-
BMJ Paediatrics Open Jun 2024Knowledge about multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is evolving, and evidence-based standardised diagnostic and management protocols are lacking. Our...
BACKGROUND
Knowledge about multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is evolving, and evidence-based standardised diagnostic and management protocols are lacking. Our review aims to summarise the clinical and diagnostic features, management strategies and outcomes of MIS-C and evaluate the variances in disease parameters and outcomes between high-income countries (HIC) and middle-income countries (MIC).
METHODS
We searched four databases from December 2019 to March 2023. Observational studies with a sample size of 10 or more patients were included. Mean and prevalence ratios for various variables were pooled by random effects model using R. A mixed generalised linear model was employed to account for the heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed via funnel and Doi plots. The primary outcome was pooled mean mortality among patients with MIS-C. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the income status of the country of study.
RESULTS
A total of 120 studies (20 881 cases) were included in the review. The most common clinical presentations were fever (99%; 95% CI 99.6% to 100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (76.7%; 95% CI 73.1% to 79.9%) and dermatological symptoms (63.3%; 95% CI 58.7% to 67.7%). Laboratory investigations suggested raised inflammatory, coagulation and cardiac markers. The most common management strategies were intravenous immunoglobulins (87.5%; 95% CI 82.9% to 91%) and steroids (74.7%; 95% CI 68.7% to 79.9%). Around 53.1% (95% CI 47.3% to 58.9%) required paediatric intensive care unit admissions, and overall mortality was 3.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.6%). Patients in MIC were younger, had a higher frequency of respiratory distress and evidence of cardiac dysfunction, with a longer hospital and intensive care unit stay and had a higher mortality rate than patients in HIC.
CONCLUSION
MIS-C is a severe multisystem disease with better mortality outcomes in HIC as compared with MIC. The findings emphasise the need for standardised protocols and further research to optimise patient care and address disparities between HIC and MIC.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020195823.
Topics: Humans; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; Child; COVID-19
PubMed: 38844384
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002344 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Accurate prognostic tools for mortality in patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) are needed to provide appropriate medical care, but the efficacy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Accurate prognostic tools for mortality in patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) are needed to provide appropriate medical care, but the efficacy for mortality prediction of tools like PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65, widely used for predicting mortality in community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia cases, remains controversial. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Cochrane Library (trials), and Ichushi web database (accessed on August 22, 2022). We identified articles evaluating either PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, or CURB-65 and the mortality outcome in patients with HCAP, and calculated the pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary area under the curves (AUCs) for mortality prediction. Additionally, the differences in predicting prognosis among these four assessment tools were evaluated using overall AUCs pooled from AUC values reported in included studies. Eventually, 21 articles were included and these quality assessments were evaluated by QUADAS-2. Using a cut-off value of moderate in patients with HCAP, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were found to be 0.91-0.97, 0.15-0.44, 1.14-1.66, 0.18-0.33, and 3.86-9.32, respectively. Upon using a cut-off value of severe in those patients, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.63-0.70, 0.54-0.66, 1.50-2.03, 0.47-0.58, and 2.66-4.32, respectively. Overall AUCs were 0.70 (0.68-0.72), 0.70 (0.63-0.76), 0.68 (0.64-0.73), and 0.67 (0.63-0.71), respectively, for PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65 (p = 0.66). In conclusion, these severity assessment tools do not have enough ability to predict mortality in HCAP patients. Furthermore, there are no significant differences in predictive performance among these four severity assessment tools.
Topics: Humans; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Severity of Illness Index; Prognosis; Area Under Curve
PubMed: 38839837
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63618-3 -
BMJ Global Health Jun 2024During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face...
BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN
We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.
RESULTS
We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
358991.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Community Participation; Decision Making; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Public Health
PubMed: 38830748
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Cannabis use may be increasing as countries legalize it and it becomes socially acceptable. A history of cannabis use may increase risk of complications after various... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis use may be increasing as countries legalize it and it becomes socially acceptable. A history of cannabis use may increase risk of complications after various kinds of surgery and compromise functional recovery. Here we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed available evidence on how history of cannabis use affects recovery after hip or knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA).
