scholarly journals Effects of supplementation with carnosine and other histidine-containing dipeptides on chronic disease risk factors and outcomes: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirthi Menon ◽  
Aya Mousa ◽  
Barbora de Courten
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Chronic Disease Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAgeing of populations globally, coupled with the obesity epidemic, has resulted in the rising prevalence of chronic diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancers and neurodegenerative disorders. Prevention of risk factors that contribute to these diseases is key in managing the global burden of chronic diseases. Recent studies suggest that carnosine, a dipeptide with anti-inflammatory, antioxidative and antiglycating properties may have a role in the prevention of chronic diseases; however, no previous reviews have examined the effects of carnosine and other histidine-containing peptides (HCDs) on chronic disease risk factors and outcomes. We aim to conduct a comprehensive systematic review to examine the effects of supplementation with carnosine and other HCDs on chronic disease risk factors and outcomes and to identify relevant knowledge gaps.Methods and analysisElectronic databases including Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Embase and all Evidence-Based Medicine will be systematically searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs, comparing supplementation with carnosine and/or other HCDs versus placebo, usual care or other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. One reviewer will screen titles and abstracts for eligibility according to prespecified inclusion criteria, after which two independent reviewers will perform data extraction and quality appraisal. Meta-analyses, metaregression and subgroup analyses will be conducted where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as this review does not involve primary data collection. This review will generate level-one evidence regarding the effects of carnosine supplementation on chronic disease risk factors and outcomes and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and at conference meetings to inform future research on the efficacy of carnosine supplementation for the prevention of chronic diseases.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017075354.

scholarly journals Multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions for cardiovascular disease primary prevention: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205520761989048
Author(s):  
Artur Direito ◽  
Jonathan Rawstorn ◽  
Jacqueline Mair ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Ralph Maddison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Health Lifestyle ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Preventative Interventions

Objective Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading cause of mortality and disease burden. Preventative interventions to augment the population-level adoption of health lifestyle behaviours that reduce CVD risk are a priority. Face-to-face interventions afford individualisation and are effective for improving health-related behaviours and outcomes, but they are costly and resource intensive. Electronic and mobile health (e- and mHealth) approaches aimed at modifying lifestyle risk factors may be an effective and scalable approach to reach many individuals while preserving individualisation. This systematic review aims to (a) determine the effectiveness of multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions on CVD risk and on lifestyle-related cardiometabolic risk factors and self-management behaviours among adults without CVD; and (b) describe the evidence on adverse events and on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Methods Methods were detailed prior to the start of the review in order to improve conduct and prevent inconsistent decision making throughout the review. This protocol was prepared following the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL electronic databases will be searched between 1991 and September 2019. Eligibility criteria are: (a) population: community-dwelling adults; (b) intervention/comparison: randomised controlled trials comparing e- or mHealth CVD risk preventative interventions with usual care; and (c) outcomes: modifiable CVD risk factors. Selection of study reports will involve two authors independently screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible reports. Two authors will independently undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of outcome data will be performed. Discussion This protocol describes the pre-specified methods for a systematic review that will provide quantitative and narrative syntheses of current multifactorial e- and mHealth CVD preventative interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

scholarly journals Defining and measuring health equity effects in research on task shifting interventions in high-income countries: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e021172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M Orkin ◽  
Allison McArthur ◽  
André McDonald ◽  
Emma J Mew ◽  
Alexandra Martiniuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Task Shifting ◽  
High Income ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Population Vulnerability ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population’s baseline status and the intervention’s impacts on inequity and vulnerability?Methods and analysisStudies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

scholarly journals Non-Pharmacological Interventions to Improve Chronic Disease Risk Factors and Sleep in Shift Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-178
Author(s):  
Meagan E Crowther ◽  
Sally A Ferguson ◽  
Grace E Vincent ◽  
Amy C Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Perceived Health Status ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Shift Workers ◽  
Chronic Disease Risk

Shift work is associated with adverse chronic health outcomes. Addressing chronic disease risk factors including biomedical risk factors, behavioural risk factors, as well as sleep and perceived health status, affords an opportunity to improve health outcomes in shift workers. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review, qualitative synthesis, and meta-analysis of non-pharmacological interventions targeting chronic disease risk factors, including sleep, in shift workers. A total of 8465 records were retrieved; 65 publications were eligible for inclusion in qualitative analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis were conducted for eight eligible health outcomes, including a total of thirty-nine studies. Interventions resulted in increased objective sleep duration (Hedges’ g = 0.73; CI: 0.36, 1.10, k = 16), improved objective sleep efficiency (Hedges’ g = 0.48; CI: 0.20, 0.76, k = 10) and a small increase in both subjective sleep duration (Hedges’ g = 0.11; CI: −0.04, 0.27, k = 19) and sleep quality (Hedges’ g = 0.11; CI: −0.11, 0.33, k = 21). Interventions also improved perceived health status (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI: −0.05, 0.46, k = 8), decreased systolic (Hedges’ g = 0.26; CI: −0.54, 0.02, k = 7) and diastolic (Hedges’ g = 0.06; CI: −0.23, 0.36, k = 7) blood pressure, and reduced body mass index (Hedges’ g = −0.04; CI: −0.37, 0.29, k = 9). The current study suggests interventions may improve chronic disease risk factors and sleep in shift workers; however, this could only be objectively assessed for a limited number of risk factor endpoints. Future interventions could explore the impact of non-pharmacological interventions on a broader range of chronic disease risk factors to better characterise targets for improved health outcomes in shift workers.

scholarly journals Hibiscus Tea and Health: A Scoping Review of Scientific Evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Etheridge CJ ◽  
Derbyshire EJ
Keyword(s):  
Oxidative Stress ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Hibiscus Sabdariffa ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Over the last few decades, health evidence has been building for hibiscus tea (Hibiscus sabdariffa L. Malvaceae). Previous reviews show promise in relation to reducing cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia, but broader health perspectives have not been widely considered. Therefore, a scoping review was undertaken to examine the overall health effects of hibiscus tea. A PubMed search was undertaken for metaanalysis (MA) and systematic review papers, human randomised controlled trials (RCT) and laboratory publications investigating inter-relationships between hibiscus tea and health. Twenty-two publications were identified (four systematic/MA papers, nine human RCT controlled trials and nine laboratory publications).Strongest evidence exists in relation to cardiovascular disease, suggesting that drinking 2-3 cups daily (each ≈ 240-250 mL) may improve blood pressure and potentially serve as a preventative or adjunctive therapy against such conditions. Emerging evidence exists for favourable effects on lipid profiles, insulin resistance, oxidative stress and inflammation. Further research using larger and longer human studies is warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document