Citations

BackgroundReplacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference.Designs and methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design.ResultsWe identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12–0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0–0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05–0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08–0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12–0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat mass in 1 year.ConclusionsThe substitution of sitting with standing could be a potential solution for a sedentary lifestyle to prevent weight gain in the long term. Future studies should aim to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of this strategy.

Objective and design We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in the emergency department (ED) during procedural sedation in the paediatric population. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies from the past 10 years were included. We adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Setting ED. Participants Children. Interventions Procedural sedation. Outcomes Adverse events like vomiting, agitation, hypoxia and apnoea. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% CIs. Results A total of 1177 studies were retrieved for screening and 258 were selected for full-text review. 41 studies reporting on 13 883 procedural sedations in 13 876 children (≤18 years) were included. The most common adverse events (all reported per 1000 sedations) were: vomiting 55.5 (CI 45.2 to 65.8), agitation 17.9 (CI 12.2 to 23.7), hypoxia 14.8 (CI 10.2 to 19.3) and apnoea 7.1 (CI 3.2 to 11.0). The need to intervene with either bag valve mask, oral airway or positive pressure ventilation occurred in 5.0 per 1000 sedations (CI 2.3 to 7.6). The incidences of severe respiratory events were: 34 cases of laryngospasm among 8687 sedations (2.9 per 1000 sedations, CI 1.1 to 4.7; absolute rate 3.9 per 1000 sedations), 4 intubations among 9136 sedations and 0 cases of aspiration among 3326 sedations. 33 of the 34 cases of laryngospasm occurred in patients who received ketamine. Conclusions Serious adverse respiratory events are very rare in paediatric procedural sedation in the ED. Emesis and agitation are the most frequent adverse events. Hypoxia, a late indicator of respiratory depression, occurs in 1.5% of sedations. Laryngospasm, though rare, happens most frequently with ketamine. The results of this study provide quantitative risk estimates to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, informed consent and resource allocation in children undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.

Objective To compare efficacy of pharmacotherapies for chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) based on comparisons to placebo using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data sources We conducted searches (inception to May 2015) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central, as well as original data from authors or drug companies for the medications used for CIC. Study selection Phase IIB and phase III randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCT) of ≥4 weeks' treatment for CIC in adults with Rome II or III criteria for functional constipation; trials included at least one of four end points. Data extraction and synthesis Two investigators independently evaluated all full-text articles that met inclusion criteria and extracted data for primary and secondary end points, risk of bias and quality of evidence. Outcomes Primary end points were ≥3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM)/week and increase over baseline by ≥1 CSBM/week. Secondary end points were change from baseline (Δ b ) in the number of SBM/week and Δ b CSBM/week. Results Twenty-one RCTs (9189 patients) met inclusion and end point criteria: 9 prucalopride, 3 lubiprostone, 3 linaclotide, 2 tegaserod, 1 each velusetrag, elobixibat, bisacodyl and sodium picosulphate (NaP). All prespecified end points were unavailable in four polyethylene glycol studies. Bisacodyl, NaP, prucalopride and velusetrag were superior to placebo for the ≥3 CSBM/week end point. No drug was superior at improving the primary end points on network meta-analysis. Bisacodyl appeared superior to the other drugs for the secondary end point, Δ b in number of SBM/week. Conclusions Current drugs for CIC show similar efficacy. Bisacodyl may be superior to prescription medications for Δ b in the number of SBM/week in CIC.

AbstractBackgroundParathyroidectomy is a definitive treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism. Patients contemplating this intervention will benefit from knowledge regarding the expected outcomes and potential risks of the currently available surgical options.PurposeTo appraise and summarize the available evidence regarding benefits and harms of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) and bilateral neck exploration (BNE).Data sourcesA comprehensive search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus) from each database’s inception to September 2014 was performed.Study selectionEligible studies evaluated patients with primary hyperparathyroidism undergoing MIP or BNE.Data extractionReviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted data and assessed the risk of bias.Data synthesisWe identified 82 observational studies and 6 randomized trials at moderate risk of bias. Most of them reported outcomes after MIP (n = 71). Using random‐effects models to pool results across studies, the cure rate was 98 % (95 % CI 97–98 %, I2 = 10 %) with BNE and 97 % (95 % CI 96–98 %, I2 = 86 %) with MIP. Hypocalcemia occurred in 14 % (95 % CI 10–17 % I2 = 93 %) of the BNE cases and in 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.6–3.1 %, I2 = 87 %) with MIP (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant lower risk of laryngeal nerve injury with MIP (0.3 %) than with BNE (0.9 %), but similar risk of infection (0.5 vs. 0.5 %) and mortality (0.1 vs. 0.5 %).LimitationsThe available evidence, mostly observational, is at moderate risk of bias, and limited by indirect comparisons and inconsistency for some outcomes (cure rate, hypocalcemia).ConclusionMIP and BNE are both effective surgical techniques for the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. The safety profile of MIP appears superior to BNE (lower rate of hypocalcemia and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury).