Because there is no specific treatment for the common cold, many previous studies have focused on prevention of the common cold. There were some studies reporting that regular, moderate-intensity exercise increases immunity and prevents the common cold. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of exercise on prevention of the common cold.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL for studies released through June 2013. We manually searched the references. Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the risk of bias of included literature, Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. Review Manager ver. 5.2 (RevMan, Cochrane Collaboration) was used for statistical analysis.
Four randomized controlled trials were identified. A total of 281 participants, 134 in the exercise group and 147 in the control group, were included. The effect of exercise on the prevention of the common cold had a relative risk (RR) of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.95; I2 = 7%). The mean difference of mean illness days between exercise group and control group was -3.50 (95% CI, -6.06 to -0.94; I2 = 93%). In the subgroup analysis, the RR of under 16 weeks exercise was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.08).
In this meta-analysis, regular, moderate-intensity exercise may have an effect on the prevention of the common cold. But numbers of included studies and participants were too small and quality of included studies was relatively poor. Subsequent well-designed studies with larger sample size are needed to clarify the association.
Citations
Having usual source of care has been associated with improved receipt of preventive services and control of chronic diseases (such as hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia). The objective of this study was to examine whether having usual source of care is associated with improved receipt of preventive services and control of chronic diseases.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, KMbase, KoreaMed, RiSS4U, National Assembly Library, and KISS for studies released through May 31st 2011. Two authors independently extracted the data. We manually searched the references and twenty recent related articles on PubMed. To assess the risk of bias RoBANS tool was used.
We identified 10 studies. Most having usual source of care were associated with improved receipt of preventive services (cervical cancer screening, clinical breast exam, mammogram, prostate cancer screening, and flu shot) compared with no usual source of care. However, gastric cancer and colon cancer screening were difficult to conclude and blood pressure checkup showed mixed results. Overall there was no association between having usual source of care and smoking behaviors and the effect on chronic disease control was difficult to conclude.
Having usual source of care was associated with improved receipt of preventive services and overall the results were consistent. So, the results suggested that having usual source of care may help to receive preventive services. Hereafter, cohort studies are needed to evaluate casual relationships and more studies are needed in various countries and systems.
Citations
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are widely used in the treatment of tension headache. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of single doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs using meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trial studies.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, KMbase, KoreaMed, RiCH, National Assembly Library, Riss4u, and DBPIA for studies released through 27th July 2010. Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool was used. Review Manager 5.0 was used for statistics.
We identified 6 studies. The relative benefit of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group for participants with at least 50% pain relief was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.39; I2 = 85%). We did subgroup analysis based on allocation concealment versus non-allocation concealment, and low-dose NSAIDs versus high-dose NSAIDs. The relative benefit of the low-dose NSAIDs subgroup to the acetaminophen group was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.06; I2 = 0%). However, the heterogeneity of other subgroup analysis was not settled. The relative risk for using rescue medication of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.12; I2 = 47%). The relative risk for adverse events was 1.31(95% CI, 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%).
In this meta-analysis, there was no difference between low-dose NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the efficacy of the treatment for tension type headache. The results suggested that high-dose NSAIDs have more effect but also have more adverse events. The balance of benefit and harm needs to be considered when using high-dose NSAIDs for tension headache.
Citations
In reporting results of case-control studies, odds ratios are useful methods of reporting findings. However, odds ratios are often misinterpreted in the literature and by general readers.
We searched all original articles which were published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine from 1980 to May 2011 and identified those that report "odds ratios." Misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks has been identified. Estimated risk ratios were calculated when possible and compared with odds ratios.
One hundred and twenty-eight articles using odds ratios were identified. Among those, 122 articles were analyzed for the frequency of misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks. Twenty-two reports out of these 122 articles misinterpreted odds ratios as relative risks. The percentage of misinterpreting reports decreased over years. Seventy-seven reports were analyzed to compare the estimated risk ratios with odds ratios. In most of these articles, odds ratios were greater than estimated risk ratios, 60% of which had larger than 20% standardized differences.
In reports published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, odds ratios are frequently used. They were misinterpreted in part of the reports, although decreasing trends over years were observed.
Citations
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was developed to improve the reporting of observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in cohort studies and case-control studies among observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine.
We searched for cohort studies and case-control studies published as original articles in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine during the period January 1992 through December 2009. The main outcome measures were the number and proportion of cohort studies and case-control studies that reported each of 22 checklist items of STROBE.
We identified a total of 84 articles, of which 46 articles were cohort studies and 38 were case-control studies. Concerning methods, study designs (10%), bias (13%), study size (0%), statistical methods (12-c and 12-e items, 0%; 12-d item, cohort study, 6%) have been poorly reported. Of results, participants (5-6%), descriptive data (14-b item, 5%), and funding (1%) among other information have been poorly reported.
The degree of adherence the STROBE recommendations was relatively low in cohort studies and case-control studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. An effort to improve the reporting of observational studies by application and recommendation of the STROBE statement is required.
Citations
Citations
Citations
Citations
First
Prev
