Background:The recent mpox outbreaks have brought challenges to the global health system. We aimed to study the epidemiological and clinical differences between patients with mpox and patients without mpox among suspected cases during and after 2022. Methods:This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results:Our meta-analysis included a total of 22 articles regarding 12,850 suspected cases of mpox. The prevalence of mpox was 54%. We found that the proportion of men among the mpox patients was much greater than that among the non-mpox patients (odds ratio (OR)=9.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.37-22.58), and the same trend was also observed (OR = 11.52, 95% CI: 6.22-21.33) for men who have sex with men (MSM). Sexual intercourse (OR = 4.02, 95% CI: 2.63-6.13), multiple sexual partners (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.99-5.68), and anal sex (OR = 2.40, 95% CI: 1.53-3.77) were more common among mpox patients than non-mpox patients. Sexual contact was more strongly associated with mpox infection (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 1.77-10.92), whereas nonsexual contact (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.83) and transmission through health services (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.93) showed weaker associations. Furthermore, there were significant differences between the two patient groups in terms of sexually transmitted infections, symptoms, complications, lesion locations and types of lesions. Conclusions:Our findings provide a reference for clinicians in the diagnosis and differentiation of mpox. By scientifically understanding these epidemiological and clinical differences, healthcare workers can not only address this epidemic more effectively but also be more fully prepared for the inevitable challenges of future emerging infectious diseases. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251141869.

Background:The mpox outbreak in 2022 posed a new challenge to the medical system. We aimed to study the impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection on mpox patients. Methods:This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results:Our study included 27 articles for meta-analysis and divided mpox patients into two groups: one group was HIV-positive, and the other group was HIV-negative. We found that the age of HIV-positive patients was significantly greater than that of HIV-negative patients (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.29-0.41) and that there were more men who had sex with men in the HIV-positive group (OR = 3.98, 95% CI: 3.04-5.21). Syphilis (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 2.13-3.33), hepatitis B (OR = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.93-5.30), hepatitis C (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 3.06-10.64), proctitis (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.17-1.98), fever (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30), diarrhea (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.03-2.77) and pustules (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.62) were more common among HIV-positive patients. HIV coinfection seemed to be associated with a decrease in the CD4+ T-cell count (SMD = -0.78, 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.23) and hemoglobin (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.22) and albumin (SMD = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.15) levels, whereas the CD8+ T-cell count yielded the opposite statistical conclusion (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.03-0.67). We also found that HIV-positive patients had more hospitalizations (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.22-2.19), more severe mpox (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.28-2.58), more need for tecovirimat treatment (OR = 4.25, 95% CI: 1.59-11.4), and higher mortality (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.15-9.83). Conclusion:Overall, HIV coinfection may influence the disease process and clinical indicators of mpox patients and is associated with more severe clinical outcomes. Systematic review registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251056729, PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251056729.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has brought major challenges to the global health system, and influenza is also a problem that cannot be ignored. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results One hundred articles involving 226,913 COVID-19 patients and 201,617 influenza patients were included, and all the articles included patients with these two diseases as experimental and control groups. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 was more common among men (OR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.23–1.74) and people with a higher body mass index (SMD=0.22, 95% CI: 0.16–0.28). The proportion of current smokers among COVID-19 patients was lower (OR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.18–0.33), and the use of antibiotics (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.52–0.98) and antiviral drugs (OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.07–0.73) was also lower than that among influenza patients. Patients with COVID-19 had longer stays in the hospital (SMD=0.38, 95% CI: 0.28–0.49) and ICU (SMD=0.23, 95% CI: 0.09–0.37), required mechanical ventilation more frequently (OR=2.30, 95% CI: 1.77–3.00), and had higher mortality (OR=2.22, 95% CI: 1.93–2.55). We also found significant differences in some blood parameters between the two groups of patients. Upper respiratory symptoms were more obvious in influenza patients, and the proportion of comorbidities was higher than that among COVID-19 patients. Conclusions Both infectious respiratory diseases should be given sufficient attention to improve people’s health worldwide.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have posed a great threat to human health. We carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis for two objectives. First, to evaluate the differences in lung infection between the Omicron variants and the non-Omicron strains by chest computed tomography (CT); second, to evaluate the differences in chest CT features between COVID-19 patients with the Omicron variants and those with non-Omicron strains in CT-positive cases. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random effects model. Our study included a total of 8126 patients with COVID-19, 4113 with the Omicron variants, and 4013 with non-Omicron strains. Patients with the Omicron variants were less likely to be CT-positive (OR = 0.14, 95

