Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care. Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa = 0.86). We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions. Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.

Background: To our knowledge, no meta-analysis to date has assessed the efficacy of mobile phone apps to promote weight loss and increase physical activity. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to compare the efficacy of mobile phone apps compared with other approaches to promote weight loss and increase physical activity. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies identified by a search of PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus from their inception through to August 2015. Two members of the study team (EG-F, GF-M) independently screened studies for inclusion criteria and extracted data. We included all controlled studies that assessed a mobile phone app intervention with weight-related health measures (ie, body weight, body mass index, or waist circumference) or physical activity outcomes. Net change estimates comparing the intervention group with the control group were pooled across studies using random-effects models. Results: We included 12 articles in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, use of a mobile phone app was associated with significant changes in body weight (kg) and body mass index (kg/m2) of -1.04 kg (95% CI -1.75 to -0.34; I2 = 41%) and -0.43 kg/m2 (95% CI -0.74 to -0.13; I2 = 50%), respectively. Moreover, a nonsignificant difference in physical activity was observed between the two groups (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.87; I2 = 93%). These findings were remarkably robust in the sensitivity analysis. No publication bias was shown. Conclusions: Evidence from this study shows that mobile phone app-based interventions may be useful tools for weight loss.

Background:It is hypothesized that low selenium concentrations are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and that selenium supplements prevent coronary heart disease. Objective:The objective was to perform a meta-analysis on the association of selenium biomarkers with coronary heart disease endpoints in observational studies and on the efficacy of selenium supplements in preventing coronary heart disease endpoints in randomized trials. Design:The MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies conducted from 1966 through 2005. Relative risks were pooled by using an inverse-variance weighted random-effects model. Results:Twenty-five observational studies (14 cohort and 11 case-control studies) that measured blood or toenail selenium concentrations and 6 randomized trials that evaluated supplements containing selenium met our inclusion criteria. The pooled relative risk in a comparison of the highest with the lowest selenium concentration categories was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.99) in cohort studies and 0.43 (0.29, 0.66) in case-control studies. In observational studies, a 50% increase in selenium concentrations was associated with a 24% (7%, 38%) reduction in coronary heart disease risk. In randomized trials, the pooled relative risk in a comparison of supplements containing selenium with placebo was 0.89 (0.68, 1.17). Conclusions:Selenium concentrations were inversely associated with coronary heart disease risk in observational studies. Because observational studies have provided misleading evidence for other antioxidants, the validity of this association is uncertain. Few randomized trials have addressed the cardiovascular efficacy of selenium supplementation, and their findings are still inconclusive. Evidence from large ongoing trials is needed to establish low selenium concentrations as a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Currently, selenium supplements should not be recommended for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Background: Epidemiologic studies have shown an inverse association between the frequency of nut consumption and body mass index (BMI) and risk of obesity. However, clinical trials that evaluated nut consumption on adiposity have been scarce and inconclusive.