-
European Urology Aug 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Risk Factors; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 37202314
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Jan 2024The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine.
The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.
Topics: Humans; United States; Venous Insufficiency; Radiology, Interventional; Sclerotherapy; Saphenous Vein; Treatment Outcome; Varicose Veins; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Lower Extremity; Cardiology
PubMed: 37652254
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.08.011 -
Journal of the American Medical... Nov 2023Choosing the optimal sarcopenia screening tool for a specific clinical scenario is challenging. We aimed to summarize all validated sarcopenia screening tools with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Choosing the optimal sarcopenia screening tool for a specific clinical scenario is challenging. We aimed to summarize all validated sarcopenia screening tools with diagnostic accuracy tested in one or more study populations.
DESIGN
Scoping review.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Hospitals, nursing homes, communities, or health checkups.
METHODS
We systematically searched 3 databases in April 2022: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Two review authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. The included tools' contents, characteristics, and number of citations were summarized and visualized.
RESULTS
We summarized 102 diagnostic accuracy studies involving 53 screening tools, classified into 7 groups: questionnaires (n = 13); serum biomarkers (n = 10); formulas, algorithms, and models (n = 9); physical ability tests (n = 9); integration tools (n = 7); anthropometric indices (n = 3); and ultrasound or bioimpedance analysis (n = 2). The most commonly used questionnaire was SARC-F (770 citations), followed by SARC-CalF (254 citations) and MSRA-7 (61 citations). Handgrip strength and Ishii score were the most widely used physical performance tests (331 citations) and formulas (294 citations), respectively. Sarcopenia index (based on serum cystatin C and creatinine) and calf circumference were the most commonly used serum biomarkers (123 citations) and anthropometric indexes (127 citations), respectively. Ultrasound was the most commonly used imaging tool for screening sarcopenia (57 citations). The included tools varied significantly in content. Various tools assessed some or all components of sarcopenia with different methods, and others assessed different domains, such as age, body mass index, falls, diet, and even mental health. We also summarized the screening tools that were validated in different clinical settings (hospitals, communities, nursing homes, and health checkups).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
More than 50 validated tools are currently available for screening sarcopenia in different clinical settings. The results of this review may help clinicians and researchers in selecting optimal tools for sarcopenia in different clinical scenarios and in developing future tools.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Sarcopenia; Hand Strength; Muscle Strength; Anthropometry; Surveys and Questionnaires; Geriatric Assessment; Biomarkers; Mass Screening
PubMed: 37567245
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.06.036 -
The Lancet. Neurology Aug 2023Although meningitis is largely preventable, it still causes hundreds of thousands of deaths globally each year. WHO set ambitious goals to reduce meningitis cases by...
BACKGROUND
Although meningitis is largely preventable, it still causes hundreds of thousands of deaths globally each year. WHO set ambitious goals to reduce meningitis cases by 2030, and assessing trends in the global meningitis burden can help track progress and identify gaps in achieving these goals. Using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we aimed to assess incident cases and deaths due to acute infectious meningitis by aetiology and age from 1990 to 2019, for 204 countries and territories.
METHODS
We modelled meningitis mortality using vital registration, verbal autopsy, sample-based vital registration, and mortality surveillance data. Meningitis morbidity was modelled with a Bayesian compartmental model, using data from the published literature identified by a systematic review, as well as surveillance data, inpatient hospital admissions, health insurance claims, and cause-specific meningitis mortality estimates. For aetiology estimation, data from multiple causes of death, vital registration, hospital discharge, microbial laboratory, and literature studies were analysed by use of a network analysis model to estimate the proportion of meningitis deaths and cases attributable to the following aetiologies: Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group B Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, viruses, and a residual other pathogen category.