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza are two infectious diseases that can pose a great threat to human health. We aimed to compare the differences in chest images between patients with COVID-19 and influenza to deepen the understanding of these two diseases. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles published before December 25, 2023, and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Twenty-six articles with 2,159 COVID-19 patients and 1,568 influenza patients were included in the meta-analysis. By comparing chest computed tomography (CT) and chest X-ray, we found that COVID-19 patients had more peripheral lung lesions (OR=3.66, 95% CI: 1.84-7.31). Although COVID-19 patients had more bilateral lung involvement (OR=1.74, 95% CI: 0.90-3.38) and less unilateral lung involvement (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.44-1.02), these two results were not statistically significant. Patients with COVID-19 showed more ground-glass opacities (OR=2.83, 95% CI: 1.85-4.32), reverse halo signs (OR=3.47, 95% CI: 2.37-5.08), interlobular septal thickening (OR=2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01), vascular enlargement (OR=5.00, 95% CI: 1.80-13.85) and crazy-paving patterns (OR=2.63, 95% CI: 1.57-4.41) on chest images than patients with influenza. We also found that compared with influenza patients, pleural effusion was rare in COVID-19 patients (OR=0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31). Conclusions: There are some differences in the manifestations and distributions of lesions between patients with COVID-19 and influenza on chest images, which is helpful to distinguish these two infectious diseases.

Background Severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza virus can cause patients to be admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). It is necessary to understand the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between these two types of critically ill patients. Methods We searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This paper was written in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Thirty-five articles involving 131,692 ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 30,286 ICU patients with influenza were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with influenza patients, COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (odds ratio (OR) = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.54-1.99) and older (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.29). In terms of laboratory test results, COVID-19 patients had higher lymphocyte (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.59) and platelet counts (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.29-0.75) but lower creatinine (SMD = −0.29, 95% CI: −0.55-0.03) and procalcitonin levels (SMD = −0.78, 95% CI: −1.11-0.46). Diabetes (SMD = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.48) and hypertension (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60) were more prevalent in COVID-19 patients, while influenza patients were more likely to have cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), cirrhosis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), immunodepression (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.58), and chronic pulmonary diseases (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.52). We also found that patients with COVID-19 had longer ICU stays (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.34), were more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 4.90, 95% CI: 2.77-8.64), and had higher mortality (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17-1.55). Conclusions There are some differences in the basic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory test results and complications between ICU patients with COVID-19 and ICU patients with influenza. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 often require more medical resources and have worse clinical outcomes. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023452238

Background Rhinosinusitis and intracranial hemorrhage are prevalent conditions within their respective medical specialties. While rhinosinusitis is predominantly an inflammatory disease confined to the paranasal sinuses, it can, in exceedingly rare circumstances, lead to intracranial hemorrhage with potentially fatal outcomes. Despite the gravity of this rare association, the literature remains sparse regarding its pathophysiological mechanisms, natural history, management principles, and clinical outcomes. Methods We present a systematic literature review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a case illustration of epitural hematoma arising from rhinosinusitis. Results A systematic review of the literature identified 20 published cases of intracranial hemorrhage induced by rhinosinusitis, plus the case presented herein, the total number of cases is 21. Nineteen epidural hematomas (EDH) and 2 subdural hematomas(SDH) were identified. The frontal region (14/19, 74%) was the most prevalent location for EDH corresponding to sinusitis related to the frontal sinus (12/14, 86%). Common symptoms included headache (n=18, 86%), fever and impaired consciousness (n=13, 62%), and periorbital swelling/pain (n=8, 38%). Interventions included hematoma removal/drainage, rhinosinus surgery, and antibiotic therapies. One fatality and three residual neurological impairments occurred. Multiple hypotheses exist regarding the mechanisms of intracranial hemorrhage in rhinosinusitis. Conclusions Intracranial hemorrhagic complications, primarily EDH and SDH, are rare and potentially fatal consequences of rhinosinusitis. It should be cognizant of the potential existence of such a possibility during clinical practice.

