-
Acta Medica Philippina 2024Children with COVID-19 may present with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and liver dysfunction.
BACKGROUND
Children with COVID-19 may present with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and liver dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the type and prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19 in children and its association with severity of illness.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was done from inception until January 4, 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and prepublication repositories with no language restrictions. Studies that reported the demographic and clinical features of children with COVID-19 and provided data on their GI and hepatic signs and symptoms were included. Prevalence of GI and hepatic manifestations were pooled using Stata14.
RESULTS
We included 58 studies with total of 4497 participants. Overall, one-third of children with COVID-19 presented with at least one GI symptom (33.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0, 45.4; I 97.5%; 42 studies, 3327 participants) with abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea each occurring in approximately 20%. Children with severe COVID-19 were more likely to present with GI symptoms (odds ratio 2.59; 95% CI 1.35, 4.99; I 24%; 4 studies, 773 participants). The pooled prevalence of elevated transaminases was 11% for both AST (11.3%, 95% CI 4.9, 19.3; I 74.7%; 11 studies, 447 participants) and ALT (11.2%, 95% CI 7.1, 16.0; I 40.8%; 15 studies, 513 participants). Hepatic findings such as jaundice (2-17%), hepatomegaly (2%) or behavioral changes (2%) from hepatic encephalopathy were variably reported by a few studies.The degree of heterogeneity was not improved on exclusion of studies with poor quality, but markedly improved on subgroup analysis according to geographical region and presence of MIS-C. Studies from China showed that children with COVID-19 had significantly lower pooled prevalence for any of the GI symptoms with low degree of heterogeneity, particularly for diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, all of which had I of 0%. Those with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) had significantly more common GI symptoms and increased transaminases than those without.
CONCLUSION
One-third of children with COVID-19 exhibit at least one GI symptom and more likely present in those with severe disease. Elevated transaminases were present in 10%. Prevalence of GI and hepatic manifestations were higher among children with MIS-C.
PubMed: 38882920
DOI: 10.47895/amp.v58i7.7054 -
Acta Medica Philippina 2024The World Health Organization recently revised their recommendations and considered healthy children and adolescents as low priority group for COVID-19 vaccine. This...
OBJECTIVES
The World Health Organization recently revised their recommendations and considered healthy children and adolescents as low priority group for COVID-19 vaccine. This review comprehensively assessed existing clinical evidence on COVID-19 vaccine in 12-17 years old.
METHODS
Included in this review were any type of study that investigated the efficacy, immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine on protection against SARS-COV-2 infection in 12-17 years old. Various electronic databases were searched up to March 15, 2023. Studies were screened, data extracted, risk of bias appraised, and certainty of evidence was judged using GRADE. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects. Difference between the two groups was described as mean difference for continuous variables and as relative risk or odds ratio for categorical variables.
RESULTS
There were six randomized controlled trials and 16 effectiveness studies (8 cohorts and 8 case control). Low certainty evidence showed that BNT162b2 (Pfizer) was effective, immunogenic, and safe in healthy adolescents. There were 15 effectiveness studies on BNT162b2 (Pfizer) in healthy adolescent and one on immunocompromised patients. It was protective against infection with any of the variants, with higher protection against Delta than Omicron. BNT162b2 is protective against hospitalization and emergency and urgent care (high certainty); and critical care and MIS-C (low). Very low certainty evidence noted that BNT 162b2 was also immunogenic in 12-21 years old with rheumatic diseases while on immunomodulatory treatment but with possible increased exacerbation of illness. Low certainty evidence demonstrated that mRNA-1273 (Moderna) was effective, immunogenic, and safe. Low to very low certainty evidence were noted on the safety and immunogenicity of two vector base vaccines (ChAdOx1-19 and Ad5 vector COVID vaccine) and two inactivated vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP CorV).
CONCLUSION
There is presently low certainty evidence on the use of RNA vaccines in 12-17 years old. The recommendation on its use is weak. There is presently insufficient evidence for the use of inactivated and vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Different countries should consider whether to vaccinate healthy adolescent without comprising the other recommended immunization and health priorities that are crucial for this age group. Other factors including cost-effectiveness of vaccination and disease burden should be accounted.
