-
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2017Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical emergency in children. Accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial but challenging due to atypical presentations and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diagnostic Accuracy of History, Physical Examination, Laboratory Tests, and Point-of-care Ultrasound for Pediatric Acute Appendicitis in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical emergency in children. Accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial but challenging due to atypical presentations and the inherent difficulty of obtaining a reliable history and physical examination in younger children.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to determine the utility of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) and Emergency Department Point-of-Care Ultrasound (ED-POCUS) in the diagnosis of AA in ED pediatric patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and used a test-treatment threshold model to identify diagnostic findings that could rule in/out AA and obviate the need for further imaging studies, specifically computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radiology department ultrasound (RUS).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS up to October 2016 for studies on ED pediatric patients with abdominal pain. Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality and applicability of included studies. Positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) for diagnostic modalities were calculated and when appropriate data was pooled using Meta-DiSc. Based on the available literature on the test characteristics of different imaging modalities and applying the Pauker-Kassirer method we developed a test-treatment threshold model.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included encompassing 8,605 patients with weighted AA prevalence of 39.2%. Studies had variable quality using the QUADAS-2 tool with most studies at high risk of partial verification bias. We divided studies based on their inclusion criteria into two groups of "undifferentiated abdominal pain" and abdominal pain "suspected of AA." In patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain, history of "pain migration to right lower quadrant (RLQ)" (LR+ = 4.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.59-6.44) and presence of "cough/hop pain" in the physical examination (LR+ = 7.64, 95% CI = 5.94-9.83) were most strongly associated with AA. In patients suspected of AA none of the history or laboratory findings were strongly associated with AA. Rovsing's sign was the physical examination finding most strongly associated with AA (LR+ = 3.52, 95% CI = 2.65-4.68). Among different PAS cutoff points, PAS ≥ 9 (LR+ = 5.26, 95% CI = 3.34-8.29) was most associated with AA. None of the history, physical examination, laboratory tests findings, or PAS alone could rule in or rule out AA in patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain or those suspected of AA. ED-POCUS had LR+ of 9.24 (95% CI = 6.24-13.28) and LR- of 0.17 (95% CI = 0.09-0.30). Using our test-treatment threshold model, positive ED-POCUS could rule in AA without the use of CT and MRI, but negative ED-POCUS could not rule out AA.
CONCLUSION
Presence of AA is more likely in patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain migrating to the RLQ or when cough/hop pain is present in the physical examination. Once AA is suspected, no single history, physical examination, laboratory finding, or score attained on PAS can eliminate the need for imaging studies. Operating characteristics of ED-POCUS are similar to those reported for RUS in literature for diagnosis of AA. In ED patients suspected of AA, a positive ED-POCUS is diagnostic and obviates the need for CT or MRI while negative ED-POCUS is not enough to rule out AA.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Child; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Medical History Taking; Physical Examination; Point-of-Care Systems; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 28214369
DOI: 10.1111/acem.13181 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2015To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases were searched for literature published between September 2007 and December 2013. The applied Mesh terms were "probiotics," "irritable bowel syndrome," and "irritable bowel syndrome treatment." The collected data contained24 clinical trials, of which 15 were eligible for meta-analysis and nine were reviewed systematically. All studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS that investigated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS improvement. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. Relative risk (RR), standardized effect size, and 95%CI were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity with P < 0.05. Funnel plots were constructed and Egger's and Begg-Mazumdar tests were performed to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 1793 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The RR of responders to therapies based on abdominal pain score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics to placebo was 1.96 (95%CI: 1.14-3.36; P = 0.01). RR of responders to therapies based on a global symptom score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.43 (95%CI: 1.13-5.21; P = 0.02). For adequate improvement of general symptoms in IBS patients, the RR of seven included trials (six studies) comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.14 (95%CI: 1.08-4.26; P = 0.03). Distension, bloating, and flatulence were evaluated using an IBS severity scoring system in three trials (two studies) to compare the effect of probiotic therapy in IBS patients with placebo, the standardized effect size of mean differences for probiotics therapy was -2.57 (95%CI: -13.05--7.92).
CONCLUSION
Probiotics reduce pain and symptom severity scores. The results demonstrate the beneficial effects of probiotics in IBS patients in comparison with placebo.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Flatulence; Humans; Intestines; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Recovery of Function; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25780308
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3072 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2014Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) are functional bowel disorders. Evidence suggests that disturbance in the gastrointestinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) are functional bowel disorders. Evidence suggests that disturbance in the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in both conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics in IBS and CIC.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to December 2013). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS or CIC, which compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy, were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 3,216 citations. Forty-three RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of IBS symptoms persisting with probiotics vs. placebo was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89). Probiotics had beneficial effects on global IBS, abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics in IBS were sparse. Probiotics appeared to have beneficial effects in CIC (mean increase in number of stools per week=1.49; 95% CI=1.02-1.96), but there were only two RCTs. Synbiotics also appeared beneficial (RR of failure to respond to therapy=0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.92). Again, trials for prebiotics were few in number, and no definite conclusions could be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
Probiotics are effective treatments for IBS, although which individual species and strains are the most beneficial remains unclear. Further evidence is required before the role of prebiotics or synbiotics in IBS is known. The efficacy of all three therapies in CIC is also uncertain.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Constipation; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25070051
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.202 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients. Probiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; low-certainty evidence). It is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. Synbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated). Synbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I = 18%; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias. There were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic. There was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision. There were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.
