-
Pediatrics Oct 2021Daily outdoor play is encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Existing evidence is unclear on the independent effect of nature exposures on child health.
CONTEXT
Daily outdoor play is encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Existing evidence is unclear on the independent effect of nature exposures on child health.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically evaluated evidence regarding the relationship between nature contact and children's health.
DATA SOURCES
The database search was conducted by using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science in February 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In all searches, the first element included nature terms; the second included child health outcome terms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Of the 10 940 studies identified, 296 were included. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed.
RESULTS
The strongest evidence for type of nature exposure was residential green space studies ( = 147, 50%). The strongest evidence for the beneficial health effects of nature was for physical activity ( = 108, 32%) and cognitive, behavioral, or mental health ( = 85, 25%). Physical activity was objectively measured in 55% of studies, and 41% of the cognitive, behavioral, or mental health studies were experimental in design.
LIMITATIONS
Types of nature exposures and health outcomes and behaviors were heterogenous. Risk of selection bias was moderate to high for all studies. Most studies were cross-sectional ( = 204, 69%), limiting our ability to assess causality.
CONCLUSIONS
Current literature supports a positive relationship between nature contact and children's health, especially for physical activity and mental health, both public health priorities. The evidence supports pediatricians in advocating for equitable nature contact for children in places where they live, play, and learn.
Topics: Child; Child Behavior; Child Development; Child Health; Environment; Exercise; Humans; Overweight; Pediatric Obesity; Play and Playthings
PubMed: 34588297
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-049155 -
Pediatric Research Nov 2021Two meta-analyses concluded that jaundice was associated with an increased risk of autism. We hypothesize that these findings were due to methodological limitations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Two meta-analyses concluded that jaundice was associated with an increased risk of autism. We hypothesize that these findings were due to methodological limitations of the studies included. Neonatal jaundice affects many infants and risks of later morbidity may prompt physicians towards more aggressive treatment.
METHODS
To conduct a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the association between neonatal jaundice and autism with particular attention given to low risk of bias studies. Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for publications until February 2019. Data was extracted by use of pre-piloted structured sheets. Low risk of bias studies were identified through predefined criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of six low risk of bias studies showed no association between neonatal jaundice and autism; cohort studies risk ratio 1.09, 95% CI, 0.99-1.20, case-control studies odds ratio 1.29 95% CI 0.95, 1.76. Funnel plot of all studies suggested a high risk of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
We found a high risk of publication bias, selection bias, and potential confounding in all studies. Based on the low risk of bias studies there was no convincing evidence to support an association between neonatal jaundice and autism.
IMPACT
Meta-analysis of data from six low risk of bias studies indicated no association between neonatal jaundice and autism spectrum disorder. Previous studies show inconsistent results, which may be explained by unadjusted confounding and selection bias. Funnel plot suggested high risk of publication bias when including all studies. There is no evidence to suggest jaundice should be treated more aggressively to prevent autism.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Jaundice, Neonatal; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33526883
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-020-01272-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of pitavastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without cardiovascular disease. To compare the effect of pitavastatin on surrogate markers with other statins. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of pitavastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2019), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCT and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pitavastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from RCT and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. Withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE) information was collected from the RCTs. We assessed all included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of allocation (selection bias), blinding (performance bias and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-seven studies (five RCTs and 42 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pitavastatin in 5436 participants. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease, and pitavastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 mg to 16 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pitavastatin on blood HDL cholesterol, which was increased by 4% on average by pitavastatin. Pitavastatin 1 mg/day to 16 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 33.3% to 54.7%, total cholesterol by 23.3% to 39.0% and triglycerides by 13.0% to 28.1%. For every two-fold dose increase, there was a 5.35% (95% CI 3.32 to 7.38) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 3.93% (95% CI 2.35 to 5.50) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 3.76% (95% CI 1.03 to 6.48) decrease in blood triglycerides. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to other statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. For the placebo group, there were no participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 109 subjects and for all doses of pitavastatin, there were three participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 262 subjects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pitavastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. There were not enough data to determine risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects due to pitavastatin.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Before-After Studies; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Lipids; Male; Pyridines; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Sex Factors; Triglycerides
PubMed: 32557581
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012735.pub2 -
Environmental Health Perspectives Aug 2023Neural tube defects (NTDs) affect pregnancies worldwide annually. Few nongenetic factors, other than folate deficiency, have been identified that may provide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neural tube defects (NTDs) affect pregnancies worldwide annually. Few nongenetic factors, other than folate deficiency, have been identified that may provide intervenable solutions to reduce the burden of NTDs. Prenatal exposure to toxic metals [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn) and lead (Pb)] may increase the risk of NTDs. Although a growing epidemiologic literature has examined associations, to our knowledge no systematic review has been conducted to date.