Background:Vaccination is an important method to address the monkeypox epidemic. We aimed to analyze the knowledge of healthcare workers (HCWs) about human monkeypox and their attitudes toward vaccination.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results:A total of 34 studies with 43,226 HCWs were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that 54 % (95 % CI: 0.39-0.69) of the HCWs were willing to be vaccinated against monkeypox, and only 40 % (95 % CI: 0.29-0.50) of the HCWs had good knowledge of monkeypox. By analyzing the vaccination history of HCWs, we found that history of smallpox vaccination did not significantly affect the willingness of HCWs to receive another vaccination (OR = 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.23-1.26), whereas HCWs who had been vaccinated with the influenza vaccine (OR = 2.80, 95 % CI: 1.29-6.11) or COVID-19 vaccine (OR = 3.10, 95 % CI: 2.00-4.81) showed greater willingness to receive the monkeypox vaccine. In terms of income, low-income HCWs were less willing to be vaccinated against monkeypox (OR = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.54-0.89), whereas middle-income HCWs were more willing (OR = 1.45, 95 % CI: 1.04-2.02). Notably, although HCWs with education related to monkeypox had better knowledge of monkeypox than HCWs without education related to monkeypox, the difference was not statistically significant (OR = 1.83, 95 % CI: 0.80-4.18). Conclusions:Publicity and education on monkeypox should be strengthened so that more people, especially HCWs, can have a good understanding of monkeypox and be willing to be vaccinated.

We conducted a study to identify circular RNAs associated with invasive non-functioning pituitary adenomas and chemoresistance, as well as to construct a competitive endogenous RNA network. We performed circular RNA expression profiling of 10 specimens using RNA sequencing and identified 37 differentially expressed circular RNAs, which were validated using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. We also detected 26 differentially expressed microRNAs and 388 differentially expressed messenger RNAs using microarray expression profiles downloaded from GSE191113. We predicted the interaction among differentially expressed circular RNAs, differentially expressed microRNAs and differentially expressed messenger RNAs and constructed a circular RNA-microRNA-messenger RNA regulatory network. Our comprehensive bioinformatic analysis revealed the regulatory pathways associated with PA invasion and chemoresistance. Enrichment analysis of differentially expressed circular RNAs revealed their association with non-functioning pituitary adenomas invasion and drug resistance. We established a protein-protein interaction network and identified four hub genes (suppressor of cytokine signaling 3, leptin receptor, interleukin 6 receptor and protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor-type C). Overall, our study provides valuable insights into the invasive and drug-resistance nature of non-functioning pituitary adenomas and could be useful in identifying potential biomarkers or therapeutic targets for invasive non-functioning pituitary adenomas.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the treatment of lung cancer patients. Materials and methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published before March 15, 2022, and Stata 14.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported. Results: Our meta-analysis included 80 articles with 318,352 patients involved. The proportion of lung cancer patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 2.4% (95% CI: 0.02-0.03) prior to the Omicron variant outbreak. Among COVID-19 patients, those with lung cancer showed a higher mortality rate than those with other types of malignant solid tumors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.61-2.06) and non-cancer patients (OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 3.61-6.05); however, no significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between patients with lung cancer and those with hematologic malignancies (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased the mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 8.94, 95% CI: 6.50-12.31). By contrast, the all-cause mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69-1.57) and the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.85-1.27) did not significantly change before and after the pandemic. Conclusions: More attention should be paid on improving the health of lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has posed increasing challenges to global health systems. We aimed to understand the effects of pulmonary air leak (PAL), including pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, on patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for data and performed a meta-analysis with a random-effects model using Stata 14.0. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Thirty-five articles were included in the meta-analysis. The data came from 14 countries and included 3,047 COVID-19 patients with PAL, 11,3679 COVID-19 patients without PAL and 361 non-COVID-19 patients with PAL. We found that the incidence of PAL was much higher in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients (odds ratio (OR) = 6.13, 95% CI: 2.09–18.00). We found that the group of COVID-19 patients with PAL had a longer hospital stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.27–1.30) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.19–0.83) and comprised more ICU (OR = 15.16, 95% CI: 6.51–35.29) and mechanical ventilation patients (OR = 5.52, 95% CI: 1.69–17.99); furthermore, the mortality rate was also higher (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.80–3.82). Conclusions Patients with lung injuries caused by COVID-19 may develop PAL. COVID-19 patients with PAL require more medical resources, have more serious conditions and have worse clinical outcomes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022365047.

