Search

Background: Testosterone is used therapeutically in medical settings. Non-prescribed testosterone use is typically illegal, described as 'enhancement' or 'doping', and considered a problem. However, research has found that some non-prescribed testosterone use may be therapeutic (i.e. self-medication). Little is known about testosterone self-medication. It has been noted among individuals who use image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs), but never systematically explored.Approach: This paper describes the findings of a 4-year ethnographic study in online forums and social media groups frequented by people who use IPEDs. It focusses on 31 men who used enhancement doses of testosterone, but who described some of their testosterone use as 'testosterone replacement therapy' (TRT). In particular, it focuses on the 26 (84%) of these individuals who self-medicated TRT. Data was analysed thematically (using NVivo) in order to answer the question: 'how and why is testosterone self-medicated?'. Using Bacchi's (2016) problematization approach to policy analysis, this paper also asks, 'what happens to the 'problem' of non-prescribed testosterone use if such use is therapeutic?'.Findings: Self-medicated TRT was found to be very similar to TRT as practised in medical contexts. Self-medication was often practised because of an inability to access testosterone through health practitioners (who were either reluctant or unable to prescribe). However, some individuals were found to prefer self-medication because of price, ease of access, reliability of supply, and because health practitioners were perceived as lacking expertise regarding testosterone use.Conclusion: By documenting the therapeutic use of testosterone outside of medical settings, this paper calls into question previous conceptualisations of all illicit testosterone use as 'abuse', and the utility of the repair/enhancement dichotomy as a foundation for discussions of drug use. It suggests that in some cases the problem may not be non-prescribed testosterone use per se, but policies that prevent access to medical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: AMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition.Methods: We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116).Results: We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan.Conclusions: Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical imaging methods such as PET and MRI aid clinical assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Less expensive, less technically demanding, and more widely deployable technologies are needed to expand objective screening for diagnosis, treatment, and research. We previously reported brain tissue near-infrared optical spectroscopy (NIR) in vitro indicating the potential to meet this need.Objective: To determine whether completely non-invasive, clinical, NIR in vivo can distinguish AD patients from age-matched controls and to show the potential of NIR as a clinical screen and monitor of therapeutic efficacy.Methods: NIR spectra were acquired in vivo. Three groups were studied: autopsy-confirmed AD, control and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A feature selection approach using the first derivative of the intensity normalized spectra was used to discover spectral regions that best distinguished "AD-alone" (i.e., without other significant neuropathology) from controls. The approach was then applied to other autopsy-confirmed AD cases and to clinically diagnosed MCI cases.Results: Two regions about 860 and 895 nm completely separate AD patients from controls and differentiate MCI subjects according to the degree of impairment. The 895 nm feature is more important in separating MCI subjects from controls (ratio-of-weights: 1.3); the 860 nm feature is more important for distinguishing MCI from AD (ratio-of-weights: 8.2).Conclusion: These results form a proof of the concept that near-infrared spectroscopy can detect and classify diseased and normal human brain in vivo. A clinical trial is needed to determine whether the two features can track disease progression and monitor potential therapeutic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]