43 research outputs found

    Cellular internalization and intracellular biotransformation of silver nanoparticles in <i>Chlamydomonas reinhardtii</i>

    No full text
    <p>It is necessary to elucidate cellular internalization and intracellular biotransformation in order to accurately assess the toxicity and fate of nanoparticles after interaction with organisms. Therefore, this work employed a combination of high resolution imaging and <i>in situ</i> detection spectroscopic techniques to systematically investigate the intracellular localization, morphology and chemical speciation of silver in the cells of <i>Chlamydomonas reinhardtii</i>, a unicellular freshwater green alga, after exposure to AgNPs coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone at a concentration of 2.0 mg/L. High resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry and high-angle annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy together with energy dispersive spectroscopy and selected area electron diffraction collectively confirmed that after 48 h of exposure, AgNPs entered the periplasmic space after cellular internalization into the algal cells. Silver was also found to coexist with sulfur inside the cytoplasm in both crystalline and amorphous forms, which were further identified as β-Ag<sub>2</sub>S and silver thiolates with synchrotron X-ray absorption spectroscopy. In combination, these analyses demonstrated that silver inside algae could be attributed to the uptake and sequestration of Ag<sup>+</sup> ion released from AgNPs, which was further sequestrated into cellular compartments. This study provides solid evidence for particle internalization and biotransformation of AgNPs after interaction with algae.</p

    Sub-analysis of both European countries and other countries.

    No full text
    Sub-analysis of both European countries and other countries.</p

    AKI incidence with and without AKI care bundles.

    No full text
    PurposeAcute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent among in-hospital patients with high incidence and mortality. Implementing a series of evidence-based AKI care bundles may improve patient outcomes by reducing changeable standards of care. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to appraise the influences of AKI care bundles on patient outcomes.Materials and methodsWe explored three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and two Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies from databases inception until November 30, 2022, comparing the impact of different AKI care bundles with usual standards of care in patients with or at risk for AKI. The study quality of non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between studies was appraised by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. The possible origins of heterogeneity between studies were assessed adopting Meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger regression and Begg correlation tests were performed to discover potential publication bias. Data analysis was completed by software (RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0). The primary outcome was short- or long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes involved the incidence and severity of AKI.ResultsSixteen studies containing 25,690 patients and 25,903 AKI episodes were included. In high-risk AKI patients determined by novel biomarkers, electronic alert or risk prediction score, the application of AKI care bundles significantly reduced the AKI incidence (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 84%) and AKI severity (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.89; p = 0.01; I2 = 65%). No strong evidence is available to prove that care bundles can significantly reduce mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58–2.30; p = 0.68; I2 = 97%).ConclusionsThe introduction of AKI care bundles in routine clinical practice can effectively improve the outcomes of patients with or at-risk of AKI. However, the accumulated evidence is limited and not strong enough to make definite conclusions.</div

    Sub-analysis of both uncontrolled before-after studies and prospective observational and RCTs.

    No full text
    Sub-analysis of both uncontrolled before-after studies and prospective observational and RCTs.</p

    Baseline characteristics of the included studies.

    No full text
    PurposeAcute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent among in-hospital patients with high incidence and mortality. Implementing a series of evidence-based AKI care bundles may improve patient outcomes by reducing changeable standards of care. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to appraise the influences of AKI care bundles on patient outcomes.Materials and methodsWe explored three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and two Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies from databases inception until November 30, 2022, comparing the impact of different AKI care bundles with usual standards of care in patients with or at risk for AKI. The study quality of non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between studies was appraised by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. The possible origins of heterogeneity between studies were assessed adopting Meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger regression and Begg correlation tests were performed to discover potential publication bias. Data analysis was completed by software (RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0). The primary outcome was short- or long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes involved the incidence and severity of AKI.ResultsSixteen studies containing 25,690 patients and 25,903 AKI episodes were included. In high-risk AKI patients determined by novel biomarkers, electronic alert or risk prediction score, the application of AKI care bundles significantly reduced the AKI incidence (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 84%) and AKI severity (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.89; p = 0.01; I2 = 65%). No strong evidence is available to prove that care bundles can significantly reduce mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58–2.30; p = 0.68; I2 = 97%).ConclusionsThe introduction of AKI care bundles in routine clinical practice can effectively improve the outcomes of patients with or at-risk of AKI. However, the accumulated evidence is limited and not strong enough to make definite conclusions.</div

    The Newcastle–Ottawa Scales were used to assess risk of bias for the cohort studies.

    No full text
    Each domain was rated on a scale of zero or one star, except comparability, which can be awarded up to two stars. 0, High or unclear risk of bias; 1 or 2, low risk of bias (scores ≥ 7–9, 4–6, <4 are considered low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively).</p

    Sub-analysis of both studies with randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled.

    No full text
    Sub-analysis of both studies with randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled.</p

    PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of study selection.

    No full text
    PurposeAcute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent among in-hospital patients with high incidence and mortality. Implementing a series of evidence-based AKI care bundles may improve patient outcomes by reducing changeable standards of care. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to appraise the influences of AKI care bundles on patient outcomes.Materials and methodsWe explored three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and two Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies from databases inception until November 30, 2022, comparing the impact of different AKI care bundles with usual standards of care in patients with or at risk for AKI. The study quality of non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between studies was appraised by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. The possible origins of heterogeneity between studies were assessed adopting Meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger regression and Begg correlation tests were performed to discover potential publication bias. Data analysis was completed by software (RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0). The primary outcome was short- or long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes involved the incidence and severity of AKI.ResultsSixteen studies containing 25,690 patients and 25,903 AKI episodes were included. In high-risk AKI patients determined by novel biomarkers, electronic alert or risk prediction score, the application of AKI care bundles significantly reduced the AKI incidence (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 84%) and AKI severity (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.89; p = 0.01; I2 = 65%). No strong evidence is available to prove that care bundles can significantly reduce mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58–2.30; p = 0.68; I2 = 97%).ConclusionsThe introduction of AKI care bundles in routine clinical practice can effectively improve the outcomes of patients with or at-risk of AKI. However, the accumulated evidence is limited and not strong enough to make definite conclusions.</div

    The details of the search strategy.

    No full text
    PurposeAcute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent among in-hospital patients with high incidence and mortality. Implementing a series of evidence-based AKI care bundles may improve patient outcomes by reducing changeable standards of care. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to appraise the influences of AKI care bundles on patient outcomes.Materials and methodsWe explored three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and two Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies from databases inception until November 30, 2022, comparing the impact of different AKI care bundles with usual standards of care in patients with or at risk for AKI. The study quality of non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between studies was appraised by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. The possible origins of heterogeneity between studies were assessed adopting Meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger regression and Begg correlation tests were performed to discover potential publication bias. Data analysis was completed by software (RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0). The primary outcome was short- or long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes involved the incidence and severity of AKI.ResultsSixteen studies containing 25,690 patients and 25,903 AKI episodes were included. In high-risk AKI patients determined by novel biomarkers, electronic alert or risk prediction score, the application of AKI care bundles significantly reduced the AKI incidence (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 84%) and AKI severity (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.89; p = 0.01; I2 = 65%). No strong evidence is available to prove that care bundles can significantly reduce mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58–2.30; p = 0.68; I2 = 97%).ConclusionsThe introduction of AKI care bundles in routine clinical practice can effectively improve the outcomes of patients with or at-risk of AKI. However, the accumulated evidence is limited and not strong enough to make definite conclusions.</div
    corecore