-
Minerva Pediatrics Apr 2023Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper...
INTRODUCTION
Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper management of pain. Unpleasant experiences during the neonatal period are proven to be associated with negative long-term consequences. Non-pharmacological interventions have been studied, although rarely administered and seldom documented. The aim of this systematic review was to assess non-pharmacological approaches to neonatal pain during diagnostic and treatment procedures.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Extensive literature research to access randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological pain management in neonates was performed in MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science from October 2011 to September 2021. First analysis included all article titles and abstracts screening to identify relevant studies, and second analysis included a full-text screening of previously selected studies. Eligibility was assessed independently by two authors, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. In the end, 19 published studies were included, representing a total of 1930 newborns. Main outcome, neonatal pain, was assessed by different neonatal pain evaluation scales.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Non-pharmacological interventions including sucrose/glucose solutions, non-nutritive sucking, breastfeeding, olfactive stimulus, auditory stimulus and sensory stimulus (skin-to-skin care, kangaroo/maternal holding, heat, therapeutic massage, swaddling/facilitated tucking and acupressure) showed decreased behavioral and physiologic pain responses.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests non-pharmacological approaches are safe, effective and can be easily applied in daily practice. There is the need for continued research on non-pharmacological interventions on neonatal pain to help healthcare providers build a tailored pain treatment plan for neonates submitted to procedural pain.
Topics: Humans; Punctures; Pain; Pain Management; Phlebotomy; Vaccination
PubMed: 35726765
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5276.22.06871-9 -
Pain Management Nursing : Official... Oct 2022This systematic review was conducted to determine the effect of parental presence on the child's pain intensity during invasive procedures. (Review)
Review
AIM
This systematic review was conducted to determine the effect of parental presence on the child's pain intensity during invasive procedures.
DESIGN
A systematic review.
METHOD
The systematic review was conducted in July 2019 and updated in December 2020 to include the latest research published during the publication process by scanning the articles in English. Scopus, Pubmed, Cochrane, Science Direct, MedLine databases were used for scanning. The keywords "parental presence", "family presence", "parent involvement", "invasive procedures", "venipuncture", "painful procedures", "child", "children", "pediatric" were used in the scanning. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol was followed to prepare the study and the report, and the systematic review was created according to the patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOS) strategy.
RESULTS
A total of 248 articles were reached, and the full texts of 18 articles were evaluated for eligibility. After the articles excluded by the full-text search were eliminated, six studies, involving 730 children with a sample aged between 0-12 years, were included in the analysis. In 4 studies, it was determined that having a parent with the child during the invasive procedure significantly decreased the pain level, and in 2 studies, there was no statistically significant decrease in the pain level of the children.
CONCLUSIONS
Parental presence and parental involvement during invasive procedures effectively reduced the children's pain levels. Since the number of studies with a high level of evidence regarding the effect of family participation on pain level is limited, it is recommended to conduct more randomized controlled studies.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Child, Preschool; Child; Parents; Pain Measurement; Pain; Phlebotomy; Family
PubMed: 35523626
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2022.03.011 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jun 2022Among the distraction techniques used for the non-pharmacological management of acute pediatric pain, one of the most performed is clown therapy. Despite the presence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Among the distraction techniques used for the non-pharmacological management of acute pediatric pain, one of the most performed is clown therapy. Despite the presence in the literature of some systematic reviews that evaluate its effectiveness, none of them examines its outcomes on procedural pain which has therefore been investigated in this study. The literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus over a time frame ranging from each database setup date to 31 July 2021. The primary outcome was the procedural pain of children. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Six RCTs were selected for this review, which included a total of 517 pediatric subjects. Children undergoing clown therapy during the venipuncture or peripheral vein cannulation procedure reported less pain than those exposed to the standard of care (SMD = -0.55; 95% CI: -1.23, 0.13) but the result was not found to be statistically significant. School-aged children and adolescent reported significantly less pain (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI: -0.92, -0.09). Compared to the standard of care, children's anxiety was significantly lower with clown therapy (SMD = -0.97; 95% CI: -1.38, -0.56).
