No abstract

No abstract

Background Gastric cancer (GC) is the second most frequent cause of cancer-related mortality in the world, and the five-year survival rate for GC remains very low universally. In recent years, it has become a consensus that genetic changes are associated with carcinogenesis of GC, and precision medicine based on genetic changes is one of the most popular treatments for GC patients. However, the association between some genes and GC-related protein signaling pathways is still not well understood. This study revealed that seven genes were closely related to the survival probability in GC patients. Methods We downloaded the gene expression data of GC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) databases, and integrated bioinformatic analysis was performed, such as differential gene expression analysis, including Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and Gene Ontology (GO) pathways analyses, as well as survival analysis. The r package “survival” was used to analyze the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, which showed the associations between specific gene expressions and the outcomes of patients with GC to identify which genes could be potential prognostic biomarkers. Results This study revealed that seven genes: alcohol dehydrogenase 4 (ADH4), histamine receptor H3 (HRH3), neuropeptide Y2 receptor (NPY2R), apolipoprotein AI (APOA1), N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase 14 (GALNT14), leucine-rich repeats and IQ motif containing 1 (LRRIQ1), and coiled-coil-domain-containing 57 (CCDC57). These seven genes were closely related to the survival probability of GC patients (P<0.05). Conclusions Our study found seven genes which could be considered as candidate prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

A diabetes scorecard did not improve glycaemic control, blood pressure control, LDL cholesterol, aspirin usage, exercise or diabetic knowledge in an urban population with uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes.

Background Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Results Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO2-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference. Conclusions WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.