PubMed: 38882914
DOI: 10.47895/amp.v58i7.7930 -
Translational Cancer Research May 2024Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. Combined anlotinib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy may have synergistic...
Efficacy and safety of anlotinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors or not as advanced non-small cell lung cancer treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality. Combined anlotinib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy may have synergistic antitumor effects in NSCLC. This study aimed to comparing the efficacy and safety of anlotinib and ICIs treatment, monotherapy and combination in NSCLC.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 14 studies involving 4,308 NSCLC patients across four regimens: anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, and placebo. Efficacy outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), TRAE grade three or higher (TRAE ≥3). Analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3 and R 3.5.1 (gemtc package). P<0.05 or effect estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI) that did not include 1 indicated statistical significance.
RESULTS
Fourteen publications involving 4,308 patients across four treatment regimens (anlotinib, ICIs, anlotinib plus ICIs, placebo) were included. For PFS, network meta-analysis showed all three interventions significantly improved PFS versus placebo. Anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest PFS improvement [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.36], followed by anlotinib (HR =0.37; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.58), and ICIs (HR =0.43; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.67). For OS, compared to placebo, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest OS improvement (HR =0.52; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.74), followed by anlotinib (HR =0.66; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.95), and ICIs (HR =0.72; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.97). For ORR, anlotinib plus ICIs demonstrated the greatest improvement versus placebo [odds ratio (OR) =5.29; 95% CI: 3.32, 8.58], followed by anlotinib (OR =4.38; 95% CI: 2.42, 8.19), and ICIs (OR =2.17; 95% CI: 1.65, 2.89). For DCR, anlotinib plus ICIs showed the greatest improvement versus placebo (OR =13.32; 95% CI: 4.99, 45.09), followed by anlotinib (OR =5.56; 95% CI: 2.17, 14.38), and ICIs (OR =3.46; 95% CI: 1.29, 10.85). Compared to placebo, anlotinib was associated with the highest risk of TRAEs (OR =3.67, 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), followed by ICIs (OR =1.83; 95% CI: 1.26, 2.69). Due to lack of data on anlotinib plus ICIs, no comparison was conducted. For grade ≥3 TRAEs, compared to placebo, anlotinib increased the risk (OR =3.67; 95% CI: 1.12, 15.77), while anlotinib plus ICIs (OR =2.45; 95% CI: 0.51, 11.6) and ICIs (OR =1.29; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.38) did not increase the risk.
CONCLUSIONS
Anlotinib combined with ICIs demonstrates improved efficacy over monotherapy for NSCLC treatment, without increased adverse events.
PubMed: 38881944
DOI: 10.21037/tcr-23-1483 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Apr 2024To evaluate the impact of acute kidney injury on transition to chronic kidney disease (CKD) after cardiac surgery and to determine frequency of incident CKD in these... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the impact of acute kidney injury on transition to chronic kidney disease (CKD) after cardiac surgery and to determine frequency of incident CKD in these patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
SETTING
Electronic databases Medline and Embase were systematically searched from 1974 to February 6, 2023.
PARTICIPANTS
Eligible studies were original observational studies on adult cardiac surgery patients, written in the English language, and with clear kidney disease definitions. Exclusion criteria were studies with previously transplanted populations, populations with preoperative kidney impairment, ventricular assist device procedures, endovascular procedures, a kidney follow-up period of <90 days, and studies not presenting necessary data for effect size calculations.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients developing postoperative acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery were compared with patients who did not develop acute kidney injury.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 4,329 unique studies, 87 underwent full-text review, and 12 were included for analysis. Mean acute kidney injury occurrence across studies was 16% (minimum-maximum: 8-50), while mean occurrence of CKD was 24% (minimum-maximum: 3-35), with high variability depending on definitions and follow-up time. Acute kidney injury was associated with increased odds of CKD in all individual studies. The pooled odds ratio across studies was 5.67 (95% confidence interval, 3.34-9.64; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery was associated with a more than 5-fold increased odds of developing CKD. New-onset CKD occurred in almost 1 in 4 patients in the years after surgery.
