The aim of this paper is to summarize all available evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative nonrandomized studies (NRS) on the association between... Show moreThe aim of this paper is to summarize all available evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative nonrandomized studies (NRS) on the association between nutrition and antioxidant, vitamin, and mineral supplements and the development or progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane register CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies published between January 2015 and May 2021 were included. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. The main outcome measures were development of AMD, progression of AMD, and side effects. We included 7 systematic reviews, 7 RCTs, and 13 NRS. A high consumption of specific nutrients, i.e. beta-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin, copper, folate, magnesium, vitamin A, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid, was associated with a lower risk of progression of early to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, characterized by a high consumption of vegetables, whole grains, and nuts and a low consumption of red meat, were associated with a decreased risk of progression of early to late AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). A high consumption of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of developing AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). Supplementary vitamin C, vitamin E, or beta-carotene were not associated with the development of AMD, and supplementary omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with progression to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Research in the last 35 years included in our overview supports that a high intake of specific nutrients, the use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet decrease the risk of progression of early to late AMD. Show less
AimTo provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models for women and models that include female-specific predictors.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of... Show moreAimTo provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models for women and models that include female-specific predictors.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of CVD risk prediction models for women in the general population by updating a previous review. We searched Medline and Embase up to July 2017 and included studies in which; (a) a new model was developed, (b) an existing model was validated, or (c) a predictor was added to an existing model.ResultsA total of 285 prediction models for women have been developed, of these 160 (56%) were female-specific models, in which a separate model was developed solely in women and 125 (44%) were sex-predictor models. Out of the 160 female-specific models, 2 (1.3%) included one or more female-specific predictors (mostly reproductive risk factors). A total of 591 validations of sex-predictor or female-specific models were identified in 206 papers. Of these, 333 (56%) validations concerned nine models (five versions of Framingham, SCORE, Pooled Cohort Equations and QRISK). The median and pooled C statistics were comparable for sex-predictor and female-specific models. In 260 articles the added value of new predictors to an existing model was described, however in only 3 of these female-specific that no competing interests exist. predictors (reproductive risk factors) were added.ConclusionsThere is an abundance of models for women in the general population. Female-specific and sex-predictor models have similar predictors and performance. Female-specific predictors are rarely included. Further research is needed to assess the added value of female-specific predictors to CVD models for women and provide physicians with a well-performing prediction model for women. Show less
Theunissen, E.A.R.; Bosma, S.C.J.; Zuur, C.L.; Spijker, R.; Baan, S. van der; Dreschler, W.A.; ... ; Rasch, C.R.N. 2015
BackgroundBoth radiotherapy (RT) and cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with head and neck cancer may cause sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). The purpose of this review was to... Show moreBackgroundBoth radiotherapy (RT) and cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with head and neck cancer may cause sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). The purpose of this review was to provide more insight into SNHL because of CRT compared to RT.MethodsComprehensive search of Medline and Embase with the terms radiotherapy combined with ototoxicity, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and synonyms.ResultsOf the 2507 studies found, 21 were included in this study. Pooled analysis could not be committed because of heterogeneity. Incidence rates of SNHL after RT and CRT varied considerably, with percentages ranging from 0% to 43% and 17% to 88%, respectively. Factors that influenced the risk of SNHL were radiation dose to the cochlea, follow-up time, age, baseline hearing level, and cisplatin dose.ConclusionThe wide range of SNHL incidence rates makes it impossible to draw any conclusions on the severity of RT- and CRT-induced ototoxicity. To allow for future comparison of study outcomes, development of uniform criteria is of utmost importance. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck37: 281-292, 2015 Show less
