-
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2024Taping is increasingly used to manage proprioceptive deficits, but existing reviews on its impact have shortcomings. To accurately assess the effects of taping, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Taping is increasingly used to manage proprioceptive deficits, but existing reviews on its impact have shortcomings. To accurately assess the effects of taping, a separate meta-analyses for different population groups and tape types is needed. Therefore, both between- and within-group meta-analyses are needed to evaluate the influence of taping on proprioception. According to PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was conducted across seven databases (Web of Science, PEDro, Pubmed, EBSCO, Scopus, ERIC, SportDiscus, Psychinfo) and one register (CENTRAL) using the keywords "tape" and "proprioception". Out of 1372 records, 91 studies, involving 2718 individuals, met the inclusion criteria outlined in the systematic review. The meta-analyses revealed a significant between and within-group reduction in repositioning errors with taping compared to no tape (Hedge's g: -0.39, p < 0.001) and placebo taping (Hedge's g: -1.20, p < 0.001). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses further confirmed the reliability of the overall between and within-group analyses. The between-group results further demonstrated that both elastic tape and rigid tape had similar efficacy to improve repositioning errors in both healthy and fatigued populations. Additional analyses on the threshold to detection of passive motion and active movement extent discrimination apparatus revealed no significant influence of taping. In conclusion, the findings highlight the potential of taping to enhance joint repositioning accuracy compared to no tape or placebo taping. Further research needs to uncover underlying mechanisms and refine the application of taping for diverse populations with proprioceptive deficits.
Topics: Humans; Proprioception; Athletic Tape
PubMed: 38890668
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07571-2 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results).
MAIN RESULTS
Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.
PubMed: 38887375
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1414 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Dementia is a gradual and ongoing cognitive decline due to damage to nerve cells in the brain. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the potential relationship between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a gradual and ongoing cognitive decline due to damage to nerve cells in the brain. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the potential relationship between regional anesthesia (RA) and the risk of dementia.
METHODS
Electronic databases including Embase, Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the association between RA and dementia risk from inception to March 2022. The primary outcome was the risk of dementia in patients who underwent RA (RA group) and those who received general anesthesia (GA group). Secondary outcomes included identifying other potential risk factors for dementia and comparing dementia risk between individuals receiving RA and those not receiving surgery/anesthesia (placebo group).
RESULTS
Eight cohort studies published between 2014 and 2023 were included in this analysis. A meta-analysis of the available data demonstrated no differences in baseline characteristics and morbidities (i.e., age, male proportion, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and severe comorbidities) between the RA and GA groups (all > 0.05). Initial analysis revealed that the risk of dementia was higher in the GA group than in the RA group (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.29-2.55, = 0.007, = 99%, five studies). However, when a study featuring a relatively younger population was excluded from the sensitivity analysis, the results showed a similar risk of dementia (HR, 1.17; = 0.13) between the GA and RA groups. The pooled results revealed no difference in dementia risk between the RA and placebo groups (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.69-2.07, = 0.52, = 68%, three studies). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the evidence was not stable, suggesting that limited datasets precluded strong conclusions on this outcome. Anxiety, stroke history, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes are potential predictors of dementia.
CONCLUSION
Our results emphasize that, while RA could be protective against dementia risk compared to GA, the association between the type of anesthesia and dementia risk might vary among different age groups. Owing to the significant prevalence of dementia among older people and their surgical needs, further investigations are warranted to clarify the association between dementia risk and regional anesthesia.: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42023411324.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, General; Dementia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Risk Factors; Male; Aged; Female
PubMed: 38887243
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1362461 -
Zdravstveno Varstvo Sep 2024Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of venom allergy, bees in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of venom allergy, bees in particular. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to venom among beekeepers worldwide.
METHODS
We rigorously reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on observational studies retrieved from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, ScienceDirect, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Zoological Record), spanning data from inception to August 1, 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was employed to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence.
RESULTS
Out of 468 studies, eight original articles met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall lifetime and one-year prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom were 23.7% (95% CI: 7.7-53.4) and 7.3% (95% CI: 5.8-9.2), respectively. The estimated lifetime prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom for grades III-IV (severe systemic allergic reaction) was 6.0% (95% CI: 3.0-11.7). In general, substantial heterogeneity and a high risk of bias were observed across the majority of studies. The impact of geographical location and climate differences on the estimated lifetime prevalence is suggestive for severe systemic allergic reaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Future observational cross-sectional studies should employ rigorous study designs, using validated questionnaires, and thoroughly report the observed health outcomes, verified by physicians.
PubMed: 38881633
DOI: 10.2478/sjph-2024-0020 -
Environment International Jun 2024To inform radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure guidelines the World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on RF-EMF in relation to...
BACKGROUND
To inform radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure guidelines the World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on RF-EMF in relation to health outcomes prioritised for evaluation by experts in this field. Given this, a network of topic experts and methodologists have conducted a series of systematic reviews collecting, assessing, and synthesising data of relevance to these guidelines. Here we present a systematic review of the effect of RF-EMF exposure on adverse pregnancy outcomes in human observational studies which follows the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines.
