-
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2012The objectives of this systematic review, commissioned by WHO, were to assess the frequency and severity of clinical manifestations of human brucellosis, in view of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The objectives of this systematic review, commissioned by WHO, were to assess the frequency and severity of clinical manifestations of human brucellosis, in view of specifying a disability weight for a DALY calculation.
METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Thirty three databases were searched, with 2,385 articles published between January 1990-June 2010 identified as relating to human brucellosis. Fifty-seven studies were of sufficient quality for data extraction. Pooled proportions of cases with specific clinical manifestations were stratified by age category and sex and analysed using generalized linear mixed models. Data relating to duration of illness and risk factors were also extracted. Severe complications of brucellosis infection were not rare, with 1 case of endocarditis and 4 neurological cases per 100 patients. One in 10 men suffered from epididymo-orchitis. Debilitating conditions such as arthralgia, myalgia and back pain affected around half of the patients (65%, 47% and 45%, respectively). Given that 78% patients had fever, brucellosis poses a diagnostic challenge in malaria-endemic areas. Significant delays in appropriate diagnosis and treatment were the result of health service inadequacies and socioeconomic factors. Based on disability weights from the 2004 Global Burden of Disease Study, a disability weight of 0.150 is proposed as the first informed estimate for chronic, localised brucellosis and 0.190 for acute brucellosis.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review adds to the understanding of the global burden of brucellosis, one of the most common zoonoses worldwide. The severe, debilitating, and chronic impact of brucellosis is highlighted. Well designed epidemiological studies from regions lacking in data would allow a more complete understanding of the clinical manifestations of disease and exposure risks, and provide further evidence for policy-makers. As this is the first informed estimate of a disability weight for brucellosis, there is a need for further debate amongst brucellosis experts and a consensus to be reached.
Topics: Brucellosis; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Epididymitis; Female; Humans; Male; Nervous System Diseases; Orchitis
PubMed: 23236528
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001929 -
Fertility and Sterility May 2000To recommend further research on vasectomy based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of vasectomy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To recommend further research on vasectomy based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of vasectomy.
DESIGN
A systematic MEDLINE review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of vasectomy between 1964 and 1998.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Early failure rates are <1%; however, effectiveness and complications vary with experience of surgeons and surgical technique. Early complications, including hematoma, infection, sperm granulomas, epididymitis-orchitis, and congestive epididymitis, occur in 1%-6% of men undergoing vasectomy. Incidence of epididymal pain is poorly documented. Animal and human data indicate that vasectomy does not increase atherosclerosis and that increases in circulating immune complexes after vasectomy are transient in men with vasectomies. The weight of the evidence regarding prostate and testicular cancer suggests that men with vasectomy are not at increased risk of these cancers.
CONCLUSION(S)
Publications to date continue to support the conclusion that vasectomy is a highly effective form of contraception. Future studies should include evaluations of the long-term effectiveness of vasectomy, evaluating criteria for postvasectomy discontinuation of alternative contraception for use in settings where semen analysis is not practical, and characterizing complications including chronic epididymal pain syndrome.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Contraindications; Counseling; Humans; MEDLINE; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Testicular Neoplasms; United States; Vasectomy; Vasovasostomy
PubMed: 10785217
DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00482-9