PubMed: 38879369
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2024.03.044 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Jun 2024Pneumothorax is the most frequent complication after CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy (CT-PTLB). Many studies reported that injection of autologous blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumothorax is the most frequent complication after CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic lung biopsy (CT-PTLB). Many studies reported that injection of autologous blood patch (ABP) during biopsy needle withdrawal could reduce the pneumothorax and chest tube insertion rate after CT-PTLB, but the result is debatable. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence regarding the efficacy of ABP procedure in patients receiving CT-PTLB.
METHODS
Eligible studies were searched in Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed the relationship between ABP and the pneumothorax and/or chest tube insertion rate after CT-PTLB. Subgroup analyses according to study type, emphysema status and ABP technique applied were also conducted. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to examine the risk association.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies including 3874 patients were qualified for analysis. Our analysis suggested that ABP reduced the pneumothorax (incidence: 20.0% vs. 27.9%, OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48-0.66, P < 0.001) and chest tube insertion rate (incidence: 4.0% vs. 8.0%, OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.34-0.65, P < 0.001) after CT-PTLB. Subgroup analysis according to study type (RCT or retrospective study), emphysema status (with or without emphysema), and ABP technique applied (clotted or non-clotted ABP) were also performed and we found ABP reduced the pneumothorax and chest tube insertion rate in all subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicated that the use of ABP was effective technique in reducing the pneumothorax and chest tube insertion rate after CT-PTLB.
Topics: Pneumothorax; Humans; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Image-Guided Biopsy; Lung; Blood Transfusion, Autologous; Chest Tubes
PubMed: 38877547
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-024-02781-0 -
Medicine Jun 2024Budesonide, capable of reducing vascular permeability, suppressing mucus secretion, and alleviating edema and spasms, is widely used in China for combined infectious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Budesonide, capable of reducing vascular permeability, suppressing mucus secretion, and alleviating edema and spasms, is widely used in China for combined infectious disease treatment. This study assesses budesonide's efficacy and safety as an adjunct to azithromycin in pediatric Mycoplasma pneumonia management in China, aiming to establish a strong theoretical foundation for its clinical application.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search for qualifying studies across 5 English databases and 4 Chinese databases, covering publications until October 31, 2023. Endpoint analyses were performed using standard software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). This study was conducted in compliance with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 24 randomized controlled trials were involved in the current study, including 2034 patients. Our findings indicate that the combination of budesonide with azithromycin for the treatment of pediatric Mycoplasma pneumonia delivers superior therapeutic efficacy (Intravenous: odds ratio [OR], 0.156, P < .001; Sequential: OR, 0.163, P = .001; Oral: OR, 0.139, P < .001), improved pulmonary function (Forced expiratory volume in 1 second: weighted mean differences [WMD], -0.28, P = .001; Peak expiratory flow: WMD, -0.554, P = .002; Forced vital capacity: WMD, -0.321, P < .001), diminished lung inflammation (IL-6: WMD, 4.760, P = .002; c-reactive protein: WMD, 5.520, P < .001; TNF-α: WMD, 9.124, P < .001), reduced duration of fever, faster resolution of cough and rales, all without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
The combination of budesonide and azithromycin demonstrates enhanced therapeutic effectiveness, promotes improved pulmonary function, shortens the duration of symptoms, and effectively mitigates the overexpression of inflammatory factors like c-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6, all without an associated increase in adverse reactions in pediatric mycoplasma pneumonia.
Topics: Humans; Azithromycin; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; Budesonide; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; China; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Administration, Inhalation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Child, Preschool; East Asian People
PubMed: 38875395
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038332 -
Turkish Neurosurgery Feb 2024Extraventricular drainage (EVD) combined with fibrinolytics may prove effective in reducing morbidity and mortality rates associated with intraventricular cerebral...
