-
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.
CONCLUSION
Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.
PubMed: 38027288
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1264081 -
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance May 2023With COVID-19 being a newly evolving disease, its response measures largely depend on the practice of and compliance with personal protective measures (PPMs). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With COVID-19 being a newly evolving disease, its response measures largely depend on the practice of and compliance with personal protective measures (PPMs).
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to examine the knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs in African countries as documented in the published literature.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on the Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases using appropriate keywords and predefined eligibility criteria for the selection of relevant studies. Only population-based original research studies (including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies) conducted in Africa and published in the English language were included. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to a preregistered protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022355101) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was used to systematically summarize the studies into 4 predefined domains: knowledge and perception of PPMs, mask use, social and physical distancing, and handwashing and hand hygiene, including their respective levels and associated factors.
RESULTS
A total of 58 studies across 12 African countries were included, published between 2019 and 2022. African communities, including various population groups, had varying levels of knowledge and practice of COVID-19 PPMs, with the lack of personal protective equipment (mainly face masks) and side effects (among health care workers) being the major reasons for poor compliance. Lower rates of handwashing and hand hygiene were particularly noted in several African countries, especially among low-income urban and slum dwellers, with the main barrier being the lack of safe and clean water. Various cognitive (knowledge and perception), sociodemographic, and economic factors were associated with the practice of COVID-19 PPMs. Moreover, there were evident research inequalities at the regional level, with East Africa contributing 36% (21/58) of the studies, West Africa contributing 21% (12/58), North Africa contributing 17% (10/58), Southern Africa contributing 7% (4/58), and no single-country study from Central Africa. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the included studies was generally good as they satisfied most of the quality assessment criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to enhance local capacity to produce and supply personal protective equipment. Consideration of various cognitive, demographic, and socioeconomic differences, with extra focus on the most vulnerable, is crucial for inclusive and more effective strategies against the pandemic. Moreover, more focus and involvement in community behavioral research are needed to fully understand and address the dynamics of the current pandemic in Africa.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022355101; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355101.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; Health Personnel; Africa; Personal Protective Equipment
PubMed: 37058578
DOI: 10.2196/44051 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Periorbital and orbital cellulitis are infections of the tissue anterior and posterior to the orbital septum, respectively, and can be difficult to differentiate...
BACKGROUND
Periorbital and orbital cellulitis are infections of the tissue anterior and posterior to the orbital septum, respectively, and can be difficult to differentiate clinically. Periorbital cellulitis can also progress to become orbital cellulitis. Orbital cellulitis has a relatively high incidence in children and adults, and potentially serious consequences including vision loss, meningitis, and death. Complications occur in part due to inflammatory swelling from the infection creating a compartment syndrome within the bony orbit, leading to elevated ocular pressure and compression of vasculature and the optic nerve. Corticosteroids are used in other infections to reduce this inflammation and edema, but they can lead to immune suppression and worsening infection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis, and to assess their effectiveness and safety in children and in adults separately.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies of participants diagnosed with periorbital or orbital cellulitis. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on participants who were undergoing elective endoscopic surgery, including management of infections postsurgery as well as studies conducted solely on trauma patients. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Any study that administered corticosteroids was eligible regardless of type of steroid, route of administration, length of therapy, or timing of treatment. Comparators could include placebo, another corticosteroid, no treatment control, or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
The search yielded 7998 records, of which 13 were selected for full-text screening. We identified one trial for inclusion. No other eligible ongoing or completed trials were identified. The included study compared the use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics to the use of antibiotics alone for the treatment of orbital cellulitis. The study included a total of 21 participants aged 10 years and older, of which 14 participants were randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics and 7 participants to antibiotics alone. Participants randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics received adjunctive corticosteroids after initial antibiotic response (mean 5.13 days), at an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg for three days followed by 1 mg/kg for another three days before being tapered over a one- to two-week period. We assessed the included study as having an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, masking (blinding), selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. Risk of bias from sequence generation and incomplete outcome data were low. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low, downgraded for risk of bias (-1) and imprecision (-2). Length of hospital stay was compared between the group receiving antibiotics alone compared to the group receiving antibiotics and corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48 to 9.08; 21 participants). There was no observed difference in duration of antibiotics between treatment groups (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.48 to 6.48; 21 participants). Likewise, preservation of visual acuity at 12 weeks of follow-up between group was also assessed (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 21 participants). Pain scores were compared between groups on day 3 (MD -0.20, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.62; 22 eyes) along with the need for surgical intervention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.23; 21 participants). Exposure keratopathy was reported in five participants who received corticosteroids and antibiotics and three participants who received antibiotic alone (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.63; 21 participants). No major complications of orbital cellulitis were seen in either the intervention or the control group. No side effects of corticosteroids were reported, although it is unclear which side effects were assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of periorbital and orbital cellulitis. Since there is significant variation in how corticosteroids are used in clinical practice, additional high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed to inform decision making. Future studies should explore the effects of corticosteroids in children and adults separately, and evaluate different dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Cellulitis; Child; Humans; Length of Stay; Orbital Cellulitis; Pain Measurement; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33908631
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013535.pub2 -
PloS One 2022The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal bone remodeling.
