-
The Journal of Asthma : Official... Jun 2022Previous studies have reported a correlation between coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and asthma. However, data on whether asthma constitutes a risk factor for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Previous studies have reported a correlation between coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and asthma. However, data on whether asthma constitutes a risk factor for COVID-19 and the prevalence of asthma in COVID-19 cases still remain scant. Here, we interrogated and analyzed the association between COVID-19 and asthma.
METHODS
In this study, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 1 and August 28, 2020. We included studies that reported the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 and its prevalence in asthma patients. We excluded reviews, animal trials, single case reports, small case series and studies evaluating other coronavirus-related illnesses. Raw data from the studies were pooled into a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We analyzed findings from 18 studies, including asthma patients with COVID-19. The pooled prevalence of asthma in COVID-19 cases was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), with an overall I of 99.07%, < 0.005. The data indicated that asthma did not increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 1.04 (95% CI, 0.75-1.46) = 0.28; I=20%). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of asthma with age in COVID-19 infections [OR] 0.77(95% CI, 0.59-1.00) = 0.24; =29%).
CONCLUSION
Taken together, our data suggested that asthma is not a significant risk factor for the development of severe COVID-19.
Topics: Asthma; COVID-19; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33863266
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2021.1917603 -
Archives of Suicide Research : Official... 2022Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting...
OBJECTIVE
Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk assessment tools in predicting self-harm and suicide risk. This systematic review examines the effect of risk assessment strategies on predicting suicide and self-harm outcomes among adult healthcare service users.
METHOD
Electronic and gray literature databases were searched for prospective research. Studies were screened and selected by independent reviewers. Quality and level of evidence assessments were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis under three categories: (1) suicide- and self-harm-related outcomes; (2) clinician assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; and (3) healthcare utilization due to self-harm or suicide.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The SAD PERSONS Scale was the most used tool. It outperformed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation in predicting hospital admissions and stay following suicide and self-harm, yet it failed to predict repeat suicide and self-harm and was not recommended for routine use. There were mixed findings relating to clinician risk assessment, with some studies recommending clinician assessment over structured tools, whilst others found that clinician assessment failed to predict future attempts and deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one tool, inclusive of clinician assessment of risk, for self-harm and suicidality. The discourse around risk assessment needs to move toward a broader discussion on the safety of patients who are at risk for self-harm and/or suicide.HIGHLIGHTSThere is insufficient evidence to support using standalone risk assessment tools.There are mixed findings relating to clinician assessment of risk.Structured professional judgment is widely accepted for risk assessment.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Prospective Studies; Self-Injurious Behavior; Suicidal Ideation; Risk Assessment; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 34193026
DOI: 10.1080/13811118.2021.1938321 -
American Journal of Audiology Sep 2022This systematic review aimed to update and explore the extant literature (2011-2020) regarding ethics knowledge in audiology and to compare the findings to an earlier...
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to update and explore the extant literature (2011-2020) regarding ethics knowledge in audiology and to compare the findings to an earlier study (2001-2010).
METHOD
This systematic review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, MasterFILE Premier, E-Journals, Africa-Wide information and Academic Search Premier electronic databases, and non-peer-reviewed papers in Seminars in Hearing yielded a total of 63 papers. Following systematic screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 12 full-text papers were included in this review. Pertinent data and findings from the review were tabulated and analyzed using a qualitative, deductive approach. Results showed that the 12 papers were published in nine peer-reviewed journals with a predominantly social scientific approach. This differs from the earlier review that reported only five papers with a predominantly philosophical approach. However, both the current and earlier studies focused on the rehabilitation/management role of the audiologist. In the earlier study, the focus was on moral judgment (as one of the components of moral behavior), whereas this was the focus of only half of the papers identified in this study, with the remaining papers focusing on moral sensitivity and moral motivation.
CONCLUSIONS
The focus of papers had evolved and continued to include more elements related to the multiple perspectives used to analyze and describe ethics research. The body of knowledge of ethics in audiology specifically expanded in the area of social scientific research, focusing on beneficence and nonmaleficence, including moral motivation and basing research on moral judgment with the emphasis on the rehabilitation/management and education/research/administration role of audiologists.
Topics: Audiology; Follow-Up Studies; Humans
PubMed: 35944019
DOI: 10.1044/2022_AJA-22-00043 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Jan 2023This narrative systematic review examined effectiveness of interventions during pregnancy and up to 2 years of age in improving energy balance-related behaviors or... (Review)
Review
The effectiveness of interventions during the first 1,000 days to improve energy balance-related behaviors or prevent overweight/obesity in children from socio-economically disadvantaged families of high-income countries: a systematic review.
This narrative systematic review examined effectiveness of interventions during pregnancy and up to 2 years of age in improving energy balance-related behaviors or prevent overweight/obesity in children from families experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. We identified 24 interventions, from 33 articles, since 1990. Overall, despite their heterogeneity and variability in internal and external validity, there was some evidence of beneficial impact of interventions on obesity risk (4/15), and associated behaviors, e.g.: breastfeeding (9/18), responsive feeding (11/16), diet (7/8), sedentary (1/3) and movement (4/7) behaviors, and sleep (1/2). The most effective interventions aimed at promoting breastfeeding commenced antenatally; this was similar for the prevention of obesity, provided the intervention continued for at least 2 years postnatally and was multi-behavioral. Effective interventions were more likely to target first-time mothers and involve professional delivery agents, multidisciplinary teams and peer groups. Among ethnic/racial minorities, interventions delivered by lay agents had some impact on dietary behavior but not weight outcomes. Co-creation with stakeholders, including parents, and adherence to theoretical frameworks were additional ingredients for more pragmatic, inclusive, non-judgmental, and effective programs. The growing body of evidence on obesity prevention interventions targeting families experiencing socio-economic disadvantage is promising for reducing early inequalities in obesity risk.