There is still a lot of ambiguity about the link between physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviors (SBs) and osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to investigate the causal relationship of PA/SBs on the risk of OA. A univariate and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was conducted to investigate the causal effect of five PA phenotypes and three SB phenotypes on overall OA, knee OA, hip OA, total hip arthroplasty, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MR methods used were inverse-variance weighting, MR-Egger regressions, and weighted median. Sensitivity analysis examined horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity, and confirmed the reliability of the results. After false discovery rate, light do-it-yourself (DIY) activities decreased the risk for overall OA (OR: 0.32, 95% CI 0.16–0.65), and knee OA (OR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.51). Resulting in a decreased risk of walking for pleasure on overall OA (OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.04) and knee OA (OR: 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.32) was also observed. Television viewing, however, significantly increased the risk of OA, knee OA, hip OA, and TKA. MVMR findings revealed independent causal impacts of walking for pleasure and watching television on overall and knee OA, taking into account BMI, smoking, and education. This study suggested that light DIY and walking for pleasure were beneficial for preventing OA, and the risk of OA and TKA increased with prolonged television watching.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new problems to patients infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV). We aim to know the effects of HBV infection on patients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for data and utilized Stata 14.0 software for this meta-analysis with a random-effects model. This paper was conducted in alignment with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. In total, 37,696 patients were divided into two groups: 2591 COVID-19 patients infected with HBV in the experimental group and 35,105 COVID-19 patients not infected with HBV in the control group. Our study showed that the in-hospital mortality of the experimental group was significant higher than that of the control group (OR = 2.04, 95

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed increasing challenges to global health systems. Vaccination against COVID-19 can effectively prevent the public, particularly healthcare workers (HCWs), from being infected by this disease.ObjectivesWe aim to understand the factors influencing HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science to collect literature published before May 15, 2022, about HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the included studies. We utilized Stata 14.0 software for this meta-analysis with a random-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. This meta-analysis was conducted in alignment with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 71 articles with 93,508 HCWs involved. The research showed that the acceptance of vaccines had significantly increased among HCWs compared to non-HCWs (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.16–3.12). A willingness to undergo COVID-19 vaccination was observed in 66% (95% CI: 0.61–0.67) of HCWs. Among the HCWs involved, doctors showed a generally increased intention to be vaccinated compared with nurses (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.71–2.89). Additionally, males were found to hold more positive attitudes toward vaccination than females (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.55–2.12). When the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines was improved, the vaccination acceptance of HCWs was greatly increased accordingly (OR = 5.03, 95% CI: 2.77–9.11). The HCWs who were willing to vaccinate against seasonal influenza showed an increased acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines (OR = 3.52, 95% CI: 2.34–5.28). Our study also showed that HCWs who were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 experienced a reduced rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92).ConclusionsOur analysis revealed that the five factors of occupation, gender, vaccine effectiveness, seasonal influenza vaccines, and SARS-CoV-2 infection presumably affected the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. It is essential to boost the confidence of HCWs in COVID-19 vaccines for the containment of the epidemic.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has become a new challenge to the medical system in various countries. The patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) were also affected. Methods We used a random-effects mode to analyze the differences of the baseline characteristics and therapeutic features between STEMI patients admitted before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Thirty eight studies involving 79,753 patients were included in this analysis. The number of hospitalized STEMI patients decreased by 26% after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were no differences in age, sex, prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia or percutaneous coronary intervention rate between the STEMI patients before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the STEMI patients admitted after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly increased time from symptom onset to first medical contact (standard mean difference: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.24–0.78, p < .001) and an increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.70, 95% confidence interval:1.14–2.56, p < .001); The in-hospital mortality of the STEMI patients with COVID-19 was 24% (95% confidence interval: 0.15–0.33); The in-hospital mortality of the STEMI patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher than that of the STEMI patients without COVID-19 at the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (odds ratio: 7.28, 95% confidence interval: 2.75–19.28, p < .001). Conclusion The number of admitted STEMI patients was reduced while the in-hospital mortality and the time from symptom onset to first medical contact were increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.