METHODS
We conducted a broad, sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; and the EMF Portal. Grey literature searches were also conducted through relevant databases (including OpenGrey), organisational websites and via consultation of RF-EMF experts. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adults' preconception or pregnant women on pre-term birth, small for gestational age (SGA; associated with intrauterine growth restriction), miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight (LBW) and congenital anomalies. In blinded duplicate, titles and abstracts then full texts were screened against eligibility criteria. A third reviewer gave input when consensus was not reached. Citation chaining of included studies was completed. Two reviewers' data extracted and assessed included studies for risk of bias using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. Random effects meta-analyses of the highest versus the lowest exposures and dose-response meta-analysis were conducted as appropriate and plausible. Two reviewers assessed the certainty in each body of evidence using the OHAT GRADE tool.
RESULTS
We identified 18 studies in this review; eight were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and 10 were occupational studies (with the population of interest specific workers/workforces). General public studies. From pairwise meta-analyses of general public studies, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on preterm birth risk (relative risk (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.34, 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.83-1.57; 4 studies), LBW (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.96-1.36, 95% PI: 0.84-1.57; 4 studies) or SGA (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, 95% PI: 0.99-1.28; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. It was not feasible to meta-analyse studies reporting on the effect of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on congenital anomalies or miscarriage risk. The reported effects from the studies assessing these outcomes varied and the studies were at some risk of bias. No studies of the general public assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure on stillbirth. Occupational studies. In occupational studies, based on dose-response meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF amongst female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy on miscarriage due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.94-1.1; 2 studies). Amongst offspring of female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of congenital malformations due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.32; 2 studies). From pairwise meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of miscarriage (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence), pre-term births (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.37; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and low birth weight (RR 2.90, 95% CI: 0.69 to 12.23; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Results for stillbirth and SGA could not be pooled in meta-analyses. The results from the studies reporting these outcomes were inconsistent and the studies were at some risk of bias.
DISCUSSION
Most of the evidence identified in this review was from general public studies assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on female reproductive outcomes. In occupational settings, each study was of heterogenous whole-body RF-EMF exposure from radar, short or microwave diathermy, surveillance and welding equipment and its effect on female reproductive outcomes. Overall, the body of evidence is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (particularly improved accuracy of exposure measurement and using appropriate statistical methods) are required to identify any potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes of interest.
PubMed: 38880062
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108816 -
Environment International Jun 2024The World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in relation to health outcomes, previously...
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in relation to health outcomes, previously identified as priorities for research and evaluation by experts in the field, to inform exposure guidelines. A suite of systematic reviews have been undertaken by a network of topic experts and methodologists to collect, assess and synthesise data relevant to these guidelines. Following the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility in human observational studies.
METHODS
We conducted a broad and sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; Web of Science and EMF Portal. We also conducted searches of grey literature through relevant databases including OpenGrey, and organisational websites and consulted RF-EMF experts. We hand searched reference lists of included study records and for citations of these studies. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adult male participants on infertility: sperm concentration; sperm morphology; sperm total motility; sperm progressive motility; total sperm count; and time to pregnancy. Titles and abstracts followed by full texts were screened in blinded duplicate against pre-set eligibility criteria with consensus input from a third reviewer as required. Data extraction from included studies was completed by two reviewers, as was risk of bias assessment using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis as possible and appropriate. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by two reviewers using the OHAT GRADE tool with input from a third reviewer as required.
RESULTS
We identified nine studies in this review; seven were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and two were occupational studies (with specific workers/workforces as the population of interest). General public studies. Duration of phone use: The evidence is very uncertain surrounding the effects of RF-EMF on sperm concentration (10/6 mL) (MD (mean difference) per hour of daily phone use 1.6 10/mL, 95 % CI -1.7 to 4.9; 3 studies), sperm morphology (MD 0.15 percentage points of deviation of normal forms per hour, 95 % CI -0.21 to 0.51; 3 studies), sperm progressive motility (MD -0.46 percentage points per hour, 95 % CI -1.04 to 0.13; 2 studies) and total sperm count (MD per hour -0.44 10/ejaculate, 95 % CI -2.59 to 1.7; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. Four additional studies reported on the effect of mobile phone use on sperm motility but were unsuitable for pooling; only one of these studies identified a statistically significant effect. All four studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used an inappropriate statistical method. Position of phone: There may be no or little effect of carrying a mobile phone in the front pocket on sperm concentration, total count, morphology, progressive motility or on time to pregnancy. Of three studies reporting on the effect of mobile phone location on sperm total motility and, or, total motile count, one showed a statistically significant effect. All three studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used inappropriate statistical method. RF-EMF Source: One study indicates there may be little or no effect of computer or other electric device use on sperm concentration, total motility or total count. This study is at probably high risk of exposure characterisation bias and outcome assessment bias. Occupational studies. With only two studies of occupational exposure to RF-EMF and heterogeneity in the population and exposure source (technicians exposed to microwaves or seamen exposed to radar equipment), it was not plausible to statistically pool findings. One study was at probably or definitely high risk of bias across all domains, the other across domains for exposure characterisation bias, outcome assessment bias and confounding.
