-
Neurology, Psychiatry, and Brain... Sep 2020To describe the main neurological manifestations related to coronavirus infection in humans. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To describe the main neurological manifestations related to coronavirus infection in humans.
METHODOLOGY
A systematic review was conducted regarding clinical studies on cases that had neurological manifestations associated with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. The search was carried out in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and LILACS with the following keywords: "coronavirus" or "Sars-CoV-2" or "COVID-19" and "neurologic manifestations" or "neurological symptoms" or "meningitis" or "encephalitis" or "encephalopathy," following the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included. Neurological alterations after CoV infection may vary from 17.3% to 36.4% and, in the pediatric age range, encephalitis may be as frequent as respiratory disorders, affecting 11 % and 12 % of patients, respectively. The Investigation included 409 patients diagnosed with CoV infection who presented neurological symptoms, with median age range varying from 3 to 62 years. The main neurological alterations were headache (69; 16.8 %), dizziness (57, 13.9 %), altered consciousness (46; 11.2 %), vomiting (26; 6.3 %), epileptic crises (7; 1.7 %), neuralgia (5; 1.2 %), and ataxia (3; 0.7 %). The main presumed diagnoses were acute viral meningitis/encephalitis in 25 (6.1 %) patients, hypoxic encephalopathy in 23 (5.6 %) patients, acute cerebrovascular disease in 6 (1.4 %) patients, 1 (0.2 %) patient with possible acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, 1 (0.2 %) patient with acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy, and 2 (1.4 %) patients with CoV related to Guillain-Barré syndrome.
CONCLUSION
Coronaviruses have important neurotropic potential and they cause neurological alterations that range from mild to severe. The main neurological manifestations found were headache, dizziness and altered consciousness.
PubMed: 32834527
DOI: 10.1016/j.npbr.2020.05.008 -
BMJ Open Ophthalmology Nov 2023To explore the current research about the role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in dysthyroid optic neuropathy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To explore the current research about the role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON).
METHODS
Studies in the literature that focused on OCT, OCTA and DON were retrieved by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinical Trial before 20 June 2023. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The quantitative calculation was performed using Review Manager V.5.3.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. DON group presented lower macular ganglion cell complex in the overall, superior and inferior hemifields compared with the non-DON group. Furthermore, the ganglion cell layer and inner plexiform layer in DON group was thinner in contrast to the non-DON group. The optic nerve head vessel density was lower in the DON group than that in the non-DON group. A reduction of radial peripapillary capillary vessel density could be seen in the DON group than the non-DON group in overall, inside disc, peripapillary, superior-hemifield, temporal and nasal. Besides, the macular superficial retinal capillary layer of non-DON and DON is lower than the healthy control group.
CONCLUSIONS
This study supported the potential value of OCT and OCTA metrics as novel biomarkers of DON. Ophthalmologists should comprehensively consider the retinal structure and microvasculature in dealing with DON.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This systematic review included data from published literature and was exempt from ethics approval. Results would be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at academic conferences engaging clinicians.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023414907.
Topics: Humans; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Optic Disk; Angiography; Retinal Ganglion Cells; Optic Nerve Diseases
PubMed: 37996119
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001379 -
PloS One 2017Our objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality.
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated.
METHODS
Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality.
RESULTS
112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression.
CONCLUSIONS
There are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.
