Explore the vast range of titles available.

Human amniotic fluid contains two morphologically-distinct sub-populations of stem cells with regenerative potential, spindle-shaped (SS-hAFSCs) and round-shaped human amniotic fluid stem cells (RS-hAFSCs). However, it is unclear whether morphological differences correlate with functionality, and this lack of knowledge limits their translational applications. Here, we show that SS-hAFSCs and RS-hAFSCs differ in their neuro-protective ability, demonstrating that a single contralateral injection of SS-hAFSCs into hypoxic-ischemic P7 mice conferred a 47% reduction in hippocampal tissue loss and 43–45% reduction in TUNEL-positive cells in the hippocampus and striatum 48 hours after the insult, decreased microglial activation and TGFβ1 levels, and prevented demyelination. On the other hand, RS-hAFSCs failed to show such neuro-protective effects. It is possible that SS-hAFSCs exert their neuroprotection via endoglin-dependent inhibition of TGFβ1 signaling in target cells. These findings identify a sub-population of CD117 + CD90 + CD105 + stem cells as a promising source for the neuro-protection of the developing brain.

Human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have huge potential for regenerative medicine. In particular, the use of pluripotent stem cell‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (PSC‐MSCs) overcomes the hurdle of replicative senescence associated with the in vitro expansion of primary cells and has increased therapeutic benefits in comparison to the use of various adult sources of MSCs in a wide range of animal disease models. On the other hand, fetal MSCs exhibit faster growth kinetics and possess longer telomeres and a wider differentiation potential than adult MSCs. Here, for the first time, we compare the therapeutic potential of PSC‐MSCs (ES‐MSCs from embryonic stem cells) to fetal MSCs (AF‐MSCs from the amniotic fluid), demonstrating that ES‐MSCs have a superior neuroprotective potential over AF‐MSCs in the mouse brain following hypoxia‐ischemia. Further, we demonstrate that nuclear factor (NF)‐κB‐stimulated interleukin (IL)‐13 production contributes to an increased in vitro anti‐inflammatory potential of ES‐MSC‐conditioned medium (CM) over AF‐MSC‐CM, thus suggesting a potential mechanism for this observation. Moreover, we show that induced pluripotent stem cell‐derived MSCs (iMSCs) exhibit many similarities to ES‐MSCs, including enhanced NF‐κB signaling and IL‐13 production in comparison to AF‐MSCs. Future studies should assess whether iMSCs also exhibit similar neuroprotective potential to ES‐MSCs, thus presenting a potential strategy to overcome the ethical issues associated with the use of embryonic stem cells and providing a potential source of cells for autologous use against neonatal hypoxic‐ischemic encephalopathy in humans. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:439–449 We hypothesize that the increased nuclear factor (NF)‐κB activation and, therefore, higher levels of interleukin (IL)‐13 production observed in pluripotent stem cell‐derived mesenchymal stem cells contributes to the increased anti‐inflammatory potential of these cells compared with other types of mesenchymal stem cells.

IntroductionReviews of commercial and publicly available smartphone (mobile) health applications (mHealth app reviews) are being undertaken and published. However, there is variation in the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews, with no existing reporting guidelines. Building on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we aim to develop the Consensus for APP Review Reporting Items (CAPPRRI) guidance, to support the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews. This scoping review of published mHealth app reviews will explore their alignment, deviation, and modification to the PRISMA 2020 items for systematic reviews and identify a list of possible items to include in CAPPRRI.Method and analysisWe are following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step process. Patient and public contributors, mHealth app review, digital health research and evidence synthesis experts, healthcare professionals and a specialist librarian gave feedback on the methods. We will search SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, AMED, EMBASE, Medline, APA PsycINFO and the ACM Digital Library for articles reporting mHealth app reviews and use a two-step screening process to identify eligible articles. Information on whether the authors have reported, or how they have modified the PRISMA 2020 items in their reporting, will be extracted. Data extraction will also include the article characteristics, protocol and registration information, review question frameworks used, information about the search and screening process, how apps have been evaluated and evidence of stakeholder engagement. This will be analysed using a content synthesis approach and presented using descriptive statistics and summaries. This protocol is registered on OSF (https://osf.io/5ahjx).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications (shared on our project website and on the EQUATOR Network website where the CAPPRRI guidance has been registered as under development), conference presentations and blog and social media posts in lay language.