METHODS
A systematic review including PubMed and EMBASE databases through June 2021 was conducted. Two independent examiners screened titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles. Studies evaluating titanium dental implant osseointegration in native alveolar bone were included. A quality assessment of reporting was performed. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were produced for bone-implant contact (BIC), first BIC, and crestal bone level.
RESULTS
125 out of 249 full-text articles were reviewed, 55 original studies were included. Quality of reporting was generally low, omissions included animal characteristics, examiner masking/calibration, and sample size calculation. The typical minipig model protocol included surgical extraction of the mandibular premolars and first molar, 12±4 wks post-extraction healing, placement of three narrow regular length dental implants per jaw quadrant, submerged implant healing and 8 wks of osseointegration. Approximately 90% of studies reported undecalcified incandescent light microscopy histometrics. Overall, mean BIC was 59.88% (95%CI: 57.43-62.33). BIC increased significantly over time (p<0.001): 40.93 (95%CI: 34.95-46.90) at 2 wks, 58.37% (95%CI: 54.38-62.36) at 4 wks, and 66.33% (95%CI: 63.45-69.21) beyond 4 wks. Variability among studies was mainly explained by differences in observation interval post-extraction and post-implant placement, and implant surface. Heterogeneity was high for all studies (I2 > 90%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The minipig intraoral dental implant model appears to effectively demonstrate osseointegration and alveolar bone remodeling similar to that observed in humans and canine models.
Topics: Dental Implants
PubMed: 35226690
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264475 -
African Health Sciences Sep 2022The COVID-19 pandemic has almost affected the entire globe and is currently in a resurgent phase within the sub-Saharan African region. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has almost affected the entire globe and is currently in a resurgent phase within the sub-Saharan African region.
OBJECTIVE
This paper presents results from a scoping review of literature on knowledge, risk-perception, conspiracy theories and uptake of COVID-19 prevention measures in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS
We used the following search terms: 'COVID-19', 'knowledge', 'perceptions', 'perspectives', 'misconceptions', 'conspiracy theories', 'practices' and 'sub-Saharan Africa'. Basing on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we identified 466 articles for review; 36 articles met the inclusion criteria. We extracted data on knowledge, risk-perception, conspiracy theories and uptake of COVID-19 primary prevention measures.
RESULTS
Knowledge of COVID-19 was high (91.3-100%) and associated with age and education; risk-perception was equally high (73.3-86.9%) but varied across studies. Uptake of hand-washing with water and soap or hand-sanitizing ranged between 63-96.4%, but wearing of face masks and social distancing fared poorly (face masks: 2.7%-37%; social distancing: 19-43%).
CONCLUSION
While knowledge of COVID-19 is nearly universal, uptake of COVID-19 prevention measures remains sub-optimal to defeat the pandemic. These findings suggest a need for continued health promotion to increase uptake of the recommended COVID-19 prevention measures in sub-Saharan Africa.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; Health Promotion; Africa South of the Sahara; Perception
PubMed: 36910342
DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v22i3.59 -
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology... Sep 2022This study aimed to summarize the latest literature on the trends and incidence of ocular trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This study aimed to summarize the latest literature on the trends and incidence of ocular trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify the relevant literature. The search period was between January 1, 2020, and September 20, 2021. The incidence of overall and various types of ocular trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic and the control period was analyzed. The data from different studies were pooled. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 32 articles were included. After pooling the data from all included studies, the incidence of total and pediatric ocular trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic was 67.7% and 54.3% of those in the control period, respectively. However, the proportion of ocular trauma in eye emergency visits increased during the pandemic (OR, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.04-2.06). The proportion of domestic ocular trauma increased (OR, 95% CI: 3.42, 1.01-11.62), while ocular trauma related to sports and outdoor activities and occupational ocular trauma decreased (OR, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.09-4.29 and 0.18, 0.10-0.33, respectively). It was also reported that chemical injury caused by alcohol-based sanitizers, photokeratitis caused by ultraviolet lamps, and mechanical eye injury caused by masks increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a reduction in overall eye injuries and substantial differences in the spectrum of ocular trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proper health education and supervision should be strengthened to prevent ocular injuries related to COVID-19 preventive interventions.
