METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from their inceptions until 10 December 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing individuals who underwent resistance training and control participants. We applied a random-effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD).
RESULTS: 33 trials reported IGF-1 level as an outcome measure. The pooled estimate demonstrated a significant increase in IGF-1 (WMD: 10.34 ng/ml, 95 % CI: 4.93, 15.74, p = 0.000, I2 = 90.3 %) after resistance training compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the increase in IGF-1 levels following resistance training was only statistically significant in treatment duration ≤16 weeks (WMD: 8.04 ng/ml), participants aged more than 60 years old (WMD: 9.84 ng/ml); and in women (WMD: 17.27 ng/ml). Subsequent analysis of the relationship between participants' age with plasma IGF-1 alterations revealed a U shape correlation in non-liner dose response, in which resistance training resulted in a declined IGF-1 level up to 40 years of age. Beyond 40 years old, the IGF-1 level was increased following resistance training.
CONCLUSION: We have successfully demonstrated that resistance training was associated with an increased IGF-1 level among those who received the training for ≤16 weeks, among participants older than 60 years old, and among women. Further studies are warranted to clarify the mechanisms underlying the influence of resistance training on IGF-1.
METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: 244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P