Antimonate Controls Manganese2Induced Change for better of Birnessite with a Circumneutral pH

682) (all P  less then  0.001), but was independent of age (r = - 0.022; P = 0.130) and BMI (r = 0.020, P = 0.168). Aunivariate logistic regression analysis revealed AIP to be the measured lipid parameter most closely related to CAD, and its unadjusted odds ratio was 1.824 (95% CI 1.467-2.267, P  less then  0.001). After adjusting for several CAD risk factors (age, BMI, smoking, drinking, EH, DM, hyperlipidemia, and family history of CVD, AIP was still found to represent a significant CAD risk factor (OR 1.553, 95% CI 1.234-1.955, P  less then  0. 001). CONCLUSION AIP may be a powerful independent predictor of CAD risk in Chinese Han postmenopausal women, and may be superior to the traditional lipid indices.BACKGROUND The seroprevalence of brucellosis among nomadic pastoralists and their livestock in arid lands is reported to be over10-fold higher than non-pastoralists farmers and their livestock in Kenya. Here, we compared the seroprevalence of nomadic pastoralists and mixed farming with their knowledge of the disease and high-risk practices associated with brucellosis infection. METHODS Across-sectional study was conducted in two counties - Kiambu County where farmers primarily practice smallholder livestock production and crop farming, and Marsabit County where farmers practice nomadic pastoral livestock production. Stratified random sampling was applied, in which sublocations were initially selected based on predominant livestock production system, before selecting households using randomly generated geographical coordinates. In each household, up to three persons aged 5 years and above were randomly selected, consented, and tested for Brucella spp IgG antibodies. A structured questionnaire was administered .3%, p less then 0.001), and handling raw hides (30.6% vs 5.5%, p less then 0.001). , CONCLUSION Nomadic pastoralists are more likely to engage in risky practices that promote Brucella Infection, probably because of their occupation and culture, despite having significant knowledge of the disease.BACKGROUND The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. selleck compound Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments. RESULTS A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain. CONCLUSION RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.BACKGROUND Despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, cervical cancer continues to be a significant health problem worldwide. Whereas robot-assisted surgery has advantages over the abdominal approach, and minimally invasive techniques are being used increasingly, these may be associated with a higher recurrence rate and lower overall survival than the abdominal approach. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical and survival outcomes between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2006 to 2018 was identified. Patients with stage IA to IB cervical cancer were included and grouped ARH vs. RRH. The RRH group was further divided into two groups based on the year of enrollment RRH1 (2006-2012) and RRH2 (2013-2018). Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups. P-values less then  0.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant. RESULTS A total of 310 patients were identified 142 and 168 underwent ARH and RRH, respectively. RRH1 and RRH2 had 77 and 91 patients, respectively. Interestingly, RRH2 was more likely to have a larger tumor size (1.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7 cm, P = 0.014) and higher stage (P  less then  0.001) than RRH1. However, RRH2 showed significantly favorable PFS in contrast to RRH1. There was no difference between ARH and RRH2 in PFS (P = 0.629), whereas overall, the RRH group showed significantly shorter PFS than the ARH group. In the multivariate analysis, the institutional learning curve represented by the operation year was one of the significant predictors for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.065, P = 0.0162), along with tumor size (HR 5.651, P = 0.0241). CONCLUSIONS The institutional learning curve, represented by the operation year, is one of the most significant factors associated with outcomes of RRH for early-stage cervical cancer.