Rehabilitation of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and comorbidities: unmet needs

Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a multifactorial autoimmune disease of unknown etiology, primarily affecting the joints, then extra-articular manifestations can occur. Due to its complexity, which is based on an incompletely elucidated pathophysiological mechanism, good RA management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The clinical status of RA patients has improved in recent years due to medical advances in diagnosis and treatment, that have made it possible to reduce disease activity and prevent systemic complications. The most promising results were obtained by developing disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the class to which conventional synthetic, biologic, and targeted synthetic drugs belong. Furthermore, ongoing drug development has led to obtaining molecules with improved efficacy and safety profiles, but further research is needed until RA turns into a curable pathology. In the present work, we offer a comprehensive perspective on the management of RA, by centralizing the existing data provided by significant literature, emphasizing the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis associated with optimal personalized treatment in order to achieve better outcomes for RA patients. In addition, this study suggests future research perspectives in the treatment of RA that could lead to higher efficacy and safety profiles and lower financial costs.

Introduction Current international guidelines recommend aerobic, resistance, and combined exercises for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In our study, we conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative impact of different exercise training modalities on glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and weight loss in patients with T2DM. Methods We searched five electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the differences between different exercise training modalities for patients with T2DM. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool. Network meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference the ratio of the mean and absolute risk differences. Data were analyzed using R-3.4.0. Results A total of 37 studies with 2208 patients with T2DM were included in our study. Both supervised aerobic and supervised resistance exercises showed a significant reduction in HbA1c compared to no exercise (0.30% lower, 0.30% lower, respectively), however, there was a less reduction when compared to combined exercise (0.17% higher, 0.23% higher). Supervised aerobic also presented more significant improvement than no exercise in fasting plasma glucose (9.38 mg/dl lower), total cholesterol (20.24 mg/dl lower), triacylglycerol (19.34 mg/dl lower), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (11.88 mg/dl lower). Supervised resistance showed more benefit than no exercise in improving systolic blood pressure (3.90 mmHg lower]) and total cholesterol (22.08 mg/dl lower]. In addition, supervised aerobic exercise was more powerful in improving HbA1c and weight loss than unsupervised aerobic (HbA1c: 0.60% lower; weight loss: 5.02 kg lower) and unsupervised resistance (HbA1c: 0.53% lower) exercises. Conclusion Compared with either supervised aerobic or supervised resistance exercise alone, combined exercise showed more pronounced improvement in HbA1c levels; however, there was a less marked improvement in some cardiovascular risk factors. In terms of weight loss, there were no significant differences among the combined, supervised aerobic, and supervised resistance exercises. Trial registration Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42017067518. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-018-0703-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.