Topics: COVID-19; Child; Eye Injuries; Humans; Incidence; Masks; Pandemics
PubMed: 36094376
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000539 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bias; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Flavonoids; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Male; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Placebos; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33460048
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013011.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Laser trabeculoplasty, a treatment modality, still does not have a clear position in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Laser trabeculoplasty, a treatment modality, still does not have a clear position in the treatment sequence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laser trabeculoplasty for treating OAG and ocular hypertension (OHT) when compared to medication, glaucoma surgery or no intervention. We also wished to compare the effectiveness of different laser trabeculoplasty technologies for treating OAG and OHT.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2021, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 28 October 2021. We also contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laser trabeculoplasty with no intervention, with medical treatment, or with surgery in people with OAG or OHT. We also included trials comparing different types of laser trabeculoplasty technologies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors screened search results and extracted data independently. We considered the following outcomes at 24 months: failure to control intraocular pressure (IOP), failure to stabilise visual field progression, failure to stabilise optic neuropathy progression, adverse effects, quality of life, and costs. We graded the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 40 studies (5613 eyes of 4028 people) in this review. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe and in the USA. Most of the studies were at risk of performance and/or detection bias as they were unmasked. None of the studies were judged as having low risk of bias for all domains. We did not identify any studies of laser trabeculoplasty alone versus no intervention. Laser trabeculoplasty versus medication Fourteen studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with medication in either people with primary OAG (7 studies) or primary or secondary OAG (7 studies); five of the 14 studies also included participants with OHT. Six studies used argon laser trabeculoplasty and eight studies used selective laser trabeculoplasty. There was considerable clinical and methodological diversity in these studies leading to statistical heterogeneity in results for the primary outcome "failure to control IOP" at 24 months. Risk ratios (RRs) ranged from 0.43 in favour of laser trabeculoplasty to 1.87 in favour of medication (5 studies, I = 89%). Studies of argon laser compared with medication were more likely to show a beneficial effect compared with studies of selective laser (test for interaction P = 0.0001) but the argon laser studies were older and the medication comparator group in those studies may have been less effective. We considered this to be low-certainty evidence because the trials were at risk of bias (they were not masked) and there was unexplained heterogeneity. There was evidence from two studies (624 eyes) that argon laser treatment was associated with less failure to stabilise visual field progression compared with medication (7% versus 11%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.16) at 24 months and one further large recent study of selective laser also reported a reduced risk of failure at 48 months (17% versus 26%) RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81, 1178 eyes). We judged this outcome as moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. There was only very low-certainty evidence on optic neuropathy progression. Adverse effects were more commonly seen in the laser trabeculoplasty group including peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) associated with argon laser (32% versus 26%, RR 11.74, 95% CI 5.94 to 23.22; 624 eyes; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence); 5% of participants treated with laser in three studies of selective laser group had early IOP spikes (moderate-certainty evidence). One UK-based study provided moderate-certainty evidence that laser trabeculoplasty was more cost-effective. Laser trabeculoplasty versus trabeculectomy Three studies compared laser trabeculoplasty with trabeculectomy. All three studies enrolled participants with OAG (primary or secondary) and used argon laser. People receiving laser trabeculoplasty may have a higher risk of uncontrolled IOP at 24 months compared with people receiving trabeculectomy (16% versus 8%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.11; 901 eyes; 2 RCTs). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias (trials were not masked) and there was inconsistency between the two trials (I = 68%). There was limited evidence on visual field progression suggesting a higher risk of failure with laser trabeculoplasty. There was no information on optic neuropathy progression, quality of life or costs. PAS formation and IOP spikes were not reported but in one study trabeculectomy was associated with an increased risk of cataract (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.16) (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Laser trabeculoplasty may work better than topical medication in slowing down the progression of open-angle glaucoma (rate of visual field loss) and may be similar to modern eye drops in controlling eye pressure at a lower cost. It is not associated with serious unwanted effects, particularly for the newer types of trabeculoplasty, such as selective laser trabeculoplasty.
