Avaliação comparativa entre a mamografia digital e mamografia em filme: revisão sistemática e metanálise

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Mammography is the best method for breast-cancer screening and is capable of reducing mortality rates. Studies that have assessed the clinical impact of mammography have been carried out using film mammography. Digital mammography has been proposed as a substitute for film mammography given the benefits inherent to digital technology. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of digital and film mammography. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: The Medline, Scopus, Embase and Lilacs databases were searched looking for paired studies, cohorts and randomized controlled trials published up to 2009 that compared the performance of digital and film mammography, with regard to cancer detection, recall rates and tumor characteristics. The reference lists of included studies were checked for any relevant citations. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies involving 190,322 digital and 638,348 film mammography images were included. The cancer detection rates were significantly higher for digital mammography than for film mammography (risk relative, RR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.06-1.29; I² = 19%). The advantage of digital mammography seemed greatest among patients between 50 and 60 years of age. There were no significant differences between the two methods regarding patient recall rates or the characteristics of the tumors detected. CONCLUSION: The cancer detection rates using digital mammography are slightly higher than the rates using film mammography. There are no significant differences in recall rates between film and digital mammography. The characteristics of the tumors are similar in patients undergoing the two methods.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A mamografia é o melhor método para rastreamento do câncer de mama, capaz de reduzir a mortalidade. Os estudos que avaliam seu impacto clínico foram realizados com mamografia em filme. A mamografia digital é proposta para substituir a mamografia em filme com benefícios inerentes à tecnologia digital. O objetivo do estudo foi comparar o desempenho da mamografia digital com a mamografia em filme. TIPO DE ESTUDO: Revisão sistemática e metanálise. MÉTODO: Foram pesquisadas as bases Medline, Scopus, Embase e Lilacs, buscando-se por estudos pareados, coortes e ensaios clínicos randomizados comparando a mamografia digital e a mamografia em filme, quanto à taxa de detecção de câncer, de reconvocação e características dos tumores, publicados até 2009. As referências dos estudos incluídos foram verificadas em busca de citações relevantes. RESULTADOS: Foi incluído um total de 11 estudos, somando 190.322 mamografias digitais e 638.348 em filme. A taxa de detecção do câncer pela mamografia digital foi significantemente maior (risco relativo, RR: 1,17 [95% intervalo de confiança, IC = 1,06-1,29 I² = 19%]) do que pela mamografia em filme. A vantagem da mamografia digital parece maior em pacientes entre 50 e 60 anos. Não houve diferenças significantes nas taxas de reconvocação de pacientes e nas características dos tumores encontrados. CONCLUSÃO: A mamografia digital apresenta taxa de detecção de câncer pouco maior que a mamografia em filme. Não há diferenças significantes nas taxas de reconvocação entre a mamografia digital e a em filme. As características dos tumores são semelhantes em pacientes em ambos os métodos.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Department of Diagnostic ImagingUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Department of MedicineUNIFESP, Department of Diagnostic ImagingUNIFESP, Department of MedicineSciEL

Statins for aortic valve stenosis

Background Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS ‐ IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low‐quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) ‐0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD ‐0.07, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD ‐0.06, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate‐quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate‐quality evidence). Low‐ and very low‐quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low‐quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low‐quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. Authors' conclusions Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Federal University of Sao Paulo and Marilia Medical, BrazilDepartment of Education in Health Sciences,Marilia Medical School, Marilia, BrazilDepartment of Psychiatry and Evidence BasedHealth Actions, Marilia Medical School, Marilia, BrazilInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Centro de Estudos de Saúde Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, São Paulo, BrazilBrazilian Cochrane Centre, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Pedro de Toledo 598, BR-04039001 Sao Paulo, BrazilBrazilian Cochrane Centre, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Pedro de Toledo 598, BR-04039001 Sao Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Alteracoes mitocondriais na doenca de Basedow graves

BV UNIFESP: Teses e dissertaçõe

Comparative evaluation of digital mammography and film mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Mammography is the best method for breast-cancer screening and is capable of reducing mortality rates. Studies that have assessed the clinical impact of mammography have been carried out using film mammography. Digital mammography has been proposed as a substitute for film mammography given the benefits inherent to digital technology. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of digital and film mammography. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: The Medline, Scopus, Embase and Lilacs databases were searched looking for paired studies, cohorts and randomized controlled trials published up to 2009 that compared the performance of digital and film mammography, with regard to cancer detection, recall rates and tumor characteristics. The reference lists of included studies were checked for any relevant citations. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies involving 190,322 digital and 638,348 film mammography images were included. The cancer detection rates were significantly higher for digital mammography than for film mammography (risk relative, RR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.06-1.29; I² = 19%). The advantage of digital mammography seemed greatest among patients between 50 and 60 years of age. There were no significant differences between the two methods regarding patient recall rates or the characteristics of the tumors detected. CONCLUSION: The cancer detection rates using digital mammography are slightly higher than the rates using film mammography. There are no significant differences in recall rates between film and digital mammography. The characteristics of the tumors are similar in patients undergoing the two methods

Statins for aortic valve stenosis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis