OBJECTIVETo compare two methods of assessing physical activity in pre-, peri- and postmenopausal women.METHODSCross-sectional study nested in a cohort of pre-, peri- and postmenopausal women in a city in Southern Brazil. The participants completed a questionnaire that included sociodemographic and clinical data. Physical activity was assessed using a digital pedometer and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, short version. The participants were classified into strata of physical activity according to the instrument used. For statistical analysis, the Spearman correlation test, Kappa index, concordance coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were used.RESULTSThe concordance (k = 0110; p = 0.007) and the correlation (rho = 0.136, p = 0.02) between the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, short version, and pedometer were weak. In Bland-Altman plots, it was observed that differences deviate from zero value whether the physical activity is minimal or more intense. Comparing the two methods, the frequency of inactive women is higher when assessed by pedometer than by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - short version, and the opposite occurs in active women.CONCLUSIONSAgreement between the methods was weak. Although easy to use, Physical Activity Questionnaire - short version overestimates physical activity compared with assessment by pedometer.
Background: Currently, there are broadly differing patterns in the management of the axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and no consensus with clinically strong evidence on the subject. A survey was performed to assess the current axillary management after NAC among Brazilian breast cancer surgeons. Methods: The Brazilian Society of Mastology members were invited by email to complete an anonymous online survey and a total of 426 responses were collected. How to cite this article: Frasson AL, Resende HM, Lichtenfels M, et al. Axillary management for patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results of a survey among Brazilian breast surgeons.
ÃRevisão sistemática sobre terapia oral para tratamento dos sintomas da síndrome da bexiga dolorosa: as diretrizes brasileiras AbstractInterstitial cystitis (IC), including bladder pain syndrome (BPS), is a chronic and debilitating disease that mainly affects women. It is characterized by pelvic pain associated with urinary urgency, frequency, nocturia and negative urine culture, with normal cytology. In 2009, the Society for Urodynamics and Female Urology (SUFU) defined the term IC/BPS as "an unpleasant sensation (pain, pressure, and discomfort) perceived to be related to the urinary bladder, associated with lower urinary tract symptoms for more than 6 weeks duration, in the absence of infection or other identifiable causes." This is the definition used by the American Urological Association (AUA) in the most recent guidelines on IC/BPS. Interstitial cystitis may be sufficiently severe to have a devastating effect on the quality of life, but it may also be associated with moderate symptoms whose effects are less debilitating. Although there are several clinical trials to assess oral and intravesical therapies, the treatment for IC remains far from ideal. This systematic assessment evaluates published randomized clinical trials on oral medications used to treat symptoms of BPS. This study was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses (PRISMA) method. Two independent reviewers screened the studies to determine their inclusion or exclusion and to perform the methodological analysis. The inclusion criteria included randomized studies published between April of 1988 and April of 2016 that used oral medications to treat symptoms of BPS or IC. According to the systematic review à This study has the approval of the Febrasgo Specialized National Commission of Urogynelogy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.