FINDINGS
In 2019, there were an estimated 236 000 deaths (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 204 000-277 000) and 2·51 million (2·11-2·99) incident cases due to meningitis globally. The burden was greatest in children younger than 5 years, with 112 000 deaths (87 400-145 000) and 1·28 million incident cases (0·947-1·71) in 2019. Age-standardised mortality rates decreased from 7·5 (6·6-8·4) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 3·3 (2·8-3·9) per 100 000 population in 2019. The highest proportion of total all-age meningitis deaths in 2019 was attributable to S pneumoniae (18·1% [17·1-19·2]), followed by N meningitidis (13·6% [12·7-14·4]) and K pneumoniae (12·2% [10·2-14·3]). Between 1990 and 2019, H influenzae showed the largest reduction in the number of deaths among children younger than 5 years (76·5% [69·5-81·8]), followed by N meningitidis (72·3% [64·4-78·5]) and viruses (58·2% [47·1-67·3]).
INTERPRETATION
Substantial progress has been made in reducing meningitis mortality over the past three decades. However, more meningitis-related deaths might be prevented by quickly scaling up immunisation and expanding access to health services. Further reduction in the global meningitis burden should be possible through low-cost multivalent vaccines, increased access to accurate and rapid diagnostic assays, enhanced surveillance, and early treatment.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Global Burden of Disease; Bayes Theorem; Meningitis; Risk Factors; Global Health
PubMed: 37479374
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00195-3 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Dec 2023Owing to 2018 expanded diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and thus a possible increase in diagnosis, previous studies on the global incidence and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Owing to 2018 expanded diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and thus a possible increase in diagnosis, previous studies on the global incidence and prevalence of EoE may need to be updated. We aimed to describe global, regional, and national trends in the incidence and prevalence of EoE from 1976 to 2022 and analyze their associations with geographic, demographic, and social factors through a systematic review.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases from their inception dates to December 20, 2022, for studies that reported the incidence or prevalence of EoE in the general population. We calculated the global incidence and prevalence of EoE using pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed subgroup analysis based on age, sex, race, geographical area, World Bank income group, and diagnostic criteria of EoE.
RESULTS
Forty studies met the eligibility criteria, including over 288 million participants and 147,668 patients with EoE from 15 countries across the five continents. The global pooled incidence and prevalence of EoE were 5.31 cases per 100,000 inhabitant-years (95% CI, 3.98-6.63; number of studies, 27; sample population, 42,191,506) and 40.04 cases per 100,000 inhabitant-years (95% CI, 31.10-48.98; number of studies, 20; sample population, 30,467,177), respectively. The pooled incidence of EoE was higher in high-income countries (vs low- or middle-income countries), males, and North America (vs Europe and Asia). The global prevalence of EoE followed a similar pattern. The pooled prevalence of EoE gradually increased from 1976 to 2022 (1976-2001; 8.18; 95% CI, 3.67-12.69 vs 2017-2022; 74.42; 95% CI, 39.66-109.19 cases per 100,000 inhabitant-years).
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence and prevalence of EoE have increased substantially and vary widely across the world. Further research is needed to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of EoE in Asia, South America, and Africa.
Topics: Male; Humans; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Prevalence; Incidence; Europe; North America
PubMed: 37331411
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.005 -
Critical Care Medicine Nov 2023Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation.
RATIONALE
Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
PANEL DESIGN
The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements.
RESULTS
The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data.
CONCLUSIONS
The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Critical Illness; Fever; Critical Care; Intensive Care Units; Communicable Diseases; Biomarkers
PubMed: 37902340
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006022 -
Allergy Feb 2024The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is updating the Guidelines on Food Allergy Diagnosis. We aimed to undertake a systematic review of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is updating the Guidelines on Food Allergy Diagnosis. We aimed to undertake a systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses to assess the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated food allergy. We searched three databases (Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID)) for diagnostic test accuracy studies published between 1 October 2012 and 30 June 2021 according to a previously published protocol (CRD42021259186). We independently screened abstracts, extracted data from full texts and assessed risk of bias with QUADRAS 2 tool in duplicate. Meta-analyses were undertaken for food-test combinations for which three or more studies were available. A total of 149 studies comprising 24,489 patients met the inclusion criteria and they were generally heterogeneous. 60.4% of studies were in children ≤12 years of age, 54.3% were undertaken in Europe, ≥95% were conducted in a specialized paediatric or allergy clinical setting and all included oral food challenge in at least a percentage of enrolled patients, in 21.5% double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges. Skin prick test (SPT) with fresh cow's milk and raw egg had high sensitivity (90% and 94%) for milk and cooked egg allergies. Specific IgE (sIgE) to individual components had high specificity: Ara h 2-sIgE had 92%, Cor a 14-sIgE 95%, Ana o 3-sIgE 94%, casein-sIgE 93%, ovomucoid-sIgE 92/91% for the diagnosis of peanut, hazelnut, cashew, cow's milk and raw/cooked egg allergies, respectively. The basophil activation test (BAT) was highly specific for the diagnosis of peanut (90%) and sesame (93%) allergies. In conclusion, SPT and specific IgE to extracts had high sensitivity whereas specific IgE to components and BAT had high specificity to support the diagnosis of individual food allergies.