OBJECTIVE
Through adaptation of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we aimed to answer the question "does exposure to As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb during gestation increase the risk of NTDs?" and to assess challenges to evaluating this question given the current evidence.
METHODS
We selected available evidence on prenatal As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb exposure and risk of specific NTDs (e.g., spina bifida, anencephaly) or all NTDs via a comprehensive search across MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and TOXLINE databases and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria. We rated the quality and strength of the evidence for each metal. We applied a customized risk of bias protocol and evaluated the sufficiency of evidence of an effect of each metal on NTDs.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies that met our criteria. Risk of bias for confounding and selection was high in most studies, but low for missing data. We determined that, although the evidence was limited, the literature supported an association between prenatal exposure to Hg or Mn and increased risk of NTDs. For the remaining metals, the evidence was inadequate to establish or rule out an effect.
CONCLUSION
The role of gestational As, Cd, or Pb exposure in the etiology of NTDs remains unclear and warrants further investigation in high-quality studies, with a particular focus on controlling confounding, mitigating selection bias, and improving exposure assessment. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11872.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Cadmium; Lead; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Neural Tube Defects; Mercury; Manganese; Arsenic
PubMed: 37647124
DOI: 10.1289/EHP11872 -
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal... Mar 2001To determine by how much selection bias in preterm infant cohort studies results in an overestimate of survival. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine by how much selection bias in preterm infant cohort studies results in an overestimate of survival.
DESIGN
Systematic review of studies reporting survival in infants less than 28 weeks of gestation published 1978-1998. Studies were graded according to cohort definition: A, stillbirths and live births; B, live births; C, neonatal unit admissions. Proportions of infants surviving to discharge were calculated for each week of gestation.
RESULTS
Sixty seven studies report data on 55 cohorts (16 grade A, 23 grade B, 16 grade C). Studies that are more selective report significantly higher survival between 23 and 26 weeks of gestation (grade C > grade B > grade A, p < 0.01), exaggerating survival by 100% and 56% at 23 and 24 weeks respectively.
CONCLUSION
To minimise the potential for overestimating survival around the limits of viability, future studies should endeavour to report the outcome of all pregnancies for each week of gestation (terminations, miscarriages, stillbirths, and all live births).
Topics: Cohort Studies; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Research Design; Selection Bias
PubMed: 11207220
DOI: 10.1136/fn.84.2.f79 -
Maturitas Mar 2018To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of yoga for menopausal symptoms. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of yoga for menopausal symptoms.
METHODS
Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were screened through to February 21, 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of yoga on menopausal symptoms to those of no treatment or active comparators. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs with 1306 participants were included. Compared with no treatment, yoga reduced total menopausal symptoms (SMD=-1.05; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.53), psychological (SMD=-0.75; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.34), somatic (SMD=-0.65; 95% CI -1.05 to -0.25), vasomotor (SMD=-0.76; 95% CI -1.27 to -0.25), and urogenital symptoms (SMD=-0.53; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.25). Compared with exercise controls, only an effect on vasomotor symptoms was found (SMD=-0.45; 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). Effects were robust against selection bias, but not against detection and attrition bias. No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Yoga seems to be effective and safe for reducing menopausal symptoms. Effects are comparable to those of other exercise interventions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Menopause; Yoga
PubMed: 29452777
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.12.005 -
Zoonoses and Public Health Jun 2014This article is the first in a series of six articles related to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. In this article, we overview the... (Review)
Review
This article is the first in a series of six articles related to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. In this article, we overview the methodology of systematic reviews and provide a discussion of their use. Systematic reviews differ qualitatively from traditional reviews by explicitly defining a specific review question, employing methods to reduce bias in the selection and inclusion of studies that address the review question (including a systematic and specified search strategy, and selection of studies based on explicit eligibility criteria), an assessment of the risk of bias for included studies and objectively summarizing the results qualitatively or quantitatively (i.e. via meta-analysis). Systematic reviews have been widely used to address human healthcare questions and are increasingly being used in veterinary medicine. Systematic reviews can provide veterinarians and other decision-makers with a scientifically defensible summary of the current state of knowledge on a topic without the need for the end-user to read the vast amount of primary research related to that topic.