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched and studies were selected and analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while quality of evidence was evaluated according to the "Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation" system. Data on various outcomes were pooled when appropriate and meta-analyzed.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 16 cohort studies involving 5.91 million patients. Meta-analysis linked history of cannabis use to higher risk of the following outcomes: revision (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.31-2.16), mechanical loosening (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.52-2.07), periprosthetic fracture (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.38-2.48), dislocation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18-3.73), cardiovascular events (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.22-5.08), cerebrovascular events (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.54-3.91), pneumonia (RR 3.97, 95% CI 3.49-4.51), respiratory failure (RR 4.10, 95% CI 3.38-4.97), urinary tract infection (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.84-3.28), acute kidney injury (RR 3.25, 95% CI 2.94-3.60), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.34-1.63), and deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.19-1.70). In addition, cannabis use was associated with significantly greater risk of postoperative transfusion (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.83-2.71) as well as higher hospitalization costs.
CONCLUSION
History of cannabis use significantly increases the risk of numerous complications and transfusion after THA or TKA, leading to greater healthcare costs. Clinicians should consider these factors when treating cannabis users, and pre-surgical protocols should give special consideration to patients with history of cannbis use.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38827608
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1377688 -
Journal of Evidence-based Integrative... 2024A systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of alkalinization for COVID-19 patients based on current evidence to determine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of alkalinization for COVID-19 patients based on current evidence to determine the impact of alkalinization on COVID-19 outcomes.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (Pubmed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies evaluating the efficacy of alkalinization up to 30 April 2023. Based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies were performed.
RESULTS
The results of our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in mortality rate in the alkalinization group compared to controls (RR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.95; I2 = 0%). However, our subgroup analysis showed no significant improvement in RCT-only studies (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.59-1.05; I2 = 0%), the recovery rate was significantly higher in the alkalinization group (RR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.39-3.26; I2 = 0%), duration of recovery also has improved in alkalinization group (SMD 0.76, 95% CI: 0.33-1.18; I2 = 0%). The results of our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization in the alkalinization group compared to controls with very low certainty of evidence (SMD -0.66, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.35; I2 = 36%).
CONCLUSION
With low certainty of evidence, alkalinization (by sodium bicarbonate) can be an efficient and safe adjuvant treatment for COVID-19 patients. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to strengthen the available evidence.
Topics: Humans; Sodium Bicarbonate; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38826036
DOI: 10.1177/2515690X241258403 -
Respiratory Medicine 2024Anxiety is common in those with chronic physical health conditions and can have significant impacts on both quality of life and physical health outcomes. Despite this,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anxiety is common in those with chronic physical health conditions and can have significant impacts on both quality of life and physical health outcomes. Despite this, there are limited studies comprehensively investigating the prevalence of anxiety in respiratory and sleep medicine settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide insight into the global prevalence of anxiety symptoms/disorders in respiratory and sleep medicine outpatients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Google Scholar databases were searched from database inception to January 23, 2023 for studies assessing the prevalence of anxiety in adult (≥16 years) respiratory and sleep medicine outpatients. Data was screened and extracted independently by two investigators. Anxiety was measured using various self-report questionnaires, structured interviews, and/or patient records. Using CMA software for the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used for pooled estimates, and subgroup analysis was conducted on relevant models using a mixed-effects model.
RESULTS
116 studies were included, featuring 36,340 participants across 40 countries. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 30.3 % (95%CI 27.9-32.9 %, 10,679/36,340). Subgroup analysis found a significant difference across type of condition, with pulmonary tuberculosis the highest at 43.1 % and COVID-19 outpatients the lowest at 23.4 %. No significant difference was found across anxiety types, country or age. Female sex and the use of self-report measures was associated with significantly higher anxiety estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Anxiety is a common experience amongst patients in respiratory and sleep medicine outpatient settings. Thus, it is crucial that anxiety identification and management is considered by physicians in the field.
REGISTRATION
The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021282416).
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Anxiety; Sleep Wake Disorders; COVID-19; Female; Male; Adult; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38823565
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2024.107677 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2024The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain. (Review)
Review
Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP.
INTERVENTIONS
Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).
