-
CNS Drugs Jan 2024Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was reported in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease. However, the specific cognitive domains affected and the degree of evidence supporting these effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of levetiracetam on different cognitive domains.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We defined our inclusion criteria for the systematic review as: (1) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) involving human subjects, (2) double-blinded RCTs, and (3) RCTs evaluating the quantitative differences in cognitive function between levetiracetam and placebo. We excluded: (1) non-RCT studies, (2) open-label studies, and (3) RCTs lacking cognitive assessments for either intervention. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception until 2 July 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to examine the impact of levetiracetam on cognitive domain tests, with Hedges' g facilitating the comparison with placebo. The domains analyzed comprised multi-domain, executive function, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory/learning (verbal ML), visuospatial memory/learning (visuospatial ML), and language. We used odds ratios to compare the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups, including somnolence, fatigue, dizziness, headache, irritability, and cognitive adverse events.
RESULTS
A random-effects model was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs including 545 participants. Compared with a placebo, levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function [Hedges'g = - 0.390, 95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.609 to - 0.172, p < 0.001, I = 24.0%]. Subgroup analysis showed that levetiracetam outperformed placebo in patients without epilepsy (Hedges' g = - 0.419, 95% CI = - 0.647 to - 0.191, p < 0.001, I = 26.2%). Meanwhile, low-dose levetiracetam showed a moderate favorable effect over placebo (Hedges' g = -0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I = 65.3%). In patients without epilepsy, low-dose levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function (Hedges'g = - 0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I = 65.3%). Concurrently, levetiracetam was associated with more frequent somnolence than a placebo (odds ratio = 4.654, 95% CI = 1.533 to 14.124, p = 0.007, I = 32.9%). Potential publication bias was observed in the executive function domain.
CONCLUSIONS
This exploratory study suggests that levetiracetam might improve executive function in specific populations. However, the diversity in study populations and potential publication bias warrant caution.
Topics: Humans; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Epilepsy; Levetiracetam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleepiness
PubMed: 38102532
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-023-01058-9 -
Gastro Hep Advances 2023Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that may complicate conditions such as obstructive airway disease. Our group has...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that may complicate conditions such as obstructive airway disease. Our group has identified predictive biomarkers of GERD in particulate exposed first responders with obstructive airway disease. In addition, GERD diagnosis and treatment is costly and invasive. In light of these clinical concerns, we aimed to systematically review studies identifying noninvasive, multiOmic, and multicompartmental biomarkers of GERD.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was performed using keywords focusing on reflux disease and biomarkers and registered with PROSPERO. We included original human studies in English, articles focusing on noninvasive biomarkers of GERD published after December 31, 2009. GERD subtypes (non-erosive reflux disease and erosive esophagitis) and related conditions (Barrett's Esophagus [BE] and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma). Predictive measures were synthesized and risk of bias assessed (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale).
RESULTS
Initial search identified n = 238 studies andn 13 articles remained after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria. Salivary pepsin was the most studied biomarker with significant sensitivity and specificity for GERD. Serum assessment showed elevated levels of Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha in both GERD and Barrett's. Exhaled breath volatile sulfur compounds and acetic acid were associated with GERD. Oral Microbiome: Models with , , and showed the greatest discrimination between BE and controls vs ; ROC 0.94 (95% confidence interval; 0.85-1.00).
CONCLUSION
Prior studies identified significant multiOmic, multicompartmental noninvasive biomarker risks for GERD and BE. However, studies have a high risk of bias and the reliability and accuracy of the biomarkers identified are greatly limited, which further highlights the need to discover and validate clinically relevant noninvasive biomarkers of GERD.
PubMed: 38009162
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.01.014 -
Journal of Endodontics Feb 2024Citric acid (CA) conditioning may be a promising alternative to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in regenerative endodontic procedures, as reported to improve... (Review)
Review
Citric Acid Conditioning as an Alternative to EDTA for Growth Factors Release and Stem Cell Response in Regenerative Endodontics: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.
INTRODUCTION
Citric acid (CA) conditioning may be a promising alternative to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in regenerative endodontic procedures, as reported to improve growth factors' release from dentin. This review systematically investigated the effect of CA conditioning on the growth factors release from dentin and cell behavior compared to EDTA conditioning.
METHODS
Searches were conducted (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, SciELO, Cochrane Library, and grey literature) until May-2023. Only in vitro studies that evaluated the effects of CA on growth factors' release from dentin and cell behavior outcomes compared to EDTA were included. The studies were critically appraised using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist. Meta-analysis was unfeasible.