CONCLUSION
Clown therapy seems effective in reducing procedural pain in children, particularly for older age groups, but due to poor methodological quality and the high risk of bias of the studies included, the results obtained should be considered with caution.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Clown therapy is one of the most used techniques in the non-pharmacological management of acute pediatric pain. • Laughter physiologically stimulates the production of beta-endorphins, substances with an effect similar to opiates.
WHAT IS NEW
• Clown therapy seems effective in reducing procedural pain and anxiety in children. • The intervention in school-age children or adolescents produces a statistically significant decrease in the symptom.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Anxiety; Child; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain, Procedural; Phlebotomy
PubMed: 35294645
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04440-9 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Nov 2021Vascular punctures are widely used in clinical applications; however, clinical trials have identified complications and poor prognosis for patients undergoing common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vascular punctures are widely used in clinical applications; however, clinical trials have identified complications and poor prognosis for patients undergoing common peripheral vein puncture as compared to ultrasound-guided peripheral venipuncture and catheterization. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venipuncture and catheterization is accurate, simple, has fewer associated complications, and will gradually take the place of common peripheral vein puncture.
METHODS
To study the safety of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheterization, a meta-analysis was conducted of relevant articles dating from establishment date of the database (such as PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE) to March 2021, with the search keywords being peripheral venipuncture, ultrasound guidance, vascular injury rate, and hematoma formation rate. A total of 8 trials were used to determine accuracy indicators, which included puncture failure rate, arterial injury rate, hematoma formation rate, pneumothorax incidence rate, and hemothorax incidence rate.
RESULTS
There were statistically significant differences between the two methods for peripheral venipuncture and catheterization in terms of puncture failure rate [odds ratio (OR) =0.08; 95% CI: 0.04-0.16; P<0.00001], incidence of vascular injury (OR =0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.32; P<0.00001), probability of hematoma formation during the puncture process (OR =0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.69; P=0.008), and probability of pneumothorax during puncture (OR =0.10; 95% CI: 0.02-0.55; P=0.008).
DISCUSSION
Eight articles were included for meta-analysis. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venipuncture and catheterization is a commonly used puncture method for patients needing rapid fluid infusion with pressure or a pressure pump, repeated transfusion of blood product, or multiple daily venous blood drawing test. The results were very clear, and the puncture failure rate and other complications of ultrasound-guided peripheral venipuncture catheterization were low.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Incidence; Phlebotomy; Ultrasonography; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 34872297
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3163 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... Feb 2022Bloodletting therapy (BLT) is widely used to relieve acute gouty arthritis (AGA). However, limited evidence-based reports exist on the effectiveness and safety of BLT.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bloodletting therapy (BLT) is widely used to relieve acute gouty arthritis (AGA). However, limited evidence-based reports exist on the effectiveness and safety of BLT. This systematic review aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of BLT in treating AGA.
METHODS
Seven databases were exhaustively screened from the date of establishment to July 31, 2020, irrespective of the publication source and language. The included articles were evaluated for bias risk by using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. All statistical analyses were done with Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Twelve studies involving 894 participants were included for the final analysis. Our meta-analysis revealed that BLT was highly effective in relieving pain (MD = -1.13, 95% CI [-1.60, -0.66], P < 0.00001), with marked alterations in the total effective (RR = 1.09, 95% [1.05, 1.14], P < 0.0001) and curative rates (RR = 1.37, 95%CI [1.17, 1.59], P < 0.0001). In addition, BLT could dramatically reduce serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level (MD = -3.64, 95%CI [-6.72, -0.55], P = 0.02). Both BLT and Western medicine (WM) produced comparable decreases in uric acid (MD = -18.72, 95%CI [-38.24, 0.81], P = 0.06) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) levels (MD = -3.01, 95%CI [-6.89, 0.86], P = 0.13). Lastly, we demonstrated that BLT was safer than WM in treating AGA (RR = 0.36, 95%CI [0.13, 0.97], P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
BLT is effective in alleviating pain and decreasing CRP level in AGA patients with a lower risk of evoking adverse reactions.
Topics: Arthritis, Gouty; Bloodletting; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34814062
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2021.101503 -
Heart, Lung & Circulation Mar 2022Polycythaemia vera (PV) is a condition that may potentially put patients undergoing cardiac surgery at an increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis; however, there is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Polycythaemia vera (PV) is a condition that may potentially put patients undergoing cardiac surgery at an increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis; however, there is currently a paucity of literature regarding the management of these patients. We aim to examine the literature in this systematic review to indicate the interventions that may be considered to minimise complications.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search using keywords and MeSH terms to identify articles discussing PV and cardiac surgery. The studies were identified and qualitatively analysed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol.
