Colonization of Artificial Substrates at Dauphin Island, Alabama: A Comparison of Balanus (Cirripedia), Membranipora tenuis (Bryozoa), and Conopeum tenuissimum (Bryozoa) Settlement in 1999-2000 and 2010-12

Glass slides were used as artificial substrates to collect settling bryozoan and barnacle larvae during two collection periods, in 1999–2000 and 2010–12. This study follows up a previous report of Balanus settlement in Mobile Bay and now includes two bryozoan species. Slides were immersed at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab (Alabama) for 1 wk each month for 17–18 mo in each study, and then collected for staining and counting. The bryozoans Conopeum tenuissimum and Membranipora tenuis were both present in 1999–2000, though in 2010–12 C. tenuissimum was rarer and only six organisms were observed. In general the bryozoan colonization period extended throughout the spring, summer, and fall, with peak settlement in May–Aug. Barnacle cyprids and metamorphed stages colonized the substrates in July–Sept. and Feb.– March in 1999–2000, but in 2010–12 they were present in the summer and fall months and did not have a Feb.–March settlement. Colonization by both bryozoans and barnacles correlated statistically with temperature, and M. tenuis correlated negatively with salinity as its colonization density increased following the decreased salinity in the spring. In 1999–2000 only M. tenuis correlated with temperature. This study reports settlement periods for these invertebrates in Alabama and provides new data for colonization studies in Mobile Bay. Additionally, we document the successful colonization of substrates by these invertebrates immediately following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Short-term effectiveness of nutrition therapy to treat type 2 diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: This review examined the evidence arising from randomised controlled trials regarding the impact of nutrition therapy on glycaemic control in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey and the International Clinical Trials Registry were searched (up to July 3 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Trials were included if they evaluated nutrition therapy in adults diagnosed with T2DM, were conducted in LMICs, measured glycaemic control and the trial included a 3-month post-intervention assessment. Nutrition therapy was defined according to American Diabetes Association recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened the database. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted using a data collection form. Meta-analyses were conducted for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose. Trials were assessed for risk of bias (Cochrane Risk-of-Bias, Version 2.0) and overall certainty of evidence (GRADE). RESULTS: Four trials met inclusion criteria (total n=463), conducted in Malaysia, Iran and South Africa. All trials focused on nutrition education with no direct prescription or manipulation of diet. Mean differences between intervention and standard care were −0.63% (95% CI −1.47% to 0.21%) for HbA1c and −13.63 mg/dL (95% CI −37.61 to 10.34) for fasting blood glucose in favour of the intervention. Given the small number of eligible trials, moderate to high risk of publication bias and serious concerns regarding consistency and precision of the evidence, certainty of evidence was deemed to be very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of well-conducted randomised controlled trials that examine the long-term impact of nutrition therapy in LMICs, preventing firm conclusions to be made on their effectiveness. Further research is essential to discover realistic, evidence-based solutions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188435

Spinal Manipulation vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = − 0.36; 95% confidence interval, − 0.59 to − 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results

The association between later eating rhythm and adiposity in children and adolescents:a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Childhood adiposity, an important predictor of adult chronic disease, has been rising dramatically. Later eating rhythm, termed night eating, is increasing in adults but rarely studied in younger ages. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review the association between later eating rhythm and adiposity in children and adolescents. The aspects of later eating being considered included: energy intake (for evening main meal, evening snack, whole evening period, and around bedtime); timing (any food eaten at later timing); and meal frequency in the evening/night (evening main meal skipping, evening snack consumption). DATA SOURCES: Five databases (the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (via OVID), and Web of Science) were searched for eligible articles published prior to and including August 2020. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by 2 reviewers independently. DATA ANALYSIS: Forty-seven studies were included, all of which were observational. Meta-analysis showed positive associations between both higher energy intake around bedtime (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.06, 1.33) and evening main meal skipping (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14, 1.48), and adiposity. There was evidence to suggest that consuming evening snacks reduced adiposity, but it was very weak (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62, 1.05). No association was seen between eating later and adiposity (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68, 1.61). In the narrative analysis, approximately half of the studies suggested that there was no association between later eating rhythm and adiposity, either as a whole or within exposure subsets. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of the relationship between later eating rhythm and adiposity is very small, and may vary depending on which aspects of later eating rhythm are under consideration; however, the evidence for this conclusion is of very low certainty . Further research with a more consistent definition of “later timing”, and longitudinal studies in different populations, may lead to different conclusions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019134187

Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in adults

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly debilitating, difficult to treat, has a high rate of recurrence, and negatively impacts the individual and society as a whole. One emerging potential treatment for MDD is n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFAs), also known as omega-3 oils, naturally found in fatty fish, some other seafood, and some nuts and seeds. Various lines of evidence suggest a role for n-3PUFAs in MDD, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Reviews and meta-analyses clearly demonstrate heterogeneity between studies. Investigations of heterogeneity suggest differential effects of n-3PUFAs, depending on severity of depressive symptoms, where no effects of n-3PUFAs are found in studies of individuals with mild depressive symptomology, but possible benefit may be suggested in studies of individuals with more severe depressive symptomology.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (also known as omega-3 fatty acids) versus a comparator (e.g. placebo, anti-depressant treatment, standard care, no treatment, wait-list control) for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Registers (CCDANCTR) and International Trial Registries over all years to May 2015. We searched the database CINAHL over all years of records to September 2013.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in the review if they: were a randomised controlled trial; provided n-3PUFAs as an intervention; used a comparator; measured depressive symptomology as an outcome; and were conducted in adults with MDD. Primary outcomes were depressive symptomology (continuous data collected using a validated rating scale) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptomology (dichotomous data on remission and response), quality of life, and failure to complete studies.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.MAIN RESULTS: We found 26 relevant studies: 25 studies involving a total of 1438 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to placebo, and one study involving 40 participants investigated the impact of n-3PUFA supplementation compared to antidepressant treatment.For the placebo comparison, n-3PUFA supplementation results in a small to modest benefit for depressive symptomology, compared to placebo: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to -0.52; 25 studies, 1373 participants, very low quality evidence), but this effect is unlikely to be clinically meaningful (an SMD of 0.32 represents a difference between groups in scores on the HDRS (17-item) of approximately 2.2 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6)). The confidence intervals include both a possible clinically important effect and a possible negligible effect, and there is considerable heterogeneity between the studies. Although the numbers of individuals experiencing adverse events were similar in intervention and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.62; 19 studies, 1207 participants; very low-quality evidence), the confidence intervals include a significant increase in adverse events with n-3PUFAs as well as a small possible decrease. Rates of remission and response, quality of life, and rates of failure to complete studies were also similar between groups, but confidence intervals are again wide.The evidence on which these results are based is very limited. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but we rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as low to very low. The number of studies and number of participants contributing to all analyses were low, and the majority of studies were small and judged to be at high risk of bias on several measures. Our analyses were also likely to be highly influenced by three large trials. Although we judge these trials to be at low risk of bias, they contribute 26.9% to 82% of data. Our effect size estimates are also imprecise. Funnel plot asymmetry and sensitivity analyses (using fixed-effect models, and only studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias, performance bias or attrition bias) also suggest a likely bias towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs. There was substantial heterogeneity in analyses of our primary outcome of depressive symptomology. This heterogeneity was not explained by the presence or absence of comorbidities or by the presence or absence of adjunctive therapy.Only one study was available for the antidepressant comparison, involving 40 participants. This study found no differences between treatment with n-3PUFAs and treatment with antidepressants in depressive symptomology (mean difference (MD) -0.70 (95% CI -5.88 to 4.48)), rates of response to treatment or failure to complete. Adverse events were not reported in a manner suitable for analysis, and rates of depression remission and quality of life were not reported.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, we do not have sufficient high quality evidence to determine the effects of n-3PUFAs as a treatment for MDD. Our primary analyses suggest a small-to-modest, non-clinically beneficial effect of n-3PUFAs on depressive symptomology compared to placebo; however the estimate is imprecise, and we judged the quality of the evidence on which this result is based to be low/very low. Sensitivity analyses, funnel plot inspection and comparison of our results with those of large well-conducted trials also suggest that this effect estimate is likely to be biased towards a positive finding for n-3PUFAs, and that the true effect is likely to be smaller. Our data, however, also suggest similar rates of adverse events and numbers failing to complete trials in n-3PUFA and placebo groups, but again our estimates are very imprecise. The one study that directly compares n-3PUFAs and antidepressants in our review finds comparable benefit. More evidence, and more complete evidence, are required, particularly regarding both the potential positive and negative effects of n-3PUFAs for MDD.</p