Topics: Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Inulin; Probiotics; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Abdominal Pain; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36799531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012849.pub2 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) May 2023Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials using ROME IV criteria.
BACKGROUND
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder which affects a great number of patients globally. Clinical trials and meta-analyses have evaluated different therapies for IBS. Some of them have shown that probiotics play a significant role in the management of IBS-patients. Nevertheless, results are controversial, and the efficacy of the administration of probiotics remains to be confirmed, especially in regard to which type of probiotic-strains are beneficial.
AIM
The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of the administration of probiotics to IBS-patients with a diagnosis based on Rome IV criteria, which is performed for the first time.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane) were searched until 26.01.2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the administration of probiotics in adult IBS-patients, who were categorized according to the Rome IV criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB) 2.0. Weighted and standardized mean difference with the 95% confidence intervals were used for the synthesis of the results. Primary outcomes were the decrease of IBS-Symptom Severity Score (IBS-SSS) and decrease of abdominal pain. The secondary outcomes were the improvement in quality of life (QoL) and the decrease of bloating. Lastly, the adverse effects of probiotics were evaluated. The protocol of the study has been registered at protocols.io (DOI dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.14egn218yg5d/v1).
RESULTS
Six double-blind (N = 970) placebo-control RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and overall, nine different strains of probiotics were examined. No significant reduction in IBS-SSS (WMD -43.2, 95% CI -87.5 to 1.0, I = 82.9%) was demonstrated, whereas a significant decrease regarding abdominal pain (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.35, I = 92,2) was shown. Furthermore, no correlation between improvement of QoL and the use of probiotics (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.00, I = 93,9%) was shown. However, probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in bloating (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09, I = 36,0%). A qualitative synthesis was conducted about adverse events and showed that the use of probiotics' is safe without severe adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The administration of probiotics to IBS-patients demonstrated a positive effect on pain and bloating, but due to significant heterogeneity and confounding factors, that were not examined in the included studies, a definitive statement cannot be made. Moreover, probiotics did not lead to an improvement in other parameters. There is a need for larger RCTs in IBS-patients diagnosed according to Rome IV (not III) criteria and especially it is essential to be conducted RCTs which examine the administration of specific strains and have similar methodological characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Abdominal Pain; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37031468
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.03.019 -
Nutrients Jun 2023Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are common in children and adolescents. In recent years, interest in the role of diet in the treatment of FGIDs has... (Review)
Review
Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are common in children and adolescents. In recent years, interest in the role of diet in the treatment of FGIDs has increased. Currently, interest focuses on the low-FODMAP diet (LFD), the fructose- or lactose-restricted diet (FRD or LRD), the gluten-free diet (GFD), and the Mediterranean diet (MD). In this review, we focus on the role of these dietary patterns in the FGIDs most commonly diagnosed in clinical practice, namely irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional abdominal pain (FAP), functional dyspepsia (FD), and functional constipation (FC). Fifteen clinical trials were systematically reviewed (both RCTs and single-arm clinical trials). We demonstrated the lack of high-quality intervention trials. Based on current evidence, low-FODMAP diet, LRD, FRD, and GFD have no place in daily clinical practice for the management of children and adolescents with FGIDs. Nevertheless, some patients with IBS or RAP may experience some benefit from the use of a low-FODMAP diet or FRD/LRD. Limited data suggest that MD may be promising in the management of FGIDs, especially in IBS patients, but more data are required to investigate the mechanisms of its protective effects.
Topics: Humans; Child; Adolescent; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Abdominal Pain; Diet, Gluten-Free; Constipation; Fermentation; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Monosaccharides
PubMed: 37375612
DOI: 10.3390/nu15122708 -
Surgery Dec 2023Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).
RESULTS
Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Hospitalization; Length of Stay; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease
PubMed: 37806859
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.08.029 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled.
RESULTS
We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
Topics: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Abdominal Pain; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37541528
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018 -
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Chronic diarrhea is defined as more than 3 bowel movements per day, or loose stools, or stool weight >200 g/day for at least 4 weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include...
BACKGROUND
Chronic diarrhea is defined as more than 3 bowel movements per day, or loose stools, or stool weight >200 g/day for at least 4 weeks. Accompanying symptoms may include urgency, abdominal pain, or cramps.