RESULTS
Out of the 335 articles screened, nine were included. Among these, three studies used dentin discs/roots from permanent human teeth; the rest combined them with stem cells. 10% CA for 5 or 10 minute was the most used protocol. Meanwhile, EDTA concentrations ranged from 10% to 17%. In eight studies examining the release of growth factors, five reported a significant release of transforming growth factor-β after dentin conditioning with 10% CA compared to 17% EDTA. Regarding cell behavior (6 studies), three studies assessed cell viability. The findings revealed that 10% CA conditioning showed cell viability similar to those of 17% EDTA. Additionally, in two out of three studies, it was observed that 10% CA conditioning did not affect cell morphology. The studies had a low risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of 10% CA to condition dentin for 5-10 minutes resulted in a notable transforming growth factor -β1 release, but its cell responses were similar to those of EDTA.
Topics: Humans; Regenerative Endodontics; Edetic Acid; Dentin; Citric Acid; Stem Cells; Transforming Growth Factors
PubMed: 37984798
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2023.11.006 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jan 2024Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are a leading cause of hospital-acquired infections with limited therapeutic options. Combination of at least two antimicrobials... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are a leading cause of hospital-acquired infections with limited therapeutic options. Combination of at least two antimicrobials is a possible strategy to obtain rapid and sustained bactericidal effects and overcome the emergence of resistance. We revised the literature on linezolid synergistic properties from in vitro studies to assess its activity in combination with molecules belonging to other antibiotic classes against Enterococcus spp.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature from three peer-reviewed databases including papers evaluating linezolid synergistic properties in vitro against Enterococcus spp. isolates.
RESULTS
We included 206 Enterococcus spp. isolates (92 E. faecalis, 90 E. faecium, 2 E. gallinarum, 3 E. casseliflavus, 19 Enterococcus spp.) from 24 studies. When an isolate was tested with different combinations, each combination was considered independently for further analysis. The most frequent interaction was indifferent effect (247/343, 72% of total interactions). The highest synergism rates were observed when linezolid was tested in combination with rifampin (10/49, 20.4% of interactions) and fosfomycin (16/84, 19.0%, of interactions). Antagonistic effect accounted for 7/343 (2.0%) of total interactions.
CONCLUSION
Our study reported overall limited synergistic in vitro properties of linezolid with other antibiotics when tested against Enterococcus spp. The clinical choice of linezolid in combination with other antibiotics should be guided by reasoned empiric therapy in the suspicion of a polymicrobial infection or targeted therapy on microbiological results, rather than on an intended synergistic effect of the linezolid-based combination.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Enterococcus faecalis; Enterococcus faecium; Fosfomycin; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Linezolid; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Rifampin; Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci
PubMed: 37975976
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-023-04704-8 -
Clinical Therapeutics Jan 2024To systematically evaluate the safety, dosing regimen, and efficacy of selexipag for pediatric patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically evaluate the safety, dosing regimen, and efficacy of selexipag for pediatric patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH).
METHODS
A literature search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed from inception through February 28, 2023. Two reviewers independently searched and evaluated the quality of the studies and pooled data when appropriate. Full-text articles of studies of children diagnosed with PH and treated with selexipag were eligible. Pediatric patients with PH were classified into 2 groups: the add-on therapy group, in which selexipag was used as a third therapy in addition to the baseline treatment, and the transition therapy group, in which patients were switched from parenteral prostacyclin analogs to selexipag.
FINDINGS
Fourteen studies involving 58 pediatric patients with PH were included. All studies were either case reports or case series. Overall, 30 and 28 patients were in the add-on and transition therapy groups, respectively. In both groups, selexipag was initially administered as 50-200 µg twice daily and titrated to a tolerated dosage of 200-1,600 µg twice daily. Prostacyclin analogs were simultaneously weaned for patients in the transition group. In the add-on therapy group, 16 patients (80.0%) were at low risk of the World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC I/II), 12 (76.9%) were at low risk of the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD; >350 m), and 21 (95.5%) were at low risk of the pulmonary vascular resistance index (PVRi; <20 WU/m). Furthermore, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and mean pulmonary arterial pressure were significantly improved. More than 70% of patients experienced common tolerable side effects, such as headache, nausea, and diarrhea. In the transition therapy group, 5 patients (55.6%) were at low risk according to WHO FC I/II, 6 (66.7%) were at low risk according to 6MWD, and 14 (87.5) were at low risk according to PVRi; however, selexipag had no significant effect on their hemodynamic parameters. Additionally, more than 80% of patients experienced no side effects.
IMPLICATIONS
Selexipag as add-on therapy or for transition from prostacyclin analogs may have a favorable safety profile and potential efficacy for pediatric patients with PH. Further high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of selexipag for the treatment of pediatric PH is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Child; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Antihypertensive Agents; Acetamides; Prostaglandins I
PubMed: 37945502
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.09.026 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants are more prone to seizures than older children and adults. The neuronal injury caused by seizures in neonates often results in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. There are several options for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in neonates. However, the ideal choice of first-, second- and third-line ASM is still unclear. Further, many other aspects of seizure management such as whether ASMs should be initiated for only-electrographic seizures and how long to continue the ASM once seizure control is achieved are elusive.
