Person: SOYSAL, PINAR
6 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Publication Open Access Social environmental impact of COVID-19 and erectile dysfunction: an explorative review.(2021-09-24T00:00:00Z) Pizzol, D; Shin, J I; Trott, M; Ilie, P-C; Ippoliti, S; Carrie, A M; Ghayda, R A; Lozano, J M O; Muyor, J M; Butler, L; McDermott, D T; Barnett, Y; Markovic, L; Grabovac, Igor; Koyanagi, A; Soysal, PINAR; Tully, M A; Veronese, N; Smith, L; SOYSAL, PINARBackground: To date, no attempt has been made to collate literature on the relationship between the social environmental impact of COVID-19 and erectile dysfunction. The aim of this explorative review was to assess and compare the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in male healthcare workers and males during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A systematic review of major databases from inception to February 2021 was conducted. Prevalence data were extracted, and a random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Outcomes: The pooled prevalence of ED amongst healthcare workers working in COVID-19 specific environments, and non-healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 52 initial studies, six were included for the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of ED in healthcare workers working in a COVID-19 environment was 63.6% (95% CI 20.3-92.3%), and in non-healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was 31.9% (95% CI 19.5-47.6%). Conclusion: The prevalence of ED in healthcare workers working in COVID-19 environments was higher than representative samples and is of concern. Sexual health (and by extension, overall health), should be a priority when considering ways to care for this population. Considering the social environmental impact of COVID-19 on sexual health and in particular on ED, it is important to provide adequate psychological support systems and to promote quality of life with particular attention to sexual health.Publication Open Access Handgrip strength and health outcomes: Umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies.(2020-06-19T00:00:00Z) Soysal, PINAR; Hurst, C; Demurtas, J; Firth, J; Howden, R; Yang, L; Tully, MA; Koyanagi, A; Ilie, PC; López-Sánchez, GF; Schwingshackl, L; Veronese, N; Smith, L; SOYSAL, PINARPurpose: The aim of the present study was to assess both the credibility and strength of evidence arising from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies on handgrip strength and health outcomes. Methods: An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies was conducted. We assessed meta-analyses of observational studies based on random-effect summary effect sizes and their p values, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, small-study effects, and excess significance. We graded the evidence from convincing (Class I) to weak (Class IV). Results: From 504 articles returned in a search of the literature, 8 systematic reviews were included in our review, with a total of 11 outcomes. Overall, 9 of the 11 of the outcomes reported nominally significant summary results (p < 0.05), with 4 associations surviving the application of the more stringent p value (p < 10-6). No outcome presented convincing evidence. Three associations showed Class II evidence (i.e., highly suggestive): (1) higher handgrip values at baseline were associated with a minor reduction in mortality risk in the general population (n = 34 studies; sample size = 1,855,817; relative risk = 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.78), (2) cardiovascular death risk in mixed populations (n = 15 studies; relative risk = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.78-0.91), and (3) incidence of disability (n = 7 studies; relative risk = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.66-0.87). Conclusion: The present results show that handgrip strength is a useful indicator for general health status and specifically for early all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as disability. To further inform intervention strategies, future research is now required to fully understand mechanisms linking handgrip strength scores to these health outcomes.Publication Open Access Health behaviours and mental and physical health status in older adults with a history of homelessness: a cross-sectional population-based study in England.(2019-06-14) López-Sánchez, GF; Jackson, SE; Veronese, N; Moller, E; Johnstone, J; Firth, J; Grabovac, I; Yang, L; SOYSAL, PINARObjectives: This study compared (1) levels of engagement in lifestyle risk behaviours and (2) mental and physical health status in individuals who have previously been homeless to those of individuals who have not. Design: Cross-sectional. Participants: Data were from participants (n=6931) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. : Measures : Participants reported whether they had ever been homeless. We used regression models to analyse associations between homelessness and (1) cigarette smoking, daily alcohol consumption and physical inactivity, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates (age, sex, ethnicity, highest level of education, marital status and household non-pension wealth) and (2) self-rated health, limiting long-standing illness, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, quality of life and loneliness, adjusting for sociodemographics and health behaviours. Results: 104 participants (1.5%) reported having been homeless. Individuals who had been homeless were significantly more likely to be physically inactive (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.52), report fair/bad/very bad self-rated health (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86), have a limiting long-standing illness (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.30) and be depressed (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.05) and scored lower on measures of life satisfaction (17.34 vs 19.96, p<0.001) and quality of life (39.02 vs 41.21, p=0.013). Rates of smoking (20.2% vs 15.4%, p=0.436), daily drinking (27.6% vs 22.8%, p=0.385) and loneliness (27.1% vs 21.0%, p=0.080) were also elevated. Conclusions: Those who were once homeless have poorer mental and physical health outcomes and are more likely to be physically inactive. Interventions to improve their health and quality of life are required.Publication Open Access The relationship between polypharmacy and trajectories of cognitive decline in people with dementia: A large representative cohort study.(2019-06-01) Perera, G; Onder, G; Petrovic, M; Cherubini, A; Maggi, S; Soysal, PINAR; Shetty, H; Molokhia, M; Isik, AT; Smith, L; Stubbs, B; Stewart, R; Veronese, N; Mueller, C; SOYSAL, PINARPublication Open Access Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Diverse Physical Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies.(2019-08-11) Grabovac, I; Soysal, PINAR; Veronese, N; Stefanac, S; Haider, S; Koyanagi, A; Meilinger, M; ABBS, AD; Stubbs, B; McDermott, DT; Firth, J; Di, Gennaro; Demurtas, J; Jackson, SE; Yang, L; Smith, L; SOYSAL, PINARPublication Open Access Relationship Between Cannabis Use and Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.(2019-11-01) Soysal, PINAR; Pizzol, D; Demurtas, J; Stubbs, B; Mason, C; Isik, AT; Smith, L; Veronese, N; SOYSAL, PINARGlobally, there is increasing usage and legalization of cannabis. In addition to its reported therapeutic effects, cannabis has several health risks which are not clearly defined. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most common male sexual disorder and there are plausible mechanisms linking cannabis use to ED. No attempt has been made to collate the literature on this topic. The aim of this review was to summarize the prevalence and risk of ED in cannabis users compared to controls. A systematic review of major databases from inception to January 1, 2019, without language restriction, was undertaken to identify studies investigating cannabis use and presence of ED. The analysis compared the prevalence of ED in cannabis users versus controls. Consequently, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated, applying a random-effect model. Five case–control studies were included with data from 3,395 healthy men, 1,035 using cannabis (smoking) and 2,360 nonusers. The overall prevalence of ED in cannabis users was 69.1% (95% CI: 38.0–89.1), whilst the correspondent figure in controls was 34.7% (95% CI: 20.3–52.7). The OR of ED in cannabis users was almost four times that of controls (OR = 3.83; 95% CI: 1.30–11.28; p = .02), even if characterized by high heterogeneity (I2 = 90%) and the prediction intervals overlapped 1.00 (95% CI: 0.35–7.26). Data suggest that ED is twice as high in cannabis users compared to controls. Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm/refute this and explore if a dose–response relationship between cannabis and ED may be evident.