INTRODUCTION
Extraventricular drainage (EVD) combined with fibrinolytics may prove effective in reducing morbidity and mortality rates associated with intraventricular cerebral hemorrhage (IVH). This efficacy is primarily attributed to increased drainage capacity and a decreased risk of EVD obstruction when fibrinolytics are employed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of thrombolytics in this context.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022332152). Articles were selected from various sources, including PubMed, Trip Database, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect. Clinical trials focusing on IVH treatment using EVD and/or fibrinolytics were considered. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROB 2) tool was employed for bias assessment. A fixed-effects regression model was used following heterogeneity analysis. Treatment effectiveness was evaluated based on mortality outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 531 patients from four studies were included. The use of fibrinolytics significantly decreased IVH mortality compared with a placebo. The odds ratio (OR) for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) or alteplase was 0.54 [0.36; 0.82]. For urokinase (UK), the OR was 0.21 [0.03; 1.54], rendering it statistically non-significant. The overall OR was 0.52 [0.35; 0.78], and the heterogeneity I2 was 0% (indicating low heterogeneity).
CONCLUSION
While EVD alone is a common approach for managing hydrocephalus, its effectiveness is limited by potential blockages and infections. Combining EVD with UK or rtPA demonstrated improved patient outcomes. rtPA stands out as a reliable and effective option, while limited data are available regarding UK\'s effectiveness in reducing IVH mortality.
PubMed: 38874256
DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.45919-23.1 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Urolithiasis is a common urological diseases and affects the daily life of patients. Medical expulsive therapy has become acceptable for many parents. We conducted a...
OBJECTIVE
Urolithiasis is a common urological diseases and affects the daily life of patients. Medical expulsive therapy has become acceptable for many parents. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of tadalafil compared with tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm in length.
METHODS
Related studies were identified via searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All the articles that described the use of tadalafil and tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones were collected.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Our results revealed that tadalafil enhanced expulsion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47 to 0.98, = 0.04]; reduced expulsion time [mean difference (MD) = 1.22, 95% CI (0.13, 2.30), = 0.03]; lowered analgesia use [MD = 38.66, 95% CI (7.56, 69.77), = 0.01] and hospital visits [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.06, 0.22), = 0.0006]. According to our subgroup analysis, either tadalafil 5 mg or 10 mg did not promote expulsion rate and accelerate expulsion time compared with tamsulosin. But patients receiving 5 mg tadalafil decreased analgesia usage [MD = 101.04, 95% CI (67.56, 134.01), < 0.00001].
CONCLUSION
Compared with tamsulosin, tadalafil demonstrates a higher expulsion rate and less expulsion time for patients with distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm with a favorable safety profile.
PubMed: 38873423
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1351312 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young... (Review)
Review
REVIEW RATIONALE AND CONTEXT
Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young people's offending outcomes. Evidence on summer employment programmes shows promise on this but has not yet been synthesised. This report fills this evidence gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering summer education and summer employment programmes as their contexts and mechanisms are often similar.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The objective is to provide evidence on the extent to which summer programmes impact the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people.