Topics: Agriculture; Animals; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Selection Bias; Veterinary Medicine
PubMed: 24905991
DOI: 10.1111/zph.12128 -
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2022Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed as acid-suppression therapy. Some observational studies suggest that long-term use of PPIs is potentially associated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed as acid-suppression therapy. Some observational studies suggest that long-term use of PPIs is potentially associated with certain adverse kidney outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature review to assess potential bias in non-randomized studies reporting on putative associations between PPIs and adverse kidney outcomes (acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, chronic interstitial nephritis, acute tubular necrosis, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage renal disease).
METHODS
We searched the medical literature within 10 years of 17 December 2020. Pre-specified criteria guided identification of relevant English language articles for assessment. Risk of bias on an outcome-specific basis was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Of 620 initially identified records, 26 studies met eligibility criteria and underwent risk of bias assessment. Nineteen studies were judged as having a moderate risk of bias for reported adverse kidney outcomes, while six studies were judged as having a serious risk of bias (mainly due to inadequate control of confounders and selection bias). We were unable to determine the overall risk of bias in two studies (one of which was assessed as having a moderate risk of bias for a different adverse kidney outcome) due to insufficient information presented. Effect estimates for PPIs in relation to adverse kidney outcomes varied widely (0.24-7.34) but associations mostly showed increased risk.
CONCLUSION
Using ROBINS-I, we found that non-randomized observational studies suggesting kidney harm by PPIs have moderate to serious risk of bias, making it challenging to establish causality. Additional high-quality, real-world evidence among generalizable populations are needed to better understand the relation between PPI treatment and acute and chronic kidney outcomes, accounting for the effects of varying durations of PPI treatment, self-treatment with over-the-counter PPIs, and potential critical confounders.
PubMed: 35173802
DOI: 10.1177/17562848221074183 -
The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery :... 2021Orthobiologics are biologically-derived materials intended to promote bone formation and union. We review evidence on effectiveness and harms of orthobiologics compared... (Review)
Review
Orthobiologics are biologically-derived materials intended to promote bone formation and union. We review evidence on effectiveness and harms of orthobiologics compared to no orthobiologics for foot and ankle arthrodesis. We searched multiple databases (1995-2019) and included clinical trials and other studies with concurrent controls, English language, and reporting patient-centered outcomes, union/time to union, costs/resource utilization, or harms. Studies were organized by orthobiologic used. We describe quality and limitations of available evidence but did not formally rate risk of bias or certainty of evidence. Most of the 21 studies included were retrospective chart reviews with orthobiologics used at surgeon's discretion for patients considered at higher risk for nonunion. Ten studies compared autologous bone graft versus no graft and 2 compared remote versus local graft with few studies of other orthobiologics. All studies reported a measure of fusion and about half reported on function/quality of life. Few studies reported harms. Due to limited reporting, we were unable to assess whether effectiveness varies by risk factors for nonunion (eg, age, gender, smoking status, obesity, diabetes) or whether orthobiologics were cost-effective. Available evidence is of poor quality with small sample sizes, inadequate reporting of risk factors for nonunion, variations in orthobiologics, surgical techniques used, and outcome assessment, and potential selection bias. Research is needed to adequately inform surgeons about benefits and harms and guide patient selection for use, or type, of orthobiologics. Careful assessment of individual patient risk for nonunion is critical prior to orthobiologic use.
Topics: Ankle; Arthrodesis; Bone Transplantation; Humans; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34039511
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.09.022 -
Neurologia May 2023No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in seizure-free patients with meningiomas scheduled for surgery. AEDs are generally prescribed on a discretionary basis, taking into consideration a range of clinical and radiological risk factors. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Of a total of 4368 studies initially identified, 12 were selected for extraction of data and qualitative analysis. Based on the clinical data presented, we were only able to include 6 studies in the meta-analysis. We performed heterogeneity studies, calculated a combined odds ratio, evaluated publication bias, and conducted a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
AED prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative seizures in comparison to controls (Mantel-Haenszel combined odds ratio, random effects model: 1.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.78]; 2041 patients). However, we are unable to establish a robust recommendation against this treatment due to the lack of prospective studies, the presence of selection bias in the studies reviewed, the likelihood of underestimation of seizure frequency during follow-up, and the strong influence of one study on the overall effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limitations of this review, the results of the meta-analysis do not support the routine use of seizure prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.
Topics: Humans; Meningioma; Phenytoin; Anticonvulsants; Incidence; Meningeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 35781420
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.03.002