instruction:
In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.
question:
PURPOSE Anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters.
METHODS MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to May 2006, supplemented by manual searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies.
RESULTS Fifteen trials were included. Unfractionated heparin infusion, oral fixed low-dose vitamin K antagonist, and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin were evaluated. For all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined), the summary relative risks ranged from 0.31 to 0.73 (all achieved statistical significance). For symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, the summary relative risks ranged from 0.28 to 0.72, but did not achieve statistical significance for any individual regimen.
CONCLUSION Anticoagulant prophylaxis is effective for preventing all catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in patients with central venous catheters. The effectiveness for preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism, including pulmonary embolism, remains uncertain.
answer:
Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis.

question:
Oncogene-induced senescence (OIS) is crucial for tumour suppression. Senescent cells implement a complex pro-inflammatory response termed the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). The SASP reinforces senescence, activates immune surveillance and paradoxically also has pro-tumorigenic properties. Here, we present evidence that the SASP can also induce paracrine senescence in normal cells both in culture and in human and mouse models of OIS in vivo. Coupling quantitative proteomics with small-molecule screens, we identified multiple SASP components mediating paracrine senescence, including TGF- family ligands, VEGF, CCL2 and CCL20. Amongst them, TGF- ligands play a major role by regulating p15(INK4b) and p21(CIP1). Expression of the SASP is controlled by inflammasome-mediated IL-1 signalling. The inflammasome and IL-1 signalling are activated in senescent cells and IL-1 expression can reproduce SASP activation, resulting in senescence. Our results demonstrate that the SASP can cause paracrine senescence and impact on tumour suppression and senescence in vivo.
answer:
A complex secretory program orchestrated by the inflammasome controls paracrine senescence

question:
Background Extensive debate exists in the healthcare community over whether outcomes of medical care at teaching hospitals and other healthcare units are better or worse than those at the respective nonteaching ones. Thus, our goal was to systematically evaluate the evidence pertaining to this question. Methods and Findings We reviewed all studies that compared teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures for mortality or any other patient outcome, regardless of health condition. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, contact with experts, and literature cross-referencing. Data were extracted on setting, patients, data sources, author affiliations, definition of compared groups, types of diagnoses considered, adjusting covariates, and estimates of effect for mortality and for each other outcome. Overall, 132 eligible studies were identified, including 93 on mortality and 61 on other eligible outcomes (22 addressed both). Synthesis of the available adjusted estimates on mortality yielded a summary relative risk of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.931.00) for teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.991.10) for minor teaching versus nonteaching ones. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 72% for the main analysis). Results were similar in studies using clinical and those using administrative databases. No differences were seen in the 14 studies fully adjusting for volume/experience, severity, and comorbidity (relative risk 1.01). Smaller studies did not differ in their results from larger studies. Differences were seen for some diagnoses (e.g., significantly better survival for breast cancer and cerebrovascular accidents in teaching hospitals and significantly better survival from cholecystectomy in nonteaching hospitals), but these were small in magnitude. Other outcomes were diverse, but typically teaching healthcare structures did not do better than nonteaching ones. Conclusions The available data are limited by their nonrandomized design, but overall they do not suggest that a healthcare facility's teaching status on its own markedly improves or worsens patient outcomes. Differences for specific diseases cannot be excluded, but are likely to be small.
answer:
Patient Outcomes with Teaching Versus Nonteaching Healthcare: A Systematic Review