Topics: Child; Humans; Pediatrics; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 28384296
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175213 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023To summarize the existing knowledge about adrenal gland abscesses, including etiology, clinical presentation, common laboratory and imaging findings, management and... (Review)
Review
To summarize the existing knowledge about adrenal gland abscesses, including etiology, clinical presentation, common laboratory and imaging findings, management and overall morbidity and mortality. Systematic literature review. We performed a search in the PubMed database using search terms: 'abscess and adrenal glands', 'adrenalitis', 'infection and adrenal gland', 'adrenal abscess', 'adrenal infection' and 'infectious adrenalitis'. Articles from 2017 to 2022 were included. We found total of 116 articles, and after applying exclusion criteria, data from 73 articles was included in the final statistical analysis. Of 84 patients included in this review, 68 were male (81%), with a mean age of 55 years (range: 29 to 85 years). Weight loss was the most frequent symptom reported in 58.3% patients, followed by fever in 49%. Mean duration of symptoms was 4.5 months. The most common laboratory findings were low cortisol (51.9%), elevated ACTH (43.2%), hyponatremia (88.2%) and anemia (83.3%). Adrenal cultures were positive in 86.4% cases, with (37.3%) being the leading causative agent. Blood cultures were positive in 30% of patients. The majority of the adrenal infections occurred through secondary dissemination from other infectious foci and abscesses were more commonly bilateral (70%). A total of 46.4% of patients developed long-term adrenal insufficiency requiring treatment. Abscess drainage was performed in 7 patients (8.3%) and adrenalectomy was performed in 18 (21.4%) patients. The survival rate was 92.9%. Multivariate analysis showed that the only independent risk factor for mortality was thrombocytopenia ( = 0.048). Our review shows that adrenal abscesses are usually caused by fungal pathogens, and among these, is the most common. The adrenal glands are usually involved in a bilateral fashion and become infected through dissemination from other primary sources of infection. Long-term adrenal insufficiency develops in 46% of patients, which is more common than what is observed in non-infectious etiology of adrenal gland disorders. Mortality is about 7%, and the presence of thrombocytopenia is associated with worse prognosis. Further prospective studies are needed to better characterize optimal testing and treatment duration in patients with this relatively rare but challenging disorder.
PubMed: 37510716
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144601 -
Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM 2023Heatstroke (HS) is a severe form of heat-related illness (HRI) associated with high morbidity and mortality, representing a condition that includes long-term multiorgan...
INTRODUCTION
Heatstroke (HS) is a severe form of heat-related illness (HRI) associated with high morbidity and mortality, representing a condition that includes long-term multiorgan dysfunction and susceptibility to further heat illness.
METHODS
In a systematic review searching Medline PubMed from the studies conducted between 2009 and 2020, 16 papers were identified.
RESULTS
A hallmark symptom of heat stroke is CNS dysfunction (a hallmark sign of HS) which manifests as mental status changes, including agitation, delirium, epilepsy, or coma at the time of the collapse. Acute kidney injury (AKI), gut ischemia, blood clots in the stomach and small intestine, cytoplasmic protein clumps in the spleen, and injury of skeletal muscle (rhabdomyolysis) are all characteristics of peripheral tissue damage. Severe heat stroke tends to be complicated by rhabdomyolysis, especially in patients with exertional heat stroke. Rhabdomyolysis may lead to systemic effects, including the local occurrence of compartment syndrome, hyperkalemic cardiac arrest, and/or lethal disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Untreated heat stroke might exacerbate psychosis, lactic acidosis, consumptive coagulopathy, hematuria, pulmonary edema, renal failure, and other metabolic abnormalities. Core body temperature and level of consciousness are the most significant indicators to diagnose the severity of heat stroke and prevent unfavorable consequences. Heatstroke is a life-threatening illness if not promptly recognized and effectively treated.
DISCUSSION
This review highlighted that core body temperature and white blood cell count are significant contributing factors affecting heat stroke outcomes. Other factors contributing to the poor outcome include old age, low GCS, and prolonged hospital stay. The prevalence of both classic and exertional heatstroke can be reduced by certain simple preventive measures, such as avoiding strenuous activity in hot environments and reducing exposure to heat stress.
PubMed: 37771523
DOI: 10.2147/OAEM.S419028 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2023Abstract. (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Abstract.
INTRODUCTION
Rhabdomyolysis (RM) may cause some complications such as compartment syndrome and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which can affect its prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of the mentioned complications following RM.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using keywords related to compartment syndrome, DIC, and rhabdomyolysis with appropriate combination. Cohort and cross-sectional studies that conducted research on the prevalence of compartment syndrome and DIC in patients with RM were included in the present study. The desired data were extracted from the included studies and meta-analysis was conducted on them to calculate pooled prevalence of these complications.
RESULTS
Twenty articles were included in our systematic review. The rate of compartment syndrome reported in these studies ranged from 0 to 30.7%. Our meta-analysis revealed the pooled prevalence of 4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20 to 7.40) for compartment syndrome in these studies. The pooled prevalence of this complication was 7.1% (95% CI: 2.90 to 16.00) among patients with severe RM and 4.4% (95% CI: 1.80 to 10.00) in traumatic RM. The rate of DIC reported in the included studies ranged from 0 to 40.47%. Our meta-analysis showed the pooled prevalence of 8.3% (95% CI: 03.90 to 16.50) for this complication among RM patients.
