-
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2018Inclusion health focuses on people in extremely poor health due to poverty, marginalisation, and multimorbidity. We aimed to review morbidity and mortality data on four... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Morbidity and mortality in homeless individuals, prisoners, sex workers, and individuals with substance use disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Inclusion health focuses on people in extremely poor health due to poverty, marginalisation, and multimorbidity. We aimed to review morbidity and mortality data on four overlapping populations who experience considerable social exclusion: homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between Jan 1, 2005, and Oct 1, 2015. We included only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, interventional studies, and observational studies that had morbidity and mortality outcomes, were published in English, from high-income countries, and were done in populations with a history of homelessness, imprisonment, sex work, or substance use disorder (excluding cannabis and alcohol use). Studies with only perinatal outcomes and studies of individuals with a specific health condition or those recruited from intensive care or high dependency hospital units were excluded. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted data from published reports. Primary outcomes were measures of morbidity (prevalence or incidence) and mortality (standardised mortality ratios [SMRs] and mortality rates). Summary estimates were calculated using a random effects model.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 7946 articles, of which 337 studies were included for analysis. All-cause standardised mortality ratios were significantly increased in 91 (99%) of 92 extracted datapoints and were 11·86 (95% CI 10·42-13·30; I=94·1%) in female individuals and 7·88 (7·03-8·74; I=99·1%) in men. Summary SMR estimates for the International Classification of Diseases disease categories with two or more included datapoints were highest for deaths due to injury, poisoning, and other external causes, in both men (7·89; 95% CI 6·40-9·37; I=98·1%) and women (18·72; 13·73-23·71; I=91·5%). Disease prevalence was consistently raised across the following categories: infections (eg, highest reported was 90% for hepatitis C, 67 [65%] of 103 individuals for hepatitis B, and 133 [51%] of 263 individuals for latent tuberculosis infection), mental health (eg, highest reported was 9 [4%] of 227 individuals for schizophrenia), cardiovascular conditions (eg, highest reported was 32 [13%] of 247 individuals for coronary heart disease), and respiratory conditions (eg, highest reported was 9 [26%] of 35 individuals for asthma).
INTERPRETATION
Our study shows that homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals experience extreme health inequities across a wide range of health conditions, with the relative effect of exclusion being greater in female individuals than male individuals. The high heterogeneity between studies should be explored further using improved data collection in population subgroups. The extreme health inequity identified demands intensive cross-sectoral policy and service action to prevent exclusion and improve health outcomes in individuals who are already marginalised.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, NHS England, NHS Research Scotland Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office, and the Central and North West London NHS Trust.
Topics: Developed Countries; Health Status Disparities; Ill-Housed Persons; Humans; Morbidity; Mortality; Prisoners; Sex Workers; Social Marginalization; Socioeconomic Factors; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 29137869
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31869-X -
Health Services Research Oct 2019To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability...
OBJECTIVES
To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing.
DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING
Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS
Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests.
CONCLUSIONS
Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 31218671
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Aug 2022Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical...
Running-Related Biomechanical Risk Factors for Overuse Injuries in Distance Runners: A Systematic Review Considering Injury Specificity and the Potentials for Future Research.
BACKGROUND
Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to suggest future research directions.
DESIGN
Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.
RESULTS
Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.
CONCLUSION
This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.
Topics: Biomechanical Phenomena; Cumulative Trauma Disorders; Data Collection; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Running
PubMed: 35247202
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01666-3 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Dec 2023Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure injuries are a fundamental safety concern in older people living in nursing homes. Recent studies report a disparate body of evidence on pressure injury prevalence and incidence in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically quantify the prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries among older people living in nursing homes, and to identify the most frequently occurring PI stage(s) and anatomical location(s).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING(S)
Nursing homes, aged care, or long-term care facilities.
PARTICIPANTS
Older people, 60 years and older.
METHODS
Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on either prevalence or incidence of pressure injuries were included. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards were systematically searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two or more authors and adjudicated by another. Outcomes included pressure injury point prevalence, cumulative incidence, and nursing home acquired pressure injury rate. In meta-analyses, Cochrane's Q test and the I statistic were used to explore heterogeneity. Random effects models were used in the presence of substantial heterogeneity. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
RESULTS
3384 abstracts were screened, and 47 full-text studies included. In 30 studies with 355,784 older people, the pooled pressure injury prevalence for any stage was 11.6 % (95 % CI 9.6-13.7 %). Fifteen studies with 5,421,798 older people reported the prevalence of pressure injury excluding stage I and the pooled estimate was 7.2 % (95 % CI 6.2-8.3 %). The pooled incidence for pressure injury of any stage in four studies with 10,645 older people was 14.3 % (95 % CI 5.5-26.2 %). Nursing home acquired pressure injury rate was reported in six studies with 79,998 older people and the pooled estimate was 8.5 % (95 % CI 4.4-13.5 %). Stage I and stage II pressure injuries were the most common stages reported. The heel (34.1 %), sacrum (27.2 %) and foot (18.4 %) were the three most reported locations of pressure injuries. Meta-regression results indicated a reduction in pressure injury prevalence over the years of data collection.
CONCLUSION
The burden of pressure injuries among older people in nursing homes is similar to hospitalised patients and requires a targeted approach to prevention as is undertaken in hospitals. Future studies using robust methodologies focusing on epidemiology of pressure injury development in older people are needed to conduct as the first step of preventing pressure injuries.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42022328367.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pressure injury rates in nursing homes are comparable to hospital rates indicating the need for targeted programmes similar to those in hospitals.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Incidence; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 37801939
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104605 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2016To analyze the prevalence of falls and frailty syndrome and the association between these two syndromes in the elderly population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the prevalence of falls and frailty syndrome and the association between these two syndromes in the elderly population.
METHOD
Systematic review, without restriction of dates, in English, Portuguese and Spanish languages, in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and in the SciElo virtual library. The association between both variables was extracted from the studies (Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals).
RESULTS
The review included 19 studies published between 2001 and 2015. The prevalence of falls in the frail elderly population was between 6.7% and 44%; in the pre-frail, between 10.0% and 52.0%, and in the non-frail, between 7.6% and 90.4%. The association between both variables presented a value of OR 1.80 (95% CI 1.51-2.13).
CONCLUSION
There is evidence that falls are associated to the frailty in the elderly. Other factors may influence this association, such as age, sex, data collection instrument of the studies, place where they live and the process of senescence.
OBJETIVO
Analisar a prevalência de quedas e da síndrome da fragilidade e a associação entre essas duas síndromes na população idosa.
MÉTODO
Revisão sistemática, sem restrição de datas, nos idiomas inglês, português e espanhol, nas bases de dados PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS e na biblioteca virtual SciElo. A associação entre ambas as variáveis foi extraída dos próprios artigos (Odds Ratio e os Intervalos de Confiança de 95%).
RESULTADOS
Foram incluídos na revisão 19 artigos publicados entre 2001 e 2015. A prevalência de queda no idoso frágil esteve entre 6,7% e 44%; nos pré-frágeis, entre 10,0% e 52,0%, e nos não frágeis, entre 7,6% e 90,4%. A associação entre ambas as variáveis apresentou o valor de OR 1,80 (IC 95% 1,51-2,13).
CONCLUSÃO
Há evidências de que a queda está associada à fragilidade do idoso. Outros fatores podem influenciar essa associação, como idade, sexo, instrumento de coleta de dados dos estudos, local onde vive e o próprio processo de senescência.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Frail Elderly; Humans; Prevalence; Syndrome
PubMed: 28198967
DOI: 10.1590/S0080-623420160000700018 -
Ophthalmology Oct 2018Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
TOPIC
Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to country, region, and global estimates.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Understanding presbyopia epidemiologic factors and correction coverage is critical to overcoming the burden of vision impairment (VI) from uncorrected presbyopia.
METHODS
We performed systematic reviews of presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage. Accepted presbyopia prevalence data were gathered into 5-year age groups from 0 to 90 years or older and meta-analyzed within World Health Organization global burden of disease regions. We developed a model based on amplitude of accommodation adjusted for myopia rates to match the regionally meta-analyzed presbyopia prevalence. Presbyopia spectacle-correction coverage was analyzed against country-level variables from the year of data collection; variation in correction coverage was described best by a model based on the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and health expenditure, with adjustments for age and urbanization. We used the models to estimate presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage in each age group in urban and rural areas of every country in the world, and combined with population data to estimate the number of people with near VI.
RESULTS
We estimate there were 1.8 billion people (prevalence, 25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.0 billion [23%-27%]) globally with presbyopia in 2015, 826 million (95% CI, 686-960 million) of whom had near VI because they had no, or inadequate, vision correction. Global unmet need for presbyopia correction in 2015 is estimated to be 45% (95% CI, 41%-49%). People with presbyopia are more likely to have adequate optical correction if they live in an urban area of a more developed country with higher health expenditure and lower inequality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a significant burden of VI from uncorrected presbyopia, with the greatest burden in rural areas of low-resource countries.
Topics: Eyeglasses; Global Health; Humans; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Visually Impaired Persons
PubMed: 29753495
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain. Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias). There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision). No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia. Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited. Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm. Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial. Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias). Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Delirium; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Inpatients; Medication Review
PubMed: 34826144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013307.pub3 -
JAMA Pediatrics Apr 2022Pediatric guidelines suggest that infants younger than 2 years avoid screen time altogether, while children aged 2 to 5 years receive no more than 1 hour per day.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Pediatric guidelines suggest that infants younger than 2 years avoid screen time altogether, while children aged 2 to 5 years receive no more than 1 hour per day. Although these guidelines have been adopted around the world, substantial variability exists in adherence to the guidelines, and precise estimates are needed to inform public health and policy initiatives.
