Gut microbiota has been identified as a unique endocrine organ linked to the development of cardiovascular disease and other illnesses, especially deteriorated in overweight and obese postmenopausal women. The object of this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of oral supplementation with probiotics for overweight and obese postmenopausal women. We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to April 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also performed a hand search by reviewing reference lists to identify trials. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB). Two reviewers independently selected studies and collected data. There were 6 studies from 5 RCTs with 281 participants in this systematic review. Compared with the placebo, the probiotics supplementation group had reductions in insulin (MD - 4.20 IU/L (95% CI - 8.11 to - 0.30 IU/L), I-2 = 54%), HOMA-IR (MD - 1.25 (95% CI - 2.49 to - 0.01), I-2 = 50%), and TNF-alpha (MD - 0.12 pg/mL (95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.01 pg/mL), I-2 = 44%). Improvements were also shown in body adiposity and lipid profile, but these effects were nonsignificant. In addition to body adiposity and cardiovascular risk markers, one trial showed the administration of probiotics also had an effect on iron metabolism. In conclusion, probiotics have a potential benefit on glucose metabolism and inflammatory process in overweight and obese postmenopausal women, but this effect is mild. It demonstrates that oral probiotics supplementation can be a complementary treatment for improving the fitness of postmenopausal women with overweight and obesity.

Background: Disturbances in immunological responses and modulation lead to implantation and pregnancy failure and might be involved in the pathogenesis of infertility. This project aimed to screen and identify immune-related genes as potential biomarkers for treatment.Methods: Gene expression profiles were obtained from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were screened using GEO 2R to explore potential biomarkers. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis and functional enrichment analysis were applied to explore possible mechanisms. The deconvolution algorithm [referred to as Cell-type Identification by Estimating Relative Subsets of RNA Transcripts (CIBERSORT)] was employed to assess tissue-infiltrating immune cells. Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry (IHC) were conducted for determination of protein levels.Results: In this research, we identified 24 candidate immune-related DEGs via combined DEGs and functional analysis. We also found that the ratio of M0 macrophages and resting mast cells was higher in infertile group (P<0.05), whereas the amounts of activated natural killer (NK) cells was significantly lower compared with the control group (P<0.05). Furthermore, we evaluated the relationship between immune cells and candidate genes and found that 17 genes were related to M0 macrophages, resting mast cells, or activated NK cells. The genes CD40, PRF1, and EDN3 were chosen based on validation from independent datasets. Finally, our clinical samples confirmed the expression of the 3 genes.Conclusions: The study recognized 3 genes that are signatures and could be potential biomarkers for unexplained infertility. These genes might guide the immunotherapy of these patients and become new treatment targets.

Background Most women suffer from perineal trauma during childbirth, whether it is natural tears or episiotomy. Objectives To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of different PFMT relevant strategies in the prevention of perineal trauma. Search strategy PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG DATABASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 1 July 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PFMT relevant prevention strategies for preventing perineal trauma during childbirth. Data collection and analysis Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Relative treatment effects were estimated using network meta-analysis (NMA). Main results Of 12 632 citations searched, 21 RCTs were included. Comparing with usual care, "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT alone showed more superiority in intact perineum (RR = 5.37, 95% CI: 3.79 to 7.60, moderate certainty; RR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.34-4.97, moderate certainty, respectively), episiotomy (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.49, very low certainty; RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90, very low certainty, respectively), and OASIS (RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.78, moderate certainty; RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85, high certainty, respectively). "PFMT combine with perineal massage" showed superiority in reducing perineal tear (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.85, moderate certainty). Conclusions In view of the results, antenatal "PFMT combine with perineal massage" and PFMT were effective strategies for the prevention of perineal trauma.

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. Objective: To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Search strategy: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021. Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study. Data collection and analysis: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Main results: Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94-1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46-1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95-1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89-1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97-1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98-1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83-1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80-1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72-1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96-1.44) in our primary analysis. Conclusion: In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.