Web of Science databases were searched, and the time to build the database was set until December 2020. The association between LncRNA polymorphism and the risk of coronary artery disease was collected and evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed by STATA 14.0 software, and the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were applied to estimate the association between LncRNA polymorphism and the risk of coronary artery disease.<br /><br /> The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.<br /><br /> This meta-analysis will summarize the relationship between LncRNA polymorphism and coronary disease risk.<br /><br /> Ethical approval was not required for this study. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences, and shared on social media platforms. This review would be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentations.<br /><br /> DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9XPHS.<br /><br />DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9XPHS.<br /><br /> Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for non-small cell lung cancer is widely used in clinical practice. However, there has not been a systematic statistical proof of the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in patients with advanced cancer. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate its efficacy and related influencing factors, so as to provide a basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment.<br /><br /> To assess the effectiveness and safety of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line or late-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) via a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).<br /><br /> Studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases. RevMan 5.3.5 was used to analyze the data extracted from all eligible studies.<br /><br /> All 4122 eligible patients from 8 RCTs were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors could significantly improve overall survival (hazards ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.77, P &lt; .001), progression-free survival (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.81-0.94, P = .01), and objective response rate (HR 2.03, 95%CI 1.66-2.49, P &lt; .001) compared with chemotherapy drugs. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/cid755673.html Selleck CID755673] The incidence of side effects of any grade (HR 0.34, 95%CI 0.29-0.39, P &lt; .001) or grades 3 to 5 (HR 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.23, P &lt; .001) consistently showed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were safer than chemotherapy. Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on tumor proportion score or pathology classification revealed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy.<br /><br /> As a second-line or late-line treatment, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are safer and more effective than chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.<br /><br />As a second-line or late-line treatment, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are safer and more effective than chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.<br /><br /> Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients.<br /><br /> PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected.<br /><br /> This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P &lt; .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).<br /><br /> Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.<br /><br />Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.<br /><br /> Mycoplasma pneumonia is a common disease in pediatrics, and macrolides is the first choice for the treatment. However, the increase of antibiotic resistance of macrolides makes it more and more complicated for clinical treatment. Due to the long term treatment of macrolides, it may increase the incidence of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms, vascular phlebitis, liver and kidney function damage. Tanreqing injection, a Chinese herbal extraction injection, has advantages in the treatment of mycoplasma pneumonia in children, and it could improve the curative effect, shortening the course of disease, and reducing the side effects. Yet there is a lack of standard clinical studies to verify it, so this randomized controlled trial (RCT) will evaluate the efficacy and safety of Tanreqing injection combined with azithromycin in the treatment of mycoplasma pneumonia in children.<br /><br /> This is a prospective RCT to study the efficacy and safety of Tanreqing injection combined with azithromycin in the treatment of mycoplasma pneumonia in children.