Objectives There is no guidance to support the reporting of systematic reviews of mobile health (mhealth) apps (app reviews), so authors attempt to use/modify the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). There is a need for reporting guidance, building on PRISMA where appropriate, tailored to app reviews. The objectives were to describe the reporting quality of published mHealth app reviews, identify the need for, and develop potential candidate items for a reporting guideline. Materials and Methods A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O’Malley approaches. App reviews were identified in January 2024 from SCOPUS, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, snowballing reference lists, and forward citation searches. Data were extracted into Excel and analyzed using descriptive statistics and content synthesis, using PRISMA items as a framework. Results One hundred and seventy-one app reviews were identified, published from 2013 to 2024. Protocols were developed for 11% of the reviews, and only 52% reported the geographical location of the app markets. Few reported the duplicate removal process (12%), device and operating system used (30%), or made clear recommendations for the best-rated apps (18%). Nineteen PRISMA items were not reported by most (>85%) reviews, and 4 were modified by >30% of the reviews. Involvement of patient/public contributors (4%) or other stakeholders (11%) was infrequent. Overall, 34 candidate items and 10 subitems were identified to be considered for a new guideline. Discussion and Conclusion App reviews were inconsistently reported, and many PRISMA items were not deemed relevant. Consensus work is needed to revise and prioritize the candidate items for a reporting guideline for systematic app reviews. Lay Summary While researchers sometimes review mobile health apps (mHealth apps), the methods for this are quite new and there is no clear guidance on how to report these reviews. This study examined how well current mHealth app is reported and suggests items for a new reporting guideline. Researchers looked at 171 mHealth app reviews from 2013 to 2024. They found that many reviews did not say how they removed duplicate apps (only 12% of the reviews), which country the apps were from (52%), the devices and operating systems used to test the apps (30%), and recommendations for the best apps (18%). Few reviews involved patients or the public (4%) or other stakeholders (11%). Existing guidelines for other types of reviews were often changed or not relevant. The study shows that mHealth app reviews often lack details. A new reporting guideline is needed. The study suggests 34 items (pieces of information) that could be included. The next step is to agree on these items and how to present them.

Suboptimal diets, sedentary lifestyles, overweight and obesity expose two-thirds of women in England aged over 50 to a heightened risk of lifestyle-related morbidities. The UK's NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme now reaches 75% of all women aged 53–64 but provides only mammography screening. This cross-sectional survey of 413 women attending two NHS breast screening clinics in North Yorkshire found that the majority of women were interested in having diet and exercise advice at screening clinics and anticipated a neutral or positive effect on their future screening appointments. Interest was highest among older, less educated and overweight women suggesting that this may be a particularly effective medium for reaching higher risk subgroups. Women showed most interest in problem-solving advice, which provided short-term, life-enhancing benefits such as looking and feeling better, having more energy, losing weight and reducing menopausal symptoms, as well as potentially reducing their disease risk. Most appeared to find doing sufficient exercise more problematic than eating healthily and this might be exacerbated by low awareness of exercise guidelines. Given a choice, preferences were to access advice in leaflets or one to one from an expert; however, many younger, professional women were also interested in computer access. Findings indicate the need first for flexible, multi-level access, combining some broad-based information dissemination with pathways to more personalized support and secondly for the relevant ‘consumer benefits’ associated with better diet and exercise to be promoted as well as longer-term disease prevention. Overall, this study indicates that the UK's NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme may be uniquely placed to provide health-enhancing advice as well as mammography screening to the majority of women in England, throughout the course of their mid-life.