Topics: Child; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Overweight; Pediatric Obesity; Developed Countries; Diet; Breast Feeding
PubMed: 36394375
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13524 -
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Aug 2022The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend that patients and professionals make shared decisions between surgery and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend that patients and professionals make shared decisions between surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) when treating early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Variation by center suggests treatment decisions may be disproportionately influenced by clinician judgment and treatment availability rather than by patient preference. This systematic review critically evaluates studies of patient and clinician preferences for treatment of early-stage NSCLC.
METHODS
Primary empirical research up to April 30, 2020, was identified from searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. Data extracted included study characteristics and methods, preferences for NSCLC treatment, and involvement in decision making and risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using descriptive data and narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Included in the review were 23 studies, of which 18 measured patient preferences, 4 clinician preferences, and 1 both clinician and patient preferences. Patients and clinicians were both most likely to prefer a collaborative role in treatment decisions. Most patients did not recall there being a choice between surgery or SABR options and thus experienced minimal decisional conflict.
CONCLUSIONS
For professionals to support patients in making informed, value-based decisions about NSCLC treatments, better quality evidence is needed of the clinical and quality of life trade-offs for both surgery and SABR.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Decision Making; Decision Making, Shared; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Quality of Life; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
PubMed: 33581150
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.01.046 -
BMC Medical Education Jul 2022There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy....
BACKGROUND
There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.
RESULTS
Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.
CONCLUSIONS
Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.
Topics: Bronchoscopy; Endoscopy; Feedback; Humans; Peer Review, Health Care; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 35906652
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03652-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision). Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16). Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs. Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included. Bamlanivimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; COVID-19; Cause of Death; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34473343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013825.pub2 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Jul 2023These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. A multidisciplinary workgroup employed best...
These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. A multidisciplinary workgroup employed best practices for guideline development, including a systematic review of the evidence and application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. The evidence on atopic dermatitis treatment supported strong recommendations for the use of nonprescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical PDE-4 and JAK inhibitors. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy and against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatology; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatologic Agents; Glucocorticoids
PubMed: 36623556
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.08.068 -
Nurse Education in Practice Nov 2023To synthesize and analyze the literature on nursing clinical competence to assess the factors affecting nursing clinical competency. (Review)
Review
AIM
To synthesize and analyze the literature on nursing clinical competence to assess the factors affecting nursing clinical competency.
BACKGROUND
Nursing competence affects not only patients but also nurses themselves. Competent nurses contribute to patient safety. Prioritizing clinical competency enables nurses to deliver high-quality care. Clinical nursing competency is influenced by various factors including education and training, experience, professional development, clinical judgment, decision-making skills and communication.
DESIGN
This was a systematic review.
METHODS
This study utilized an extensive literature search of online databases, including SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed. This review followed the guidelines provided by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Cochrane Group and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
RESULTS
This systematic review provided 20 valuable articles, with a total of 6273 participants across the 20 studies, including 18 cross-sectional studies and two descriptive-correlational studies, predominantly using quantitative research methods. The analysis revealed several key factors that significantly affect nurses' clinical competency. These factors included years of experience, workplace environment, theoretical knowledge and educational level, marital status, clinical training, job satisfaction, turnover intention, job stress and critical thinking.
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding and addressing these factors are crucial for enhancing nurses' clinical competence and ultimately improving patient outcomes. Further research and interventions should be directed towards promoting supportive work environments, continuous education and the development of critical thinking skills among nurses to optimize their clinical competencies.
Topics: Humans; Clinical Competence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Job Satisfaction; Communication; Nurses
PubMed: 37951064
DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103826 -
European Journal of Medical Research Sep 2021Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries remains low, despite the presence of widespread national recommendations. An influenza vaccination reduces influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, as well as providing newborns with protection in their first months. Potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy need to be identified to develop strategies that can increase vaccine acceptance and uptake among pregnant women. The primary objective of the systematic review is to identify the individual determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe, and how to overcome the hesitancy.
METHODS
Databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2009 and 2019 inclusive. Databases included PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis and Springer nature. These covered themes including psychology, medicine, and public health. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 11 studies were eligible and analyzed for significant determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe.
RESULTS
The most commonly reported factors were psychological aspects, for example concerns about safety and risks to mother and child, or general low risk perception of becoming ill from influenza. Doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of knowledge about this topic were further factors. There was also influence of contextual factors, such as healthcare workers not providing adequate knowledge about the influenza vaccine or the pregnant lady stating their antivaccine sentiment.
CONCLUSION
Health promotion that specifically increases knowledge among pregnant women about influenza and vaccination is important, supporting a valid risk judgment by the pregnant lady. The development of new information strategies for dialogue between healthcare providers and pregnant women should form part of this strategy.
Topics: Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Vaccination
PubMed: 34583779
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-021-00584-w