Topics: Female; Animals; Cattle; Humans; Child; Middle Aged; Egg Hypersensitivity; Food Hypersensitivity; Skin Tests; Immunoglobulin E; Allergens; Arachis; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38009299
DOI: 10.1111/all.15939 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Dec 2023This systematic review estimates the prevalence of co-occurring conditions (CCs) in children and adults with autism. A comprehensive search strategy consulting existing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review estimates the prevalence of co-occurring conditions (CCs) in children and adults with autism. A comprehensive search strategy consulting existing guidelines, diagnostic manuals, experts, carers, and autistic people was developed. PubMed and PsycInfo databases from inception to May 2022 were searched. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019132347. Two blind authors screened and extracted the data. Prevalence estimates for different CCs were summarized by using random effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed for age groups (children/adolescents vs adults) and study designs (population/registry-based vs clinical sample-based). Of 19,932 studies, 340 publications with about 590,000 participants were included and meta-analyzed to estimate the prevalence of 38-point prevalence, 27-lifetime, and 3 without distinction between point and lifetime prevalence. Point prevalence of developmental coordination disorder, sleep-wake problem, gastrointestinal problem, ADHD, anxiety disorder, overweight/obesity, feeding and eating disorder, elimination disorder, disruptive behavior, and somatic symptoms and related disorder were the most frequent CCs. Prevalence differed depending on the age group and study design. Knowing specific CCs linked to autism helps professional investigations and interventions for improved outcomes.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Prevalence; Obesity; Autistic Disorder; Overweight
PubMed: 37913872
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105436 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Dec 2023Accuracy and timing of antibiotic therapy remain a challenge for lower respiratory tract infections. New molecular techniques using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Performance evaluation of a PCR panel (FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus) for detection of respiratory bacterial pathogens in respiratory specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Accuracy and timing of antibiotic therapy remain a challenge for lower respiratory tract infections. New molecular techniques using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction, including the FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus Panel [FAPP], have been developed to address this. The aim of this study is to evaluate the FAPP diagnostic performance for the detection of the 15 typical bacteria of the panel from respiratory samples in a meta-analysis from a systematic review.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and EMBASE from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2022, and selected any study on the FAPP diagnostic performance on respiratory samples compared to the reference standard, bacterial culture. The main outcome was the overall diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity and specificity. We calculated the log Diagnostic Odds Ratio and analyzed performance for separate bacteria, antimicrobial resistance genes, and according to the sample type. We also reported the FAPP turnaround time and the out-of-panel bacteria number and species. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226280).
RESULTS
From 10 317 records, we identified 30 studies including 8 968 samples. Twenty-one were related to intensive care. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 94% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 91-95] and 98% [95%CI 97-98], respectively. The log Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 6.35 [95%CI 6.05-6.65]. 9.3% [95%CI 9.2-9.5] of bacteria detected in culture were not included in the FAPP panel.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reporting the FAPP evaluation revealed a high accuracy. This test may represent an adjunct tool for pulmonary bacterial infection diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship. Further evidence is needed to assess the impact on clinical outcome.
Topics: Humans; Bacteria; Pneumonia; Respiratory Tract Infections; Bacterial Infections; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
PubMed: 37709201
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101300