METHODS
The review employs mixed methods: we synthesise quantitative information estimating the impact of summer programme allocation/participation across the outcome domains through meta-analysis using the random-effects model; and we synthesise qualitative information relating to contexts, features, mechanisms and implementation issues through thematic synthesis. Literature searches were largely conducted in January 2023. Databases searched include: Scopus; PsychInfo; ERIC; the YFF-EGM; EEF's and TASO's toolkits; RAND's summer programmes evidence review; key academic journals; and Google Scholar. The review employed PICOSS eligibility criteria: the was disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people aged 10-25; were either summer education or employment programmes; a valid group that did not experience a summer programme was required; studies had to estimate the summer programme's impact on violence and offending, education, employment, socio-emotional and/or health ; eligible were experimental and quasi-experimental; eligible were high-income countries. Other eligibility criteria included publication in English, between 2012 and 2022. Process/qualitative evaluations associated with eligible impact studies or of UK-based interventions were also included; the latter given the interests of the sponsors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. The search identified 68 eligible studies; with 41 eligible for meta-analysis. Forty-nine studies evaluated 36 summer education programmes, and 19 studies evaluated six summer employment programmes. The number of participants within these studies ranged from less than 100 to nearly 300,000. The PICOSS criteria affects the external applicability of the body of evidence - allowances made regarding study design to prioritise evidence on UK-based interventions limits our ability to assess impact for some interventions. The risk of bias assessment categorised approximately 75% of the impact evaluations as low quality, due to attrition, losses to follow up, interventions having low take-up rates, or where allocation might introduce selection bias. As such, intention-to-treat analyses are prioritised. The quality assessment rated 93% of qualitative studies as low quality often due to not employing rigorous qualitative methodologies. These results highlight the need to improve the evidence.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative synthesis examined impact estimates across 34 outcomes, through meta-analysis (22) or in narrative form (12). We summarise below the findings where meta-analysis was possible, along with the researchers' judgement of the security of the findings (high, moderate or low). This was based on the number and study-design quality of studies evaluating the outcome; the consistency of findings; the similarity in specific outcome measures used; and any other specific issues which might affect our confidence in the summary findings.Below we summarise the findings from the meta-analyses conducted to assess the impact of allocation to/participation in summer education and employment programmes (findings in relation to other outcomes are also discussed in the main body, but due to the low number of studies evaluating these, meta-analysis was not performed). We only cover the pooled results for the two programme types where there are not clear differences in findings between summer education and summer employment programmes, so as to avoid potentially attributing any impact to both summer programme types when this is not the case. We list the outcome measure, the average effect size type (i.e., whether a standardised mean difference (SMD) or log odds ratio), which programme type the finding is in relation to and then the average effect size along with its 95% confidence interval and the interpretation of the finding, that is, whether there appears to be a significant impact and in which direction (positive or negative, clarifying instances where a negative impact is beneficial). In some instances there may be a discrepancy between the 95% confidence interval and whether we determine there to be a significant impact, which will be due to the specifics of the process for constructing the effect sizes used in the meta-analysis. We then list the statistic and the -value from the homogeneity test as indications of the presence of heterogeneity. As the sample size used in the analysis are often small and the homogeneity test is known to be under-powered with small sample sizes, it may not detect statistically significant heterogeneity when it is in fact present. As such, a 90% confidence level threshold should generally be used when interpreting this with regard to the meta-analyses below. The presence of effect size heterogeneity affects the extent to which the average effects size is applicable to all interventions of that summer programme type. We also provide an assessment of the relative confidence we have in the generalisability of the overall finding (low, moderate or high) - some of the overall findings are based on a small sample of studies, the studies evaluating the outcome may be of low quality, there may be wide variation in findings among the studies evaluating the outcome, or there may be specific aspects of the impact estimates included or the effect sizes constructed that affect the generalisability of the headline finding. These issues are detailed in full in the main body of the review. -Engagement with/participation in/enjoyment of education (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.12 (+0.03, +0.20); positive impact; = 48.76%, = 0.10; moderate confidence.-Secondary education attendance (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.26 (+0.08, +0.44); positive impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (-0.03, +0.07); no impact; = 69.98%; = 0.03; low confidence.-Passing tests (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.41 (-0.13, +0.96); no impact; = 95.05%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (+0.00, +0.04); positive impact; = 0.01%; = 0.33; low confidence.-Reading test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.01 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.40%; = 0.48; high confidence.