Selenium and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Selenium is a natural health product widely used in the treatment and prevention of lung cancers, but large chemoprevention trials have yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review of selenium for lung cancers, and assessed potential interactions with conventional therapies.Two independent reviewers searched six databases from inception to March 2009 for evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of selenium for lung cancers. Pubmed and EMBASE were searched to October 2009 for evidence on interactions with chemo- or radiation-therapy. In the efficacy analysis there were nine reports of five RCTs and two biomarker-based studies, 29 reports of 26 observational studies, and 41 preclinical studies. Fifteen human studies, one case report, and 36 preclinical studies were included in the interactions analysis. Based on available evidence, there appears to be a different chemopreventive effect dependent on baseline selenium status, such that selenium supplementation may reduce risk of lung cancers in populations with lower baseline selenium status (serum<106 ng/mL), but increase risk of lung cancers in those with higher selenium (≥ 121.6 ng/mL). Pooling data from two trials yielded no impact to odds of lung cancer, OR 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.43); other cancers that were the primary endpoints of these trials, OR 1.51 (95%CI 0.70-3.24); and all-cause-death, OR 0.93 (95%CI 0.79-1.10). In the treatment of lung cancers, selenium may reduce cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and side effects associated with radiation therapy.Selenium may be effective for lung cancer prevention among individuals with lower selenium status, but at present should not be used as a general strategy for lung cancer prevention. Although promising, more evidence on the ability of selenium to reduce cisplatin and radiation therapy toxicity is required to ensure that therapeutic efficacy is maintained before any broad clinical recommendations can be made in this context

A simple measure with complex determinants: investigation of the correlates of self-rated health in older men and women from three continents

Self-rated health is commonly employed in research studies that seek to assess the health status of older individuals. Perceptions of health are, however, influenced by individual and societal level factors that may differ within and between countries. This study investigates levels of self-rated health (SRH) and correlates of SRH among older adults in Australia, United States of America (USA), Japan and South Korea. We conclude that when examining correlates of SRH, the similarities are greater than the differences between countries. There are however differences in levels of SRH which are not fully accounted for by the health correlates. Broad generalizations about styles of responding are not helpful for understanding these differences, which appear to be country- and possibly cohort-specific. When using SRH to characterize the health status of older people, it is important to consider earlier life experiences of cohorts as well as national and individual factors in later life. Further research is required to understand the complex societal influences on perceptions of health.The Australian data on which this research is based were drawn from several Australian longitudinal studies including: the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ALSA), the Australian Longitudinal Study of Women’s Health (ALSWH) and the Personality And Total Health Through Life Study (PATH). These studies were pooled and harmonized for the Dynamic Analyses to Optimize Ageing (DYNOPTA) project. DYNOPTA was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant (# 410215)

Should social science be critical?

The word critical has become an honorific title used by researchers to commend their work, or the particular approach they adopt. Conversely, the work of others is often dismissed on the grounds that it is "uncritical". However, there are important questions about what the term critical means, about what we should be critical of, and about the form that criticism ought to take. These questions are addressed here in relation to both the role of the social researcher itself and that of researchers operating as public intellectuals. It is argued that the distinction between these roles is an important one, and has implications for what can legitimately be criticised, on what grounds, and in what way. In each case, there are proper limits to criticism, albeit different ones. Like anything else, criticism is not always a good thing

On feminist methodology

There is now a considerable literature advocating a feminist methodology. This article summarises the features of such a methodology under four headings: the ubiquitous social significance of gender, the validity of experience as against method, the rejection of hierarchy in the research relationship, and the adoption of the emancipation of women as the goal of research and the criterion of validity. The arguments supporting each of these themes are assessed. The conclusion reached is that while some of these arguments are convincing the overall case for a feminist methodology is not