OBJECTIVE
To derive the pooled prevalence via meta-analytic methods of children younger than 2 years and children aged 2 to 5 years who are meeting guidelines about screen time.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase up to March 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if participants were 5 years and younger and the prevalence of meeting (or exceeding) screen time guidelines was reported.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted all relevant data. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to derive the mean prevalence rates.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines.
RESULTS
From 63 studies, 95 nonoverlapping samples with a total of 89 163 participants were included. For children younger than 2 years, the pooled prevalence of meeting the screen time guideline (0 h/d) was 24.7% (95% CI, 19.0%-31.5%). Moderator analyses revealed that prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines varied as a function of year of data collection (increased over time), measurement method (higher when questionnaires compared with interview), and type of device use (higher when a combination of screen use activities compared with television/movies only). For children aged 2 to 5 years, the mean prevalence of meeting the screen time guideline (1 h/d) was 35.6% (95% CI, 30.6%-40.9%). Moderator analyses revealed that the prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines varied as a function of type of device use (higher when screen time was television/movies only compared with a combination of screen use activities).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that only a minority of children 5 years and younger are meeting screen time guidelines. This highlights the need to provide support and resources to families to best fit evidence-based recommendations into their lives.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Motion Pictures; Prevalence; Screen Time; Surveys and Questionnaires; Television
PubMed: 35157028
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.6386 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional organisations recommend screening all women for IPV rather than asking only women with symptoms (case-finding). Here, we examine the evidence for whether screening benefits women and has no deleterious effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of screening for IPV conducted within healthcare settings on identification, referral, re-exposure to violence, and health outcomes for women, and to determine if screening causes any harm.
SEARCH METHODS
On 17 February 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, six other databases, and two trial registers. We also searched the reference lists of included articles and the websites of relevant organisations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of IPV screening where healthcare professionals either directly screened women face-to-face or were informed of the results of screening questionnaires, as compared with usual care (which could include screening that did not involve a healthcare professional).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standardised estimation of the odds ratio (OR). For continuous data, either a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated. All are presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials that recruited 14,959 women from diverse healthcare settings (antenatal clinics, women's health clinics, emergency departments, primary care) predominantly located in high-income countries and urban settings. The majority of studies minimised selection bias; performance bias was the greatest threat to validity. The overall quality of the body of evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, and imprecision.We excluded five of 13 studies from the primary analysis as they either did not report identification data, or the way in which they did was not consistent with clinical identification by healthcare providers. In the remaining eight studies (n = 10,074), screening increased clinical identification of victims/survivors (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.87, moderate quality evidence).Subgroup analyses suggested increases in identification in antenatal care (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.82 to 11.27, two studies, n = 663, moderate quality evidence); maternal health services (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.87, one study, n = 829, moderate quality evidence); and emergency departments (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.03 to 7.19, three studies, n = 2608, moderate quality evidence); but not in hospital-based primary care (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.94, one study, n = 293, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies (n = 1298) measured referrals to domestic violence support services following clinical identification. We detected no evidence of an effect on referrals (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.64 to 7.86, low quality evidence).Four of 13 studies (n = 2765) investigated prevalence (excluded from main analysis as rates were not clinically recorded); detection of IPV did not differ between face-to-face screening and computer/written-based assessment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.36, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies measured women's experience of violence (three to 18 months after screening) and found no evidence that screening decreased IPV.Only one study reported on women's health with no differences observable at 18 months.Although no study reported adverse effects from screening interventions, harm outcomes were only measured immediately afterwards and only one study reported outcomes at three months.There was insufficient evidence on which to judge whether screening increases uptake of specialist services, and no studies included an economic evaluation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence shows that screening increases the identification of women experiencing IPV in healthcare settings. Overall, however, rates were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of IPV in women seeking healthcare. Pregnant women in antenatal settings may be more likely to disclose IPV when screened, however, rigorous research is needed to confirm this. There was no evidence of an effect for other outcomes (referral, re-exposure to violence, health measures, lack of harm arising from screening). Thus, while screening increases identification, there is insufficient evidence to justify screening in healthcare settings. Furthermore, there remains a need for studies comparing universal screening to case-finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing in order to inform IPV identification policies in healthcare settings.
Topics: Efficiency, Organizational; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Maternal Health Services; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spouse Abuse; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 26200817
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007007.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.
Topics: Adult; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Length of Stay; Noninvasive Ventilation; Pulmonary Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30950507
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005351.pub4