OBJECTIVES
1. To assess whether any ASM is more or less effective than an alternative ASM (both ASMs used as first-, second- or third-line treatment) in achieving seizure control and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes in neonates with seizures. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 2. To assess maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy after achieving seizure control. We analysed EEG-confirmed seizures and clinically-diagnosed seizures separately. 3. To assess treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos and three databases in May 2022 and June 2023. These searches were not limited other than by study design to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included neonates with EEG-confirmed or clinically diagnosed seizures and compared (1) any ASM versus an alternative ASM, (2) maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy, and (3) treatment of clinical or EEG seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence interval (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 trials (1342 infants) in this review. Phenobarbital versus levetiracetam as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) Phenobarbital is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after first loading dose (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.30; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and after maximal loading dose (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.50; 106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital when compared to levetiracetam on mortality before discharge (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.52; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), requirement of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.91; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence), sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.44; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.76; 106 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Phenobarbital versus phenytoin as first-line ASM in EEG-confirmed neonatal seizures (one trial) We are uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital versus phenytoin on achieving seizure control after maximal loading dose of ASM (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.72; 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. Maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy in clinically diagnosed neonatal seizures (two trials) We are uncertain about the effect of short-term maintenance therapy with ASM versus no maintenance therapy during the hospital stay (but discontinued before discharge) on the risk of repeat seizures before hospital discharge (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01; 373 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Maintenance therapy with ASM compared to no maintenance therapy may have little or no effect on mortality before discharge (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22; 373 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.61; 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.12; 108 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 14.72; 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures versus treatment of clinical seizures alone in neonates (two trials) Treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation (MD -1871.16, 95% CI -4525.05 to 782.73; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality before discharge (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.27; 68 participants; low-certainty evidence) and epilepsy post-discharge (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.73; 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report on mortality or neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months. We report data from the most important comparisons here; readers are directed to Results and Summary of Findings tables for all comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Phenobarbital as a first-line ASM is probably more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure control after the first loading dose and after the maximal loading dose of ASM (moderate-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital + bumetanide may have little or no difference in achieving seizure control when compared to phenobarbital alone (low-certainty evidence). Limited data and very low-certainty evidence preclude us from drawing any reasonable conclusion on the effect of using one ASM versus another on other short- and long-term outcomes. In neonates who achieve seizure control after the first loading dose of phenobarbital, maintenance therapy compared to no maintenance ASM may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before discharge, mortality by 18 to 24 months, neurodevelopmental disability by 18 to 24 months and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). In neonates with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, treatment of both clinical and electrographic seizures when compared to treating clinical seizures alone may have little or no effect on seizure burden during hospitalisation, all-cause mortality before discharge and epilepsy post-discharge (low-certainty evidence). All findings of this review apply only to term and late preterm neonates. We need well-designed RCTs for each of the three objectives of this review to improve the precision of the results. These RCTs should use EEG to diagnose seizures and should be adequately powered to assess long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We need separate RCTs evaluating the choice of ASM in preterm infants.
