Addiction, Author Interviews, Tobacco Research / 19.04.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_48651" align="alignleft" width="200"]Dr Nicola Lindson PhD CPsycholCochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) Managing Editor & Senior Researcher Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences,University of Oxford  Dr. Lindson[/caption] Dr Nicola Lindson PhD CPsychol Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) Managing Editor & Senior Researcher Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford   MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?  Response: People have been using nicotine replacement therapy, otherwise known as NRT, to quit smoking for more than 20 years. NRT is available in a range of forms: skin patches, chewing gum, nasal and oral sprays, inhalators, and lozenges. We have good evidence that it is safe and that it helps more people to quit than trying to stop smoking using no medication. We carried out a systematic review to try and find out what the best ways are to use NRT to maximise a person’s chances of quitting successfully. We did this by looking at studies that compared at least two different types of NRT use, such as higher versus lower doses, or longer versus shorter use. The takeaway message from the review is that using more nicotine (in the form of nicotine replacement therapy, ) to aid quitting can help more people to stop smoking in the long-term. There is high quality evidence that using two forms of nicotine replacement at the same time – a patch as well as a faster-acting form such as gum - increases chances of quitting, and evidence also suggests that starting to use nicotine replacement before the day you give up cigarettes can help more people quit than beginning use on the day you stop. There is no evidence that using more nicotine replacement is harmful when used as directed.
Aging, Author Interviews, Exercise - Fitness, Frailty / 04.02.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: "DSC08418" by Debs (\xf2\u203f\xf3)\u266a is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0Cathie Sherrington FAHMS Professor, NHMRC Senior Research Fellow Institute for Musculoskeletal Health The University of Sydney MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What types of exercise were tested or indicated? Response: Falls are a very common problem with at least one in three people aged 60+ falling each year. This review included all types of exercises delivered to people aged 60+ in the general community i.e., not those living in supported accommodation and not among people with particular health conditions such as a stroke or Parkinson’s disease.
Author Interviews, Flu - Influenza, Vaccine Studies / 12.02.2018

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: “#influenza” by J.S. Zolliker is licensed under CC BY 2.0Dr. Vittorio Demicheli Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia SSEpi-SeREMI, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL Alessandria, Piemonte, Italy MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?  Response: The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Only vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally, while mass vaccination of healthy adults is still matter of debate. The aim of this Cochrane Review is to assist informed decision making summarizing research that looks at the effects of immunizing healthy adults with influenza vaccines during influenza seasons. The review process found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. Only around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI_ (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalizations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.