PubMed: 38823453
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.05.017 -
BMJ Open May 2024During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a serious risk of contracting this virus. Therefore, they should use personal protective equipment (PPE)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a serious risk of contracting this virus. Therefore, they should use personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect themselves. Long-term use of these devices has led to many side effects, including headaches. This study investigated the prevalence of headaches related to using PPE in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to February 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
All cross-sectional studies that investigated the prevalence of headache complications caused by PPE were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers reviewed the articles separately and independently. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies was used to address study design quality and the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies. The heterogeneity of the studies was checked with the I statistic, and due to the high heterogeneity, the random effects model was used for synthesis. Data were analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software V.3.3.70.
RESULTS
Out of 3218 articles retrieved for all side effects, 40 were eligible for this meta-analysis. The prevalence of headaches related to the use of PPE in these 40 studies, with a sample size of 19 229 people, was 43.8% (95% CI 43.1% to 44.6%, I=98.6%, p<0.001). Based on the meta-regression results, no significant relationship was observed between the prevalence of headaches and variables such as year of publication, study location, sample size and quality of studies.
CONCLUSION
Headache is one of the common side effects of PPE, which can interfere with HCWs' performance. It is suggested that manufacturers improve the quality of their equipment while healthcare managers should equip and train staff adequately to minimise side effects, ensuring health and enhanced service delivery.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021264874.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Personal Protective Equipment; Health Personnel; Headache; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 38821571
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074596 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2024This review aims to study the clinical characteristics, diagnostic results, treatments, and outcomes in patients with heterotopic ossification following COVID-19...
BACKGROUND
This review aims to study the clinical characteristics, diagnostic results, treatments, and outcomes in patients with heterotopic ossification following COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
A literature search for eligible articles was conducted using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Global Health, and Scopus databases (January 12th, 2023), including all case reports and case series from any country and language. The criteria for inclusion in this review were cases of COVID-19 infection subsequently developing heterotopic ossification.
RESULTS
This systematic review analysed 15 reports (n = 20 patients) documenting cases of heterotopic ossification following COVID-19 infection. 80% of the patients were male, with a median age of 59 years. All patients required intensive care unit stay with an average duration of 48.5 days. Mechanical ventilation was necessary for all patients and 30% of them underwent tracheostomy. Common symptoms included stiffness and pain, most frequently affecting multiple locations (70%), with the hips and shoulders being predominantly involved. X-rays were the most commonly used imaging modality, followed by computed tomography. Although treatment was given, some of the patients continued to experience symptoms, particularly stiffness.
CONCLUSION
20 patients who developed heterotopic ossification after COVID-19 have been reported, the majority of which had at least two independent risk factors for this condition. The link between those two clinical entities is therefore uncertain, requiring further investigation. It is nonetheless important to suspect heterotopic ossification in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, prolonged immobilisation, mechanical ventilation, who develop joint pain and stiffness, as this condition can significantly impact patients' quality of life.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
CRD42023393516.
Topics: Humans; Ossification, Heterotopic; COVID-19; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Respiration, Artificial; Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Adult
PubMed: 38811925
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07537-4 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jul 2024Plant-based dietary patterns (PBDs) might protect against COVID-19 risk and reduce severity of infection. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to examine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Plant-based dietary patterns (PBDs) might protect against COVID-19 risk and reduce severity of infection. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between PBDs and risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and/or mortality, in adults.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for observational studies, published in English up to 3rd April 2023, comparing the highest with the lowest adherence to a specific PBD. Data were screened, extracted, and risk of bias assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, by independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Seven studies (one cross-sectional, three case-control, and three prospective cohort), reporting on 649,315 participants, were eligible. Across them, there were 8512 events of COVID-19 infection (six studies), and 206 events of COVID-19 hospitalization (four studies), in addition to one study reporting on a composite hospitalization outcome (740 events). The pooled analysis showed that PBDs are associated with a 59% (odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.23-0.59; two studies) and 18% (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85; three studies) reduction in COVID-19 infection risk in case-control and cohort studies, respectively. The pooled analysis of one case-control and two cohort studies showed an inverse association between high adherence to a PBD and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.04-0.72).
CONCLUSION
Findings suggest a protective role of PBDs against the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity. More studies are needed to establish the association between PBDs and risk of ICU admission and mortality due to COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Observational Studies as Topic; Hospitalization; Diet, Vegetarian; Adult; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Intensive Care Units; Male; Risk Factors; Middle Aged; Female; Dietary Patterns
PubMed: 38810425
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.05.033