SUMMARY
A number of causes have to be considered, including inflammatory, neoplastic, malabsorptive, infective, vascular, and functional gastrointestinal diseases. Other causes include food intolerances, side effects of drugs, or postsurgical conditions. Diarrhea may also be symptom of a systemic disease, like diabetes or hyperthyroidism. Special patient groups, like the very elderly and immunocompromised patients, pose special challenges. This review follows a question-answer style and addresses questions raised on the intersection of primary and secondary care. What do you mean by diarrhea? Why is it important to distinguish between acute or chronic diarrhea? How shall the patient with chronic diarrhea be approached? How can history and physical exam help? How can routine laboratory tests help in categorizing diarrhea? Which additional laboratory tests may be helpful? How to proceed in undiagnosed or intractable diarrhea? What are the treatment options in patients with chronic diarrhea? Key Messages: Acute diarrhea is usually of infectious origin with the main treatment goal of preventing water and electrolyte disturbances. Chronic diarrhea is usually not of infectious origin and may be the symptom of a large number of gastrointestinal and general diseases or drug side effects. In undiagnosed or intractable diarrhea, the question shall be raised whether the appropriate tests have been performed and interpreted correctly.
Topics: Aged; Chronic Disease; Defecation; Diarrhea; Feces; Gastroenterologists; Humans; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 33588424
DOI: 10.1159/000515219 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jul 2021The ability to accurately predict early progression of dengue to severe disease is crucial for patient triage and clinical management. Previous systematic reviews and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The ability to accurately predict early progression of dengue to severe disease is crucial for patient triage and clinical management. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found significant heterogeneity in predictors of severe disease due to large variation in these factors during the time course of the illness. We aimed to identify factors associated with progression to severe dengue disease that are detectable specifically in the febrile phase.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify predictors identifiable during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease defined according to WHO criteria. Eight medical databases were searched for studies published from Jan 1, 1997, to Jan 31, 2020. Original clinical studies in English assessing the association of factors detected during the febrile phase with progression to severe dengue were selected and assessed by three reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Only predictors reported in at least four studies were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane Q and I statistics, and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. We did subgroup analyses of studies with children and adults. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018093363.
FINDINGS
Of 6643 studies identified, 150 articles were included in the systematic review, and 122 articles comprising 25 potential predictors were included in the meta-analyses. Female patients had a higher risk of severe dengue than male patients in the main analysis (2674 [16·2%] of 16 481 vs 3052 [10·5%] of 29 142; odds ratio [OR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26) but not in the subgroup analysis of studies with children. Pre-existing comorbidities associated with severe disease were diabetes (135 [31·3%] of 431 with vs 868 [16·0%] of 5421 without; crude OR 4·38 [2·58-7·43]), hypertension (240 [35·0%] of 685 vs 763 [20·6%] of 3695; 2·19 [1·36-3·53]), renal disease (44 [45·8%] of 96 vs 271 [16·0%] of 1690; 4·67 [2·21-9·88]), and cardiovascular disease (nine [23·1%] of 39 vs 155 [8·6%] of 1793; 2·79 [1·04-7·50]). Clinical features during the febrile phase associated with progression to severe disease were vomiting (329 [13·5%] of 2432 with vs 258 [6·8%] of 3797 without; 2·25 [1·87-2·71]), abdominal pain and tenderness (321 [17·7%] of 1814 vs 435 [8·1%] of 5357; 1·92 [1·35-2·74]), spontaneous or mucosal bleeding (147 [17·9%] of 822 vs 676 [10·8%] of 6235; 1·57 [1·13-2·19]), and the presence of clinical fluid accumulation (40 [42·1%] of 95 vs 212 [14·9%] of 1425; 4·61 [2·29-9·26]). During the first 4 days of illness, platelet count was lower (standardised mean difference -0·34 [95% CI -0·54 to -0·15]), serum albumin was lower (-0·5 [-0·86 to -0·15]), and aminotransferase concentrations were higher (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] 1·06 [0·54 to 1·57] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] 0·73 [0·36 to 1·09]) among individuals who progressed to severe disease. Dengue virus serotype 2 was associated with severe disease in children. Secondary infections (vs primary infections) were also associated with severe disease (1682 [11·8%] of 14 252 with vs 507 [5·2%] of 9660 without; OR 2·26 [95% CI 1·65-3·09]). Although the included studies had a moderate to high risk of bias in terms of study confounding, the risk of bias was low to moderate in other domains. Heterogeneity of the pooled results varied from low to high on different factors.
INTERPRETATION
This analysis supports monitoring of the warning signs described in the 2009 WHO guidelines on dengue. In addition, testing for infecting serotype and monitoring platelet count and serum albumin, AST, and ALT concentrations during the febrile phase of illness could improve the early prediction of severe dengue.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Collaborative Project to Increase Production of Rural Doctors, and Royal Thai Government.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Coinfection; Comorbidity; Disease Progression; Fever; Humans; Platelet Count; Risk Factors; Serum Albumin; Severe Dengue; Sex Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 33640077
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30601-0