Topics: Infant; Child; Infant, Newborn; Adult; Humans; Adolescent; Phenytoin; Levetiracetam; Epilepsy; Phenobarbital; Seizures
PubMed: 37873971
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014967.pub2 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2023Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated... (Review)
Review
Methicillin-resistant (MRSA) is responsible for an array of problematic community- and healthcare-acquired infections, including pneumonia, and is frequently associated with severe disease and high mortality rates. Standard recommended treatments for empiric and targeted coverage of suspected MRSA in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are vancomycin and linezolid. However, adverse events such as acute kidney injury and infection have been associated with these antibiotics. Ceftaroline fosamil is a β-lactam/extended-spectrum cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adults and children with CAP and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ceftaroline has activity against a range of common Gram-positive bacteria and is distinct among the β-lactams in retaining activity against MRSA. Due to the design of the pivotal randomised controlled trials of ceftaroline fosamil, outcomes in patients with MRSA CAP were not evaluated. However, various reports of real-world outcomes with ceftaroline fosamil for pneumonia caused by MRSA, including CAP and HAP/VAP, been published since its approval. A systematic literature review and qualitative analysis of relevant publications was undertaken to collate and summarise relevant published data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with MRSA pneumonia. While relatively few real-world outcomes studies are available, the available data suggest that ceftaroline fosamil is a possible alternative to linezolid and vancomycin for MRSA pneumonia. Specific scenarios in which ceftaroline fosamil might be considered include bacteraemia and complicating factors such as empyema.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Linezolid; Vancomycin; Cephalosporins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Ceftaroline
PubMed: 37852658
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0117-2023 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2024Several urate-lowering drugs have been linked to muscle injury. This study investigated the association of oral urate-lowering drugs with the risk of muscle injury by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several urate-lowering drugs have been linked to muscle injury. This study investigated the association of oral urate-lowering drugs with the risk of muscle injury by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. A systematic search of MEDLINE, via PubMed, the ClinicalTrials.gov website, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies with a primary outcome of "all muscle injuries." A random-effects model was used to perform a frequentist network meta-analysis to estimate whether there was significant heterogeneity among the studies. In total, 32 studies including 28,327 participants with 2694 (9.5%) "all muscle injuries" were assessed, and the overall risk of bias was judged to be low to moderate. No statistically significant differences were found between placebo and 6 urate-lowering therapies: allopurinol (risk ratio, RR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 95%CI, 0.63-1.73), febuxostat (RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.71-1.70), lesinurad (RR 7.00, 95%CI 0.31-160.36), lesinurad concomitant with allopurinol (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.34-2.11), lesinurad concomitant with febuxostat (RR 1.97, 95%CI 0.55-7.03), and topiroxostat (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.37-2.65). The findings suggest that there is little need to consider the risk of muscle injury when using urate-lowering drugs in the clinical setting.
Topics: Humans; Allopurinol; Febuxostat; Muscles; Network Meta-Analysis; Thioglycolates; Triazoles; Uric Acid; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37840156
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2369 -
International Clinical... May 2024Agomelatine is effective in the treatment of depression, but its effect for post-stroke depression (PSD) remains unclear. This study was conducted to compare the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Agomelatine is effective in the treatment of depression, but its effect for post-stroke depression (PSD) remains unclear. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of agomelatine versus SSRIs/SNRIs in treating PSD. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cqvip databases for double-blind randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy and safety of agomelatine versus SSRIs/SNRIs for PSD until December 2022. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score, and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of overall adverse reactions. Nine studies comprising 857 patients with PSD were included. After 6-12 weeks of treatment, the HAMD score ( P = 0.16) and the overall response rates ( P = 0.20) in the agomelatine group were comparable to that in the SSRIs/SNRIs group. Participants treated with agomelatine achieved higher Barthel Index scores compared with the SSRIs/SNRIs group ( P = 0.02). There was a significantly lower incidence of overall adverse reactions ( P = 0.008) and neurological adverse reactions ( P < 0.0001) in the agomelatine group. The efficacy of agomelatine for treating PSD is probably comparable to that of SSRIs/SNRIs, and it may improve stroke outcomes with better safety.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Depression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Acetamides; Stroke
PubMed: 37781768
DOI: 10.1097/YIC.0000000000000509 -
BMC Medical Education Sep 2023Training health care providers to administer visual inspection after application of acetic acid (VIA) is paramount in improving cervical cancer screening services for...
BACKGROUND
Training health care providers to administer visual inspection after application of acetic acid (VIA) is paramount in improving cervical cancer screening services for women in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this systematic review was to create a framework of essential VIA training components and provide illustrating examples of how VIA training programs can be carried out in different clinical settings.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (from 2006 to 2021) was undertaken. Our inclusion criteria comprised articles reporting on implemented cervical cancer screening programs using VIA in a screen-and-treat approach. Trained health care providers with any level of health education were included, and the outcome of interest was the reporting of training components. Data were extracted by two reviewers, and a narrative synthesis of the training programs was performed. We developed a framework of seven essential training components and applied it to assess how training courses were conducted in different settings.
RESULTS
13 primary studies were eligible for inclusion, including 2,722 trained health care providers and 342,889 screened women. Most training courses lasted 5-7 days and included theoretical education, practical skill development, and competence assessment. It was unclear how visual aids and training in client counselling and quality assessment were integrated in the training courses. After the training course, nearly all the VIA training programs made provisions for on-job training at the providers' own clinical settings through supervision, feedback, and refresher training.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing international training recommendations for cervical cancer screening in real-world settings and provides valuable examples of training program implementation across various clinical settings. The diverse reporting practices of quality indicators in different studies hinder the establishment of direct links between these data and training program effectiveness. To enhance future reporting, authors should emphasize specific training components, delivery methods, and contextual factors. Standardized reporting of quality indicators for effective evaluation of VIA training programs is recommended, fostering comparability, facilitating research, and enhancing reporting quality in this field.
Topics: Humans; Female; Early Detection of Cancer; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Program Evaluation; Acetic Acid; Health Personnel
PubMed: 37770904
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-023-04711-5