How does weight gain since the age of 18 years affect breast cancer risk in later life? A meta-analysis.

Early life factors are important risk factors for breast cancer. The association between weight gain after age 18 and breast cancer risk is inconsistent across previous epidemiologic studies. To evaluate this association, we conducted a meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines and the established inclusion criteria. We performed a comprehensive literature search using Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant studies published before June 3, 2022. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles for final inclusion. Seventeen out of 4,725 unique studies met the selection criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and all were of moderate to high quality with NOS scores ranging from 5 to 8. We included 17 studies (11 case-control, 6 cohort) in final analysis. In case-control studies, weight gain after age 18 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.07-1.48), when comparing the highest versus the lowest categories of weight gain. Menopausal status was a source of heterogeneity, with weight gain after age 18 associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.40-1.68), but not in premenopausal women (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.92-1.12). Additionally, a 5 kg increase in weight was positively associated with postmenopausal breast cancer risk (OR = 1.12; 95%CI = 1.05-1.21) in case-control studies. Findings from cohort studies were identical, with a positive association between weight gain after age 18 and breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (relative risk [RR] = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.09-1.36), but not in premenopausal women (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.92-1.22). Weight gain after age 18 is a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer, highlighting the importance of weight control from early adulthood to reduce the incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer.

The effect of digital health interventions on postpartum depression or anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effect of digital health interventions compared with treatment as usual on preventing and treating postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: The systematic review included full-text randomized controlled trials comparing digital health interventions with treatment as usual for preventing or treating postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently screened all abstracts for eligibility and independently reviewed all potentially eligible full-text articles for inclusion. A third author screened abstracts and full-text articles as needed to determine eligibility in cases of discrepancy. The primary outcome was the score on the first ascertainment of postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety symptoms after the intervention. Secondary outcomes included screening positive for postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety --as defined in the primary study --and loss to follow-up, defined as the proportion of participants who completed the final study assessment compared with the number of initially randomized participants. For continuous outcomes, the Hedges method was used to obtain standardized mean differences when the studies used different psychometric scales, and weighted mean differences were calculated when studies used the same psychometric scales. For categorical outcomes, pooled relative risks were estimated. RESULTS: Of 921 studies originally identified, 31 randomized controlled trials-corresponding to 5532 participants randomized to digital health intervention and 5492 participants randomized to treatment as usual-were included. Compared with treatment as usual, digital health interventions significantly reduced mean scores ascertaining postpartum depression symptoms (29 studies: standardized mean difference, -0.64 [95% confidence interval, -0.88 to -0.40]; I2=94.4%) and postpartum anxiety symptoms (17 studies: standardized mean difference, -0.49 [95% confidence interval, -0.72 to -0.25]; I2=84.6%). In the few studies that assessed screen-positive rates for postpartum depression (n=4) or postpartum anxiety (n=1), there were no significant differences between those randomized to digital health intervention and treatment as usual. Overall, those randomized to digital health intervention had 38% increased risk of not completing the final study assessment compared with those randomized to treatment as usual (pooled relative risk, 1.38 [95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.62]), but those randomized to app-based digital health intervention had similar loss-to-follow-up rates as those randomized to treatment as usual (relative risk, 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.19]). CONCLUSION: Digital health interventions modestly, but significantly, reduced scores assessing postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety symptoms. More research is needed to identify digital health interventions that effectively prevent or treat postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety but encourage ongoing engagement throughout the study period.

Methodological and Ethical Implications of Using Remote Data Collection Tools to Measure Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender-Based Violence Outcomes among Women and Girls in Humanitarian and Fragile Settings: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Research.

Purpose: This systematic review investigates the methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure sexual/reproductive health (SRH) and gender-based violence (GBV) outcomes among women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. Methods: We included empirical studies of all design types that collected any self-reported primary data related to SRH/GBV using information and communication technology, in the absence of in-person interactions, from women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. The search was run in March 2021 without filters or limits in Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Scopus. Quality was assessed using an adapted version of the MMAT tool. Two reviewers independently determined whether each full text source met the eligibility criteria, and conflicts were resolved through consensus. A-priori extraction fields concerned methodological rigor and ethical considerations. Results: 21 total studies were included. The majority of studies were quantitative descriptive, aiming to ascertain prevalence. Telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, SMS surveys, and online discussion forums were used as remote data collection tools. Key methodological considerations included the overuse of non-probability samples, lack of a defined sampling frame, the introduction of bias by making eligibility contingent on owning/accessing technology, and the lack of qualitative probing. Ethical consideration pertained to including persons with low literacy, participant safety, use of referral services, and the gender digital divide. Conclusion: Findings are intended to guide SRH/GBV researchers and academics in critically assessing methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure SRH and GBV in humanitarian and fragile settings.

Intravenous compared with oral iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of intravenous versus oral iron on hematologic indices and clinical outcomes for iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Searches in Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov identified randomized-controlled trials comparing intravenous to oral iron for treating IDA in pregnancy. Primary outcomes were maternal hematologic indices at delivery. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusion, cesarean delivery, neonatal outcomes, and medication reactions. RESULTS: Of 15,637 studies, 20 randomized trials met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mean hemoglobin at delivery (9 studies: WMD 0.66 g/dL (95% confidence Interval 0.31 -1.02 g/dL)) was significantly higher after intravenous iron therapy. Intravenous iron was associated with higher birthweight (8 studies: WMD 58.25 g (95% CI: 5.57-110.94 g)) but no significant differences in blood transfusion, cesarean delivery, or neonatal hemoglobin. There were fewer medication reactions with intravenous iron (21 studies: RR 0.34% (95% CI: 0.20-0.57)). CONCLUSION: Intravenous iron therapy is associated with higher maternal hemoglobin at delivery with no difference in blood transfusion and fewer mild medication reactions.