A multi-scalar perspective on health and urban housing: an umbrella review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Turcu C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7611930 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Multiple systematic reviews on greenspace and health outcomes exist, but the overall evidence base remains unclear. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review to collect and appraise all relevant systematic reviews of epidemiological studies on greenness exposure and health. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to June 28, 2021, and screened references of relevant articles. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of epidemiological studies that examined the associations of greenness with any health outcome were included. Two independent investigators performed study selection and data extraction. We also evaluated the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the "Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2" checklist. A total of 40 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, of which most were cross-sectional studies conducted in high-income countries. Greenspace exposure was estimated with various objective and subjective parameters. Beneficial associations of greenspace with all-cause and stroke-specific mortality, CVD morbidity, cardiometabolic factors, mental health, low birth weight, physical activity, sleep quality, and urban crime were observed. No consistent associations between greenspace and other health outcomes (e.g., cancers) were observed. Most of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses had one or more limitations in methodology. Our findings provide supportive evidence regarding the beneficial effects of greenspace exposure on some aspects of human health. However, the credibility of such evidence was compromised by methodological limitations. Better performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as longitudinal designed primary studies are needed to validate this conclusion.
| S-EPMC8479545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Ginseng consumption has been associated with various health outcomes. However, there are no review articles summarizing these reports. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to 31 July 2022. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) systems were used to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence in each meta-analysis, and the results were summarized in a narrative form. Results: Nineteen meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria were identified from among 1,233 papers. The overall methodological quality was relatively poor, with only five studies being low-quality, and 14 critically low-quality. When compared with control treatments (mainly placebo), ginseng was beneficial for improving fatigue and physical function, sexual function, menopausal symptoms, metabolic indicators, inflammatory markers, unstable angina and respiratory diseases. Adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms and potential bleeding; however, no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: This umbrella review suggests that ginseng intake has beneficial therapeutic effects for diverse diseases. However, the methodological quality of studies needs to be improved considerably. In addition, it is imperative to establish the clinical efficacy of ginseng through high-quality randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC10351045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of evidence, potential biases, and validity of all available studies on dietary sugar consumption and health outcomes.DesignUmbrella review of existing meta-analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and hand searching of reference lists.Inclusion criteriaSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, or cross sectional studies that evaluated the effect of dietary sugar consumption on any health outcomes in humans free from acute or chronic diseases.ResultsThe search identified 73 meta-analyses and 83 health outcomes from 8601 unique articles, including 74 unique outcomes in meta-analyses of observational studies and nine unique outcomes in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Significant harmful associations between dietary sugar consumption and 18 endocrine/metabolic outcomes, 10 cardiovascular outcomes, seven cancer outcomes, and 10 other outcomes (neuropsychiatric, dental, hepatic, osteal, and allergic) were detected. Moderate quality evidence suggested that the highest versus lowest dietary sugar consumption was associated with increased body weight (sugar sweetened beverages) (class IV evidence) and ectopic fatty accumulation (added sugars) (class IV evidence). Low quality evidence indicated that each serving/week increment of sugar sweetened beverage consumption was associated with a 4% higher risk of gout (class III evidence) and each 250 mL/day increment of sugar sweetened beverage consumption was associated with a 17% and 4% higher risk of coronary heart disease (class II evidence) and all cause mortality (class III evidence), respectively. In addition, low quality evidence suggested that every 25 g/day increment of fructose consumption was associated with a 22% higher risk of pancreatic cancer (class III evidence).ConclusionsHigh dietary sugar consumption is generally more harmful than beneficial for health, especially in cardiometabolic disease. Reducing the consumption of free sugars or added sugars to below 25 g/day (approximately 6 teaspoons/day) and limiting the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages to less than one serving/week (approximately 200-355 mL/week) are recommended to reduce the adverse effect of sugars on health.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022300982.
| S-EPMC10074550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation.
| S-EPMC6697344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsGlucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach.MethodsMedline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The evidence from the RCTs was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.ResultsFrom 140 articles returned, 11 systematic reviews, for a total of 21 outcomes (37 RCTs; 3949 participants; almost all using 1500 mg/day), were included. No systematic reviews/meta-analyses of observational studies were included. Regarding the findings of the meta-analyses, 9/17 outcomes were statistically significant, indicating that GS is more effective than placebo. A high certainty of evidence, as assessed by GRADE, supported the use of GS (versus placebo) in improving the Lequesne Index, joint space width change, joint space width change after 3 years of follow up, joint space narrowing and OA progression. No difference in terms of adverse effects was found between GS and placebo. In systematic reviews, GS was associated with a better glucose profile and a better physical function performance than placebo.ConclusionGS, when used as a prescription drug (i.e. crystalline glucosamine sulphate) at 1500 mg daily dosage, can positively affect the cartilage structure, reduce pain, improve function and glucose metabolism in people with knee OA, without having a greater incidence of adverse effects than placebo.
