To evaluate the association between shift work and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, we searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception to June 8, 2019. Observational studies examining the relationship between shift work and type 2 diabetes were included. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore whether specific characteristics would affect the relationship. A dose-response relationship was estimated by using generalized least squares trend regression. Finally, twelve cohort studies and nine cross-sectional studies were included (inter-rater agreement, k = 0.96). The result of meta-analysis indicated that shift work was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (relative risk = 1.10, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.14). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that female shift workers have increased risk of type 2 diabetes while male not observed, health care workers showed the highest risk compared with civil servants and manual workers, and night shift and rotating shift were associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Dose-response meta-analysis based on three cohorts among female workers indicated that there might be a positive association between duration of shift work and the risk of type 2 diabetes. In conclusion, shift work is positively associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Among female workers, with the years of exposure to shift work prolonged, the risk of type 2 diabetes might increase accordingly. In the future, more studies are needed to confirm the results of dose-response analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between cigarette smoking and lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: Cohort or case-control studies were identified by searches of several data bases, including Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and BIOSIS, for entries made up to December 2014. Data extraction was performed by two independent investigators. The data synthesis was performed using the random effects model. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analyses, and assessment for publication bias were also performed. RESULTS: This systematic review included 12 studies-six each of cohort and case-control studies. The combined reported values showed that the relative risk of the association between smoking and LDH was 1.27 [95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.15-1.40] overall, 1.48 (95 % CI, 1.27-1.73) for case-control studies, and 1.17 (95 % CI, 1.05-1.30) for cohort studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates that smoking promotes the development of LDH

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and consolidation chemotherapy have been used to treat intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in first complete remission (CR1). However, it is still unclear which treatments are most effective for these patients. The aim of our study was to analyze the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit of allogeneic HSCT (alloHSCT) for intermediate-risk AML patients in CR1. A meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing alloHSCT to non-alloHSCT (autologous HSCT [autoHSCT] and/or chemotherapy) was undertaken. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library though October 2014, using keywords and relative MeSH or Emtree terms, 'allogeneic'; 'acut*' and 'leukem*/aml/leukaem*/leucem*/leucaem*'; and 'nonlympho*' or 'myelo*'. A total of 7053 articles were accessed. The primary outcomes were RFS and OS, while the secondary outcomes were treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse rate (RR). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome. The primary outcomes were RFS and OS, while the secondary outcomes were TRM and RR. We included 9 prospective controlled studies including 1950 adult patients. Patients with intermediate-risk AML in CR1 who received either alloHSCT or non-alloHSCT were considered eligible. AlloHSCT was found to be associated with significantly better RFS, OS, and RR than non-alloHSCT (HR, 0.684 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.95]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.95]; and HR, 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.75], respectively). TRM was significantly higher following alloHSCT than non-alloHSCT (HR, 3.09 [95% CI: 1.38, 6.92]). However, subgroup analysis showed no OS benefit for alloHSCT over autoHSCT (HR, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.70, 1.39]). In conclusion, alloHSCT is associated with more favorable RFS, OS, and RR benefits (but not TRM outcomes) than non-alloHSCT generally, but does not have an OS advantage over autoHSCT specifically, in patients with intermediate-risk AML in CR1