目的 探讨银杏二萜内酯联合奥拉西坦治疗急性脑梗死的疗效及对血清脂蛋白相关磷脂酶A2(lipoprotein associated phospholipase A2,Lp-PLA2)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(neuron specific enolase,NSE)等的影响.方法 选取2017年2月至2019年2月安徽省阜阳市第二人民医院治疗的急性脑梗死患者68例,采用信封法将患者随机分为观察组和对照组各34例,对照组在常规治疗的基础上加用奥拉西坦,观察组在对照组基础上加用银杏二萜内酯,观察两组治疗疗效、不良反应及蒙特利尔认知评估量表(Montreal cognitive assessment scale,MoCA)评分,检测治疗前后Lp-PLA2、NSE、血浆黏度和血栓形成系数.结果 观察组治疗疗效优于对照组(P<0.05);观察组治疗后血清Lp-PLA2、NSE分别为(32.26±9.70)g/L和(14.42±5.57)g/L,明显低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组治疗后血浆黏度、血栓形成系数分别为(0.91±0.32)mPa·s和0.50±0.18,明显低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组治疗后MoCA评分为(20.15±3.40)分,明显高于对照组(P<0.05).结论 银杏二萜内酯联合奥拉西坦治疗急性脑梗死有较好的效果,可以下调血清Lp-PLA2、NSE表达.

Accurate diagnosis of splenic diseases is important for timely and accurate treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and conventional ultrasound (US) in detecting splenic lesions. A systematic literature search was undertaken, and 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the consolidated results of CEUS were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99), respectively (I-2 = 27.4%; area under the curve [AUC] from a summary receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.97). The sensitivity and specificity of the consolidated results of conventional US were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56-0.80) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76-0.99; I-2 = 83.4%; AUC = 0.84). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were higher than those of conventional US in diagnosing splenic lesions. Contrast-enhanced US is a promising method for accurately diagnosing splenic lesions.

LncRNA ATBs, whether cancer promoters or suppressors, were potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for digestive system cancers.

目的 探讨丁苯酞注射液联合舒洛地特治疗急性进展性脑梗死的临床效果及其对患者炎性因子水平和血液流变学的影响.方法 选择2017年12月至2019年12月阜阳市第二人民医院收治的78例急性进展性脑梗死患者为研究对象,依据随机数字表法将其分为观察组和对照组,每组各39例.对照组患者接受舒洛地特注射液治疗,观察组患者接受舒洛地特注射液联合丁苯酞注射液治疗.两组患者疗程均为14 d.比较两组患者治疗效果、治疗前后改良Rankin量表(modified Rankin scale,mRS)评分和美国国家卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institute of Health stroke scale,NIHSS)评分、炎性因子水平、血液流变学指标.结果 观察组患者治疗总有效率显著高于对照组(P<0.05).两组患者治疗后mRS评分和NIHSS评分、血清白介素-6和C反应蛋白水平、全血低切黏度、血浆黏度和全血高切黏度均显著低于本组治疗前(均P<0.05),且观察组患者上述指标水平均显著低于对照组(均P<0.05).结论 丁苯酞注射液联合舒洛地特治疗急性进展性脑梗死疗效显著,可减轻炎性反应,改善患者血液流变学.

Objectives. Patients with trigeminal neuralgia who are refractory to medical therapy may choose to undergo Gasserian ganglion percutaneous radiofrequency thermocoagulation. However, in cases where the foramen ovale is difficult to access due to various anatomical anomalies, the typical estimation of the facial entry point is suboptimal. Methods. Three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction imaging performed before surgery revealed anatomical variations in each of the four adult patient cases that made it more difficult to successfully access the foramen ovale (FO) for percutaneous radiofrequency thermocoagulation. Using measurements collected from preoperative imaging that showed each specific anatomical variation in the FO, researchers marked alternate facial entry points that would allow successful probe placement into the FO and recorded the arc angle data in the stereotactic instrument. Results. Patients were evaluated during follow-up visits ranging from seven to 26 months after surgery and asked to rate postoperative pain using a visual analog scale. These scores decreased from 10 to 3 in all four patients by the third day after the procedure. There were no permanent complications or morbidities from the surgery. One patient experienced mild facial numbness; however, this side effect subsided within three months after surgery. During the follow-up period, no patient reported pain recurrence. Conclusions. . The expectation for clinicians approaching trigeminal nerve block using a peri-oral approach should be to expect a great degree of potential variability in terms of both distances from the corner of the mouth and needle angle taken to successfully navigate the anatomy and access the foramen ovale.