| 1. |
- Clarke, Robert, et al.
(författare)
-
Lowering blood homocysteine with folic acid based supplements : Meta-analysis of randomised trials
- 1998
-
Ingår i: British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 0959-8146. ; 316:7135, s. 894-898
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To determine the size of reduction in homocysteine concentrations produced by dietary supplementation with folic acid and with vitamins B-12 or B-6. Design: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of folic acid based supplements on blood homocysteine concentration. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the effects on homocysteine concentrations of different doses of folic acid and of the addition of vitamin B-12 or B-6. Subjects: Individual data on 1114 people included in 12 trials. Findings: The proportional and absolute reductions in blood homocysteine produced by folic acid supplements were greater at higher pretreatment blood homocysteine concentrations (P < 0.001) and at lower pretreatment blood folate concentrations (P < 0.001). After standardisation to pretreatment blood concentrations of homocysteine of 12 μmol/l and of folate of 12 nmol/l (approximate average concentrations for Western populations), dietary folic acid reduced blood homocysteine concentrations by 25% (95% confidence interval 23% to 28%; P < 0.001), with similar effects in the range of 0.5-5 mg folic acid daily. Vitamin B-12 (mean 0.5 mg daily) produced an additional 7% (3% to 10%) reduction in blood homocysteine. Vitamin B-6 (mean 16.5 mg daily) did not have a significant additional effect. Conclusions: Typically in Western populations, daily supplementation with both 0.5-5 mg folic acid and about 0.5 mg vitamin B-12 would be expected to reduce blood homocysteine concentrations by about a quarter to a third (for example, from about 12 μmol/l to 8-9 μmol/l). Large scale randomised trials of such regimens in high risk populations are now needed to determine whether lowering blood homocysteine concentrations reduces the risk of vascular disease.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Vatnitsky, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Proton dosimetry intercomparison
- 1996
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 41:2, s. 169-77
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Methods for determining absorbed dose in clinical proton beams are based on dosimetry protocols provided by the AAPM and the ECHED. Both groups recommend the use of air-filled ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma in a 60Co beam when a calorimeter or Faraday cup dosimeter is not available. The set of input data used in the AAPM and the ECHED protocols, especially proton stopping powers and w-value is different. In order to verify inter-institutional uniformity of proton beam calibration, the AAPM and the ECHED recommend periodic dosimetry intercomparisons. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goal of the intercomparison was two-fold: first, to estimate the consistency of absorbed dose delivered to patients among the participating facilities, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration protocols.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen institutions participated in an international proton dosimetry intercomparison. The measurements were performed in a 15-cm square field at a depth of 10 cm in both an unmodulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 250 MeV) and a 6-cm modulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 155 MeV), and also in a circular field of diameter 2.6 cm at a depth of 1.14 cm in a beam with 2.4 cm modulation (nominal accelerator energy of 100 MeV).RESULTS: The results of the intercomparison have shown that using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories, and institution-specific conversion factors and dose protocols, the absorbed dose specified to the patient would fall within 3% of the mean value. A single measurement using an ionization chamber with a proton chamber factor determined with a Faraday cup calibration differed from the mean by 8%.CONCLUSION: The adoption of a single ionization chamber dosimetry protocol and uniform conversion factors will establish agreement on proton absorbed dose to approximately 1.5%, consistent with that which has been observed in high-energy photon and electron dosimetry.
|
|