-English test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.07 (+0.00, +0.13); positive impact; = 27.17%; = 0.33; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.03 (-0.05, -0.01); negative impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Mathematics test scores (SMD):∘All summer programmes: +0.09 (-0.06, +0.25); no impact; = 94.53%; = 0.00; high confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (-0.09, +0.36); no impact; = 94.15%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.00 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.04%; = 0.92; moderate confidence.-Overall test scores (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.08, +0.05); no impact; = 32.39%; = 0.20; high confidence.-All test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (+0.00, +0.27); positive impact; = 91.07%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.04, +0.01); no impact; = 0.06%; = 0.73; high confidence.-Negative behavioural outcomes (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: -1.55 (-3.14, +0.03); negative impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.07 (-0.33, +0.18); no impact; = 88.17%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.-Progression to HE (log OR):∘All summer programmes: +0.24 (-0.04, +0.52); no impact; = 97.37%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.32 (-0.12, +0.76); no impact; = 96.58%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.10 (-0.07, +0.26); no impact; = 76.61%; = 0.02; moderate confidence.-Complete HE (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.38 (+0.15, +0.62); positive impact; = 52.52%; = 0.06; high confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.07 (-0.19, +0.33); no impact; = 70.54%; = 0.07; moderate confidence.-Entry to employment, short-term (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.19 (-0.45, +0.08); no impact; = 87.81%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Entry to employment, full period (log OR)∘Summer employment programmes: -0.15 (-0.35, +0.05); no impact; = 78.88%; = 0.00; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.05 (-0.15, +0.05); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a drug-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.16 (-0.57, +0.89); no impact; = 65.97%; = 0.09; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a violence-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.03 (-0.02, +0.08); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.22; moderate confidence.-Likelihood of having a property-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.09 (-0.17, +0.34); no impact; = 45.01%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, during programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 2.17%; = 0.31; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 23.57%; = 0.37; low confidence.-Number of drug-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.06, +0.06); no impact; = 55.19%; = 0.14; moderate confidence.-Number of violence-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.08, +0.03); no impact; = 44.48%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of property-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.10, +0.05); no impact; = 64.93%; = 0.09; low confidence. We re-express instances of significant impact by programme type where we have moderate or high confidence in the security of findings by translating this to a form used by one of the studies, to aid understanding of the findings. Allocation to a summer education programme results in approximately 60% of individuals moving from never reading for fun to doing so once or twice a month (engagement in/participation in/enjoyment of education), and an increase in the English Grade Point Average of 0.08. Participation in a summer education programme results in an increase in overall Grade Point Average of 0.14 and increases the likelihood of completing higher education by 1.5 times. Signs are positive for the effectiveness of summer education programmes in achieving some of the education outcomes considered (particularly on test scores (when pooled across types), completion of higher education and STEM-related higher education outcomes), but the evidence on which overall findings are based is often weak. Summer employment programmes appear to have a limited impact on employment outcomes, if anything, a negative impact on the likelihood of entering employment outside of employment related to the programme. The evidence base for impacts of summer employment programmes on young people's violence and offending type outcomes is currently limited - where impact is detected this largely results in substantial reductions in criminal justice outcomes, but the variation in findings across and within studies affects our ability to make any overarching assertions with confidence. In understanding the effectiveness of summer programmes, the order of outcomes also requires consideration - entries into education from a summer employment programme might be beneficial if this leads towards better quality employment in the future and a reduced propensity of criminal justice outcomes.
QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS
Various shared features among different summer education programmes emerged from the review, allowing us to cluster specific types of these interventions which then aided the structuring of the thematic synthesis. The three distinct clusters for summer education programmes were: catch-up programmes addressing attainment gaps, raising aspirations programmes inspiring young people to pursue the next stage of their education or career, and transition support programmes facilitating smooth transitions between educational levels. Depending on their aim, summer education programme tend to provide a combination of: additional instruction on core subjects (e.g., English, mathematics); academic classes including to enhance specialist subject knowledge (e.g., STEM-related); homework help; coaching and mentoring; arts and recreation electives; and social and enrichment activities. Summer employment programmes provide paid work placements or subsidised jobs typically in entry-level roles mostly in the third and public sectors, with some summer employment programmes also providing placements in the private sector. They usually include components of pre-work training and employability skills, coaching and mentoring. There are a number