DISCUSSION
The majority of evidence identified was assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on male fertility with few studies assessing the impact of phone position. Overall, the evidence identified is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones on sperm outcomes. One study assessed the impact of other RF-EMF sources on male fertility amongst the general public and two studies assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure in occupational cohorts from different sources (radar or microwave) on male fertility. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (in particular, improved accuracy of exposure measurement and appropriate statistical method use) would build the existing evidence base and are required to have greater certainty in any potential effects of RF-EMF on male reproductive outcomes. Prospero Registration: CRD42021265401 (SR3A).
PubMed: 38880061
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108817 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2024Many patients with schizophrenia have symptoms that do not respond to antipsychotics. This condition is called treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has not received... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many patients with schizophrenia have symptoms that do not respond to antipsychotics. This condition is called treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has not received specific attention as opposed to general schizophrenia. Psychological and psychosocial interventions as an add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy could be useful, but their role and comparative efficacy to each other and to standard care in this population are not known. We investigated the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of psychological and psychosocial interventions for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through a systematic database search in BIOSIS, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles published from inception up to Jan 31, 2020. We also searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group registry for studies published from inception up to March 31, 2022, and PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies published from inception up to July 31, 2023. We included RCTs that included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The primary outcome was overall symptoms. We did random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs to calculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios with 95% CIs. No people with lived experience were involved throughout the research process. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022358696.
FINDINGS
We identified 30 326 records, excluding 24 526 by title and abstract screening. 5762 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 5540 were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, and 222 reports corresponding to 60 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Of these, 52 RCTs with 5034 participants (1654 [33·2%] females and 3325 [66·8%] males with sex indicated) comparing 20 psychological and psychosocial interventions provided data for the NMA. Mean age of participants was 38·05 years (range 23·10-48·50). We aimed to collect ethnicity data, but they were scarcely reported. According to the quality of evidence, cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp; SMD -0·22, 95% CI -0·35 to -0·09, 35 trials), virtual reality intervention (SMD -0·41, -0·79 to -0·02, four trials), integrated intervention (SMD -0·70, -1·18 to -0·22, three trials), and music therapy (SMD -1·27, -1·83 to -0·70, one study) were more efficacious than standard care in reducing overall symptoms. No indication of publication bias was identified.
INTERPRETATION
We provide robust findings that CBTp can reduce the overall symptoms of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and therefore clinicians can prioritise this intervention in their clinical practice. Other psychological and psychosocial interventions showed promising results but need further investigation.
FUNDING
DAAD-ASFE.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychosocial Intervention; Schizophrenia, Treatment-Resistant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Psychotherapy; Antipsychotic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 38879276
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00136-6 -
Environmental Research Jun 2024Nature-based interventions (NBIs) are activities, strategies, or programs taking place in natural settings, such as exercising in greenspaces, to improve the health and... (Review)
Review
Nature-based interventions (NBIs) are activities, strategies, or programs taking place in natural settings, such as exercising in greenspaces, to improve the health and well-being of people by integrating the benefits of nature exposure with healthy behaviours. Current reviews on NBIs do not report the effects on different groups of physical health conditions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and synthesize the evidence of the effect of NBIs on physical health outcomes and biomarkers of physical health conditions. Overall, 20,201 studies were identified through searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and CENTRAL databases up to June 7, 2024. Inclusion criteria were: 1) randomized controlled intervention studies; 2) population with a physical health condition; 3) NBIs vs. different intervention or no intervention; and 4) measuring physical health outcomes and/or biomarkers. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, 15 of which contributed to the meta-analysis. Compared to control groups, NBIs groups showed significant improvements in: diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.73 mmHg [-7.46 to -0.00], I = 62%) and heart rate (MD -7.44 bpm [-14.81 to -0.06], I = 0%) for cardiovascular conditions, fatigue (SMD -0.50 [-0.82 to -0.18], I = 16%) for central nervous system conditions, and body fat percentage (MD -3.61% [-5.05 to -2.17], I = 0%) for endocrine conditions. High effect heterogeneity was found in several analyses and the included studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias (RoB). The non-significant outcomes showed a direction of effect in favour of NBI groups for cardiovascular, central nervous system, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and respiratory conditions. This review found some beneficial effects in favour of NBIs for health outcomes in at least three condition groups though RoB and inconsistent effects limited some interpretations. NBIs are promising therapies that healthcare professionals can consider integrating into clinical practice.
PubMed: 38876421
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119421 -
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 -
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