CONCLUSION
We reported the rates of compartment syndrome and DIC in RM patients based on rhabdomyolysis etiologies through an epidemiologic systematic review and meta-analysis. The rate of compartment syndrome was slightly higher in patients with severe RM and its rate in patients with traumatic RM was close to the overall rate of compartment syndrome.
PubMed: 37671275
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2083 -
Nature Communications Feb 2021The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was...
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.
Topics: Animals; COVID-19; Clinical Studies as Topic; Data Accuracy; Humans; Pandemics; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Research Design; Time Factors
PubMed: 33574258
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal. Open Forum 2023TikTok (San Jose, CA) is a popular and rapidly growing social media platform. With beauty and skincare among the top 5 most popular categories, TikTok represents an... (Review)
Review
TikTok (San Jose, CA) is a popular and rapidly growing social media platform. With beauty and skincare among the top 5 most popular categories, TikTok represents an important platform for plastic surgery education and communication. However, given the vast array of content shared daily, regulating content for veracity is challenging. It may also be an important and potentially overlooked avenue for the dissemination of inaccurate information pertaining to plastic surgery. This systematic review evaluates TikTok's impact on plastic surgery. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Guidelines, a systematic literature review was performed of the use of TikTok within the plastic surgery field. The following databases were queried: PubMed (National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, MD), EMBASE (Elsevier; Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and PsychInfo (American Psychological Association; Washington, DC). The search captured 31 studies of which 7 were included in the final analysis. The studies examined the following areas: gender-affirming surgery ( = 1), breast reconstruction ( = 1), aesthetic surgical procedures ( = 1), plastic surgeon profiles ( = 1), and profiles of videos relating to plastic surgery hashtags ( = 3). The videos' quality was assessed using the DISCERN scale. Physician videos scored notably higher than nonphysician videos. The mean DISCERN score across all the videos ( = 386) was 1.91 (range: 1.44-3.00), indicating poor quality. TikTok is a popular medium for sharing plastic surgery content. The existing literature has demonstrated overall poor-quality information on plastic surgery, and further study is needed to evaluate its impact in terms of perceptions of the specialty and healthcare behaviors. Future work should focus on promoting accurate, high-quality videos, potentially including a peer-review function for healthcare content. This can leverage TikTok's potential for disseminating content while upholding patient safety.
PubMed: 37868688
DOI: 10.1093/asjof/ojad081 -
PloS One 2017A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project (www.open-project.eu) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Systematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis. Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval.
CONCLUSIONS
Although we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data.
Topics: Humans; Information Dissemination; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Publications
PubMed: 28441452
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176210 -
Patient Related Outcome Measures 2022Patient engagement is increasingly considered to be an important element in the treatment of brain disorders to optimise outcomes for patients, society, and healthcare... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient engagement is increasingly considered to be an important element in the treatment of brain disorders to optimise outcomes for patients, society, and healthcare systems. Nonetheless, scientific research examining methodologies to engage patients with brain diseases in Research and Innovation (R&I) is scarce.
AIM
To review existing scientific evidence regarding the engagement of patients with brain disorders in research and innovation.
METHODS
Studies were retrieved from several bibliographic databases (publication date between January 2016 and April 2019) with pre-specified selection criteria.
RESULTS
In total, 49 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and were reviewed systematically. Results showed that there is limited evidence available on the impact and (cost-) effectiveness of patient engagement in (brain) research and innovation. Most published studies are protocols, guidelines, and discussion articles for patient engagement in health research and innovation. Overall, there exists a general consensus to engage patients in every step of the research procedure. Relevant evidence identified includes principles of engagement, definitions of stakeholder types, key considerations for planning, conducting and disseminating engaged research, potential engagement activities, and examples of promising practices.
DISCUSSION
Findings are inconclusive due to methodological differences. Comparison between studies was difficult due to differences in patients, form of engagements, and total duration of engagement of patients. Experiences of patient engagement mainly concern adherence to medical treatments or participation of "expert patients" in clinical trials, but very rarely the governance of R&I according to the dictates of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). More structuralized, well-conducted and comparable Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are needed to be able to make evidence-based recommendations on how to increase effective patient engagement in research and innovation and assess the impact and (cost)-effectiveness.
PubMed: 36536754
DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S256396