Topics: Argon; Glaucoma; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Ocular Hypertension; Optic Nerve Diseases; Trabeculectomy
PubMed: 35943114
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003919.pub3 -
Chemosphere Feb 2023Information on biodegradation kinetics of biodiesel fuels is a key aspect in risk and impact assessment practice and in selection of appropriate remediation strategies.... (Review)
Review
Information on biodegradation kinetics of biodiesel fuels is a key aspect in risk and impact assessment practice and in selection of appropriate remediation strategies. Unfortunately, this information is scattered, while factors influencing variability in biodegradation rates are still not fully understood. Therefore, we systematically reviewed 32 scientific literature sources providing 142 biodegradation and 56 mineralization half-lives of diesel and biodiesel fuels in various experimental systems. The analysis focused on the variability in half-lives across fuels and experimental conditions, reporting sets of averaged half-life values and their statistical uncertainty. Across all data points, biodegradation half-lives ranged from 9 to 62 days, and were 2-5.5 times shorter than mineralization half-lives. Across all fuels, biodegradation and mineralization half-lives were 2.5-8.5 times longer in terrestrial systems when compared to aquatic systems. The half-lives were generally shorter for blends with increasing biodiesel content, although differences in number of data points from various experiments masked differences in half-lives between different fuels. This in most cases resulted in lack of statistically significant effects of the type of blends and experimental system on biodegradation half-lives. Our data can be used for improved characterization of risks and impacts of biodiesel fuels in aerobic aquatic and terrestrial environments, while more experiments are required to quantify biodegradation kinetics in anaerobic conditions. Relatively high biodegradability of biodiesel may suggest that passive approaches to degrade and dissipate contaminants in situ, like monitored natural attenuation, may be appropriate remediation strategies for biodiesel fuels.
Topics: Half-Life; Biofuels; Kinetics; Biodegradation, Environmental; Gasoline
PubMed: 36403813
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137236 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022Since the emergence of COVID-19, mandatory facemask wearing has been implemented around the world to prevent viral transmission, however, the impact of wearing facemasks... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Since the emergence of COVID-19, mandatory facemask wearing has been implemented around the world to prevent viral transmission, however, the impact of wearing facemasks on patients with COPD was unclear.
METHODS
The current study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis of a comprehensive literature retrieval from six databases, based on the pre-determined eligibility criteria, irrespective of language. The risk of bias was assessed using an established instrument. We primarily focused on analyzing ETCO, SpO, and heart and respiratory rates, and also considered the impacts on physiological and exercise performance. A descriptive summary of the data and possible meta-analysis was performed. Forest plots were generated to pool estimates based on each of the study outcomes.
RESULTS
Of the 3,751 publications considered, six publications were selected for a systematic review and two publications were included for meta-analysis, however, the quality of these six studies was relatively low overall. In the case of inactivity, the facemask wearing COPD cohort had higher respiratory rates than that of the non-facemask wearing cohort (MD = 1.00 and 95% CI 0.47-1.53, < 0.05). There was no significant difference in ETCO (MD = 0.10 and 95% CI -1.57-1.78, > 0.05) and heart rate (MD = 0.40 and 95% CI -3.59-4.39, > 0.05) nor SpO (MD = -0.40 and 95% CI -0.84-0.04, > 0.05) between the COPD patients with and without facemasks. Furthermore, it was observed that the only significant differences between the COPD patients with and without facemasks undertaking different activities were FEV1 (%) (MD = 3.84 and 95% CI 0.14-7.54, < 0.05), FEV1/FVC (%) (MD = 3.25 and 95% CI 0.71-5.79, < 0.05), and blood lactate (MD = -0.90 and 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07, < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Wearing facemasks decreased the exercise performance of patients with COPD, however, it had minimal impact on physiological indexes. Further investigations will be performed on the high-quality data from randomized control studies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=326265, identifier: CRD42022326265.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Masks; Personal Protective Equipment; Sedentary Behavior; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 36466486
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1027521