| S-EPMC7768322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, there has been growing concern about the impact of the gastrointestinal microbiome on human health outcomes. To clarify the evidence for a link between the gastrointestinal microbiome and a variety of health outcomes in humans, we conducted an all-encompassing review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that included 195 meta-analyses containing 950 unique health outcomes. The gastrointestinal microbiome is related to mortality, gastrointestinal disease, immune and metabolic outcomes, neurological and psychiatric outcomes, maternal and infant outcomes, and other outcomes. Existing interventions for intestinal microbiota (such as probiotics, fecal microbiota transplant, etc.) are generally safe and beneficial to a variety of human health outcomes, but the quality of evidence is not high, and more detailed and well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary.
| S-EPMC9505003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CONTEXT:Given a large and consistent literature revealing a link between housing and health, publicly supported housing assistance programs might play an important role in promoting the health of disadvantaged children. OBJECTIVE:To summarize and evaluate research in which authors examine housing assistance and child health. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and PAIS (1990-2017). STUDY SELECTION:Eligible studies were required to contain assessments of public housing, multifamily housing, or vouchers in relation to a health outcome in children (ages 0-21); we excluded neighborhood mobility interventions. DATA EXTRACTION:Study design, sample size, age, location, health outcomes, measurement, program comparisons, analytic approach, covariates, and results. RESULTS:We identified 14 studies, including 4 quasi-experimental studies, in which authors examined a range of health outcomes. Across studies, the relationship between housing assistance and child health remains unclear, with ?40% of examined outcomes revealing no association between housing assistance and health. A sizable proportion of observed relationships within the quasi-experimental and association studies were in favor of housing assistance (50.0% and 37.5%, respectively), and negative outcomes were less common and only present among association studies. LIMITATIONS:Potential publication bias, majority of studies were cross-sectional, and substantial variation in outcomes, measurement quality, and methods to address confounding. CONCLUSIONS:The results underscore a need for rigorous studies in which authors evaluate specific housing assistance programs in relation to child outcomes to establish what types of housing assistance, if any, serve as an effective strategy to reduce disparities and advance equity across the lifespan.
| S-EPMC6662196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women's health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, p < 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p = 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, p = 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29, p = 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58, p = 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412).ConclusionsMHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.
| S-EPMC8366967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence supports the health benefits of ginger for a range of conditions and symptoms; however, there is a lack of synthesis of literature to determine which health indications are supported by quality evidence.ObjectivesIn this umbrella review of systematic reviews we aimed to determine the therapeutic effects and safety of any type of ginger from the Zingiber family administered in oral form compared with any comparator or baseline measures on any health and well-being outcome in humans.MethodsFive databases were searched from inception to April 2021. Review selection and quality were assessed in duplicate using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method, with results presented in narrative form.ResultsTwenty-four systematic reviews were included with 3% overlap of primary studies. The strongest evidence was found for the antiemetic effects of ginger in pregnant women (effect size: large; GRADE: high), analgesic effects for osteoarthritis (effect size: small; GRADE: high), and glycemic control (effect size: none to very large; GRADE: very low to moderate). Ginger also had a statistically significant positive effect on blood pressure, weight management, dysmenorrhea, postoperative nausea, and chemotherapy-induced vomiting (effect size: moderate to large; GRADE: low to moderate) as well as blood lipid profile (effect size: small; GRADE: very low) and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant biomarkers (effect size: unclear; GRADE: very low to moderate). There was substantial heterogeneity and poor reporting of interventions; however, dosage of 0.5-3 g/d in capsule form administered for up to 3 mo was consistently reported as effective.ConclusionsDietary consumption of ginger appears safe and may exert beneficial effects on human health and well-being, with greatest confidence in antiemetic effects in pregnant women, analgesic effects in osteoarthritis, and glycemic control. Future randomized controlled and dose-dependent trials with adequate sample sizes and standardized ginger products are warranted to better inform and standardize routine clinical prescription.
| S-EPMC9170469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo evaluate the breadth, depth and effectiveness of the evidence quality of all existing studies on bariatric surgery and mental health outcomes.DesignUmbrella review of existing Systematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Liberally databases of Systematic review and meta-analyses, and hand searching the reference lists of eligible publications.ResultsThe search identified nine studies and 20 mental health outcomes from 1251 studies. Evidence shows that bariatric surgery is associated with significant improvement in areas such as anxiety, depression and eating disorders (including binge-eating disorder), and there is a significant harmful association with suicide, self-harm and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Among them, the most studied outcome is depression (4 articles). High-quality evidence proves that the score of depressive symptoms can be significantly improved after bariatric surgery within a two-year follow-up period and is not affected by the follow-up time. Low-quality evidence shows that bariatric surgery can significantly reduce depressive symptoms regardless of age and BMI, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. Regardless of the postoperative BMI, the anxiety symptoms of women over 40 still decreased significantly, with an OR of 0.58. Regardless of the type of surgery, surgery can significantly reduce the incidence of eating disorders and symptoms. However, there is no obvious change in the follow-up time of AUD in the first two years after bariatric surgery, and the risk increases obviously in the third year, with an OR of 1.825. The evidence of moderate research shows that the risk of suicide and self-harm increases after bariatric surgery. The odds ratios in the same population and the control group were 1.9 and 3.8 times, respectively.ConclusionBariatric surgery is beneficial for improving most mental health-related outcomes. However, we should be cautious about the increased risk of adverse mental health after surgery, such as suicide, self-harm, and AUD.
| S-EPMC10653334 | biostudies-literature