RESULTS
In total, 10 case reports representing 11 patients were identified for this systematic review and were included in qualitative analysis. 63.6% of patients had preoperative intermittent phlebotomy, and the majority of patients received postoperative therapy that involved one antiplatelet agent and one anticoagulant. Generous perioperative fluid management, phlebotomy, preservation of core body temperature, early extubation, monitoring of myocardial ischaemia, infarction and vascular events, intense chest physiotherapy and patient mobilisation are important to consider to reduce the risk of complications arising from surgery.
CONCLUSION
These considerations should be systematically discussed in a multidisciplinary team, where the acute surgical need can be balanced appropriately against the risk of haemorrhage and thrombosis.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Coronary Artery Bypass; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Polycythemia Vera; Thrombosis
PubMed: 34794873
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2021.10.012 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2021Blood collection is one of the most common nursing procedures and is not devoid of complications. The order of draw during blood collection is a controversial theme. We... (Review)
Review
Blood collection is one of the most common nursing procedures and is not devoid of complications. The order of draw during blood collection is a controversial theme. We aimed to define the efficacy of the order of draw during blood collection to guarantee an exact biochemical result. We carried out a systematic literature review on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Articles written in English and published from 2000 to 2020 were considered suitable. The analysis of the 11 articles included highlighted different opinions; however, the most recent evidence declares that the cross-contamination caused by the incorrect order of draw is a trait only in the open system of drawing. The most recent evidence affirms the negligible effect of the order of draw during blood collection when using the closed blood collection system, while it is recommended when using the open collection system.
PubMed: 33562241
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18041568 -
Health Technology Assessment... Feb 2021Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with...
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response.
METHODS
Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care.
LIMITATIONS
There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales.
FUTURE WORK
Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Humans; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 33555998
DOI: 10.3310/hta25080 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The...
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adolescent; Attention; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain Perception; Pain, Procedural; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 33089901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010686.pub2 -
World Journal of Hepatology Aug 2020Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has a heterogeneous distribution across racial and ethnic groups, with a disproportionate burden among Hispanics. Although...
BACKGROUND
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has a heterogeneous distribution across racial and ethnic groups, with a disproportionate burden among Hispanics. Although there are currently no approved therapies for treatment of NAFLD, several therapies have been investigated in clinical trials.
AIM
To analyze the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority groups in clinical trials for NAFLD.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of North American, English-language, prospective studies for NAFLD therapies published from 2005 to 2019. Racial and ethnic enrollment data were recorded for each eligible study. Meta-analysis was performed to compute pooled prevalence of different racial and ethnic groups, followed by further subgroup analyses. These analyses were based on diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and timing of study on enrollment by ethnicity. Descriptive statistics were performed to compare racial and ethnic study enrollment to previously reported NAFLD population prevalence.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies met criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. When reported, median age of enrolled subjects was 49 years (range 41.5-58) with 56% female participants. NAFLD was defined through biopsy findings in 79% ( = 30) of the studies. Of the included articles, treatment modalities ranged from medications ( = 28, 74%), lifestyle interventions ( = 5, 13%), bariatric surgery ( = 4, 11%) and phlebotomy ( = 1, 2%). Twenty-eight studies (73%) included racial and/or ethnic demographic information, while only 17 (45%) included information regarding Hispanic participation. Of the 2983 patients enrolled in all eligible trials, a total of only 346 (11.6%) Hispanic participants was reported. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled Hispanic prevalence of 24.3% (95% confidence interval 16.6-32.0, 94.6%) among studies documenting Hispanic enrollment. Hispanic enrollment increased over time from 15% from 2005-2014 to 37% from 2015-2019.
CONCLUSION
In a meta-analysis of NAFLD trials, documentation of racial/ethnic demographic data occurred in less than half of studies. Standardization of reporting of race/ethnicity and targeted interventions toward minority recruitment are needed to improve diversity of enrollment.
PubMed: 32952877
DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v12.i8.506