| 1. |
- Hastie, Roxanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Predictive Value of the Signs and Symptoms Preceding Eclampsia : A Systematic Review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Obstetrics and Gynecology. - 0029-7844 .- 1873-233X. ; 134:4, s. 677-684
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To estimate the predictive value of signs and symptoms that occur before onset of eclampsia among pregnant women.DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 2018. Search terms included eclampsia, predict, likelihood ratio, predictive value, and risk.METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts and later full texts were selected for review if a diagnosis of eclampsia was made, a comparator arm included (women without a diagnosis of eclampsia), and predictors of imminent eclampsia reported. Of 2,791 retrieved records, 11 were selected. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies, with differing designs, settings, participants, and signs or symptoms. In total, 28 signs or symptoms were reported, with visual disturbances and epigastric pain most common (six studies), followed by headache (five studies), and any edema (four studies).TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data on study characteristics and predictive value of signs or symptoms were extracted, and, where appropriate, bivariate mixed-effect meta-analysis was applied to raw data. None of the pooled estimates were able to accurately predict eclampsia nor rule out eclampsia in their absence, with moderate specificity (83-94%) and poor sensitivity (29-56%).CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of high-quality studies investigating the predictive value of imminent signs and symptoms of eclampsia. Owing to the small number of studies, heterogeneity, and inconsistent reporting, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the predictive value of prodromal symptoms of eclampsia. Of the most commonly reported symptoms-visual disturbances, epigastric pain, and headache-none were able to accurately predict, nor rule out, imminent eclampsia.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