of mechanisms which act as facilitators or barriers to engagement in summer programmes. These include tailoring the summer programme to each young person and individualised attention; the presence of well-prepared staff who provide effective academic/workplace and socio-emotional support; incentives of a monetary (e.g., stipends and wages) or non-monetary (e.g., free transport and meals) nature; recruitment strategies, which are effective at identifying, targeting and engaging participants who can most benefit from the intervention; partnerships, with key actors who can help facilitate referrals and recruitment, such as schools, community action and workforce development agencies; format, including providing social activities and opportunities to support the formation of connections with peers; integration into the workplace, through pre-placement engagement, such as through orientation days, pre-work skills training, job fairs, and interactions with employers ahead of the beginning of the summer programme; and skill acquisition, such as improvements in social skills. In terms of the causal processes which lead from engagement in a summer programme to outcomes, these include: skill acquisition, including academic, social, emotional, and life skills; positive relationships with peers, including with older students as mentors in summer education programmes; personalised and positive relationships with staff; location, including accessibility and creating familiar environments; creating connections between the summer education programme and the students' learning at home to maintain continuity and reinforce learning; and providing purposeful and meaningful work through summer employment programmes (potentially facilitated through the provision of financial and/or non-financial incentives), which makes participants more likely to see the importance of education in achieving their life goals and this leads to raised aspirations. It is important to note that no single element of a summer programme can be identified as generating the causal process for impact, and impact results rather from a combination of elements. Finally, we investigated strengths and weaknesses in summer programmes at both the design and implementation stages. In summer education programmes, design strengths include interactive and alternative learning modes; iterative and progressive content building; incorporating confidence building activities; careful lesson planning; and teacher support which is tailored to each student. Design weaknesses include insufficient funding or poor funding governance (e.g., delays to funding); limited reach of the target population; and inadequate allocation of teacher and pupil groups (i.e., misalignment between the education stage of the pupils and the content taught by staff). Implementation strengths include clear programme delivery guidance and good governance; high quality academic instruction; mentoring support; and strong partnerships. Implementation weaknesses include insufficient planning and lead in time; recruitment challenges; and variability in teaching quality. In summer employment programmes, design strengths include use of employer orientation materials and supervisor handbooks; careful consideration of programme staff roles; a wide range of job opportunities; and building a network of engaged employers. Design weaknesses are uncertainty over funding and budget agreements; variation in delivery and quality of training between providers; challenges in recruitment of employers; and caseload size and management. Implementation strengths include effective job matching; supportive relationships with supervisors; pre-work training; and mitigating attrition (e.g., striving to increase take up of the intervention among the treatment group). Implementation weaknesses are insufficient monitors for the number of participants, and challenges around employer availability.
PubMed: 38873396
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1406 -
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory... Jun 2024Distinguishing metastatic carcinomas from mesotheliomas or reactive mesothelial cells in pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions is a common diagnostic problem...
The Diagnostic Accuracy of Claudin-4 Immunochemistry in Differentiating Metastatic Carcinomas From Mesothelial Processes in Serous Effusion Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT.—
Distinguishing metastatic carcinomas from mesotheliomas or reactive mesothelial cells in pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions is a common diagnostic problem cytopathologists encounter.
OBJECTIVE.—
To perform the first meta-analysis on the pooled diagnostic accuracy of claudin-4 immunochemistry in serous effusion cytopathology.
DESIGN.—
This report followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) were searched until October 9, 2023, followed by study selection using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extraction. The study quality assessment was performed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Statistical analysis was performed by using R to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of claudin-4 immunochemistry. In addition, the diagnostic odds ratio was measured, representing the odds ratio of a positive result indicating a carcinoma rather than a mesothelial process in serous effusion cytology.
RESULTS.—
Fourteen observational studies, published between 2011 and 2023, fulfilled the selection criteria and were included. All 14 studies used the 3E2C1 clone. Claudin-4 immunochemistry showed a high diagnostic accuracy in serous effusion cytology. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 98.02% (95% CI, 93.96%-99.37%) and 99.72% (95% CI, 97.36%-99.97%), respectively. Lastly, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 1660.5 (95% CI, 760.0-3627.8) and no evidence of statistical heterogeneity between the included studies was found (I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0).
CONCLUSIONS.—
Claudin-4 may be used as a single pan-carcinoma immunochemical biomarker in the differential diagnosis between metastatic carcinomas and mesotheliomas or reactive mesothelial cells in serous effusion cytology.
PubMed: 38871358
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2023-0560-RA