-
Journal of Dentistry Jun 2024This qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation aimed to synthesise evidence regarding perceptions of patients, practitioners, and stakeholders on the use of... (Review)
Review
Perspectives of patients, dental professionals, and stakeholders on the use of silver diamine fluoride for the management of dental caries: A qualitative systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
This qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation aimed to synthesise evidence regarding perceptions of patients, practitioners, and stakeholders on the use of Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) for the management of dental caries.
DATA
This review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023390301) and the Joanna Briggs Systematic Reviews register.
SOURCES
References were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE using a pre-established search strategy.
STUDY SELECTION
Qualitative and mixed-methods studies examining perspectives of patients, practitioners, and/or stakeholders on the use of SDF were included. The initial search identified 650 articles eligible for inclusion, out of which 14 articles were included in the review. Reviewers synthesised findings and generated 11 distinct categories grouped into three synthesised findings: 1) Clinical use; 2) Staining; 3) Facilitators and barriers.
CONCLUSIONS
Practitioners and patients viewed SDF as a therapeutic option with multiple benefits. While aesthetic concerns may be a barrier to some groups, the acceptance of the treatment was influenced by other factors, such as trusting professional advice.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Patient education is key for increased SDF acceptance. This systematic review can assist clinicians in addressing concerns regarding SDF therapy. Findings have the potential to inform policy decisions that address oral health inequities through patient-centred health care models.
PubMed: 38906452
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105145 -
The Journal of Infection Jun 2024Contact investigations with drug-susceptible tuberculosis (DS-TB) patients have demonstrated a high prevalence of tuberculosis infection (TBI). However, the prevalence...
INTRODUCTION
Contact investigations with drug-susceptible tuberculosis (DS-TB) patients have demonstrated a high prevalence of tuberculosis infection (TBI). However, the prevalence of TBI among individuals in close contact with drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients is poorly understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of TBI among household and non-household contacts of DR-TB patients.
METHOD AND ANALYSIS
We searched five databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) from inception to 2 June 2023. All studies that reported the prevalence of TBI among DR-TB contacts were included in the study. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of TBI with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sub-group analyses were conducted using study characteristics as covariates.
RESULTS
Thirty studies involving 7659 study participants from 19 countries were included. The pooled prevalence of TBI among DR-TB contacts was 36.52% (95% CI: 30.27-42.77). The sub-group analysis showed considerable heterogeneity in the estimates, with the highest prevalence reported in Southeast Asia (80.74%; 95% CI: 74.09-87.39), household contacts (38.60%; 95% CI: 30.07-47.14), lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) (54.72; 95% CI: 35.90, 73.55), children (43.27%; 95% CI: 25.50, 61.04), and studies conducted between 2004 and 2012 (45.10; 95% CI: 32.44, 57.76).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of TBI among DR-TB contacts was high, with substantial regional variations. Further research is needed to determine the drug susceptibility status of TBI in DR-TB contacts.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023390339).
PubMed: 38906264
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106198 -
Journal of the American Heart... Jun 2024In pulmonary arterial hypertension, it is recommended to base therapeutic decisions on risk stratification. This systematic review aims to report the prognostic value of...
BACKGROUND
In pulmonary arterial hypertension, it is recommended to base therapeutic decisions on risk stratification. This systematic review aims to report the prognostic value of serial risk stratification in adult and pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension and to explore the usability of serial risk stratification as treatment target.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to January 30, 2023, using terms associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension, pediatric pulmonary hypertension, and risk stratification. Observational studies and clinical trials describing risk stratification at both baseline and follow-up were included. Sixty five studies were eligible for inclusion, including only 2 studies in a pediatric population. C-statistic range at baseline was 0.31 to 0.77 and improved to 0.30 to 0.91 at follow-up. In 53% of patients, risk status changed (42% improved, 12% worsened) over 168 days (interquartile range, 137-327 days; n=22 studies). The average proportion of low-risk patients increased from 18% at baseline to 36% at a median follow-up of 244 days (interquartile range, 140-365 days; n=40 studies). In placebo-controlled drug studies, risk statuses of the intervention groups improved more and worsened less compared with the placebo groups. Furthermore, a low-risk status, but also an improved risk status, at follow-up was associated with a better outcome. Similar results were found in the 2 pediatric studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Follow-up risk stratification has improved prognostic value compared with baseline risk stratification, and change in risk status between baseline and follow-up corresponded to a change in survival. These data support the use of serial risk stratification as treatment target in pulmonary arterial hypertension.
PubMed: 38904230
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.034151 -
Clinical Transplantation and Research Jun 2024Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This...
BACKGROUND
Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population.
METHODS
We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.
PubMed: 38904088
DOI: 10.4285/ctr.24.0015 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) commonly occurs after surgery and prolongs hospital stays. Both direct noxious stimuli to the central nervous system and...
Effect of prophylactic corticosteroids on postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction in the adult population: An updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) commonly occurs after surgery and prolongs hospital stays. Both direct noxious stimuli to the central nervous system and systemic inflammation have been implicated. Due to their potent anti-inflammatory effects, corticosteroids have been utilised to attenuate the incidence and severity of PNCD. This systematic review and meta-analysis strived to evaluate the prophylactic role of perioperative corticosteroids for PNCD.
METHODS
A search was run in pre-defined databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the role of corticosteroids in preventing PNCD. The incidence of PNCD within 1 month was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the use of antipsychotic medications for the treatment, postoperative infection, and hospital length of stay. The results are exhibited as odds ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs comprising 15,398 patients were included. The incidence of PNCD was significantly lower in the corticosteroid group than in the control group, with a pooled OR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.96; = 0.02; I = 66%). Trial sequential analysis showed the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in preventing PNCD; however, the requisite information size is still inadequate. The sub-group analysis supported the prophylactic effect of corticosteroids on delirium prevention but not on delayed neurocognitive recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis revealed statistically significant protective effects of corticosteroids on the incidence of PNCD. However, further studies are still needed to confirm the protective role of this commonly used and relatively safe strategy for preventing PNCD.
PubMed: 38903252
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_149_24 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2024Although the COVID-19 pandemic claimed a great deal of lives, it is still unclear how it affected mortality in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although the COVID-19 pandemic claimed a great deal of lives, it is still unclear how it affected mortality in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This review summarized the available literature on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in LLMICs, including methods, sources of data, and potential contributing factors that might have influenced excess mortality.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in LLMICs in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We included studies published from 2019 onwards with a non-COVID-19 period of at least one year as a comparator. The meta-analysis included studies reporting data on population size, as well as observed and expected deaths. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022378267).
RESULTS
The review covered 29 countries, with 10 countries included in the meta-analysis. The pooled meta-analysis included 1,405,128,717 individuals, for which 2,152,474 deaths were expected, and 3,555,880 deaths were reported. Calculated excess mortality was 100.3 deaths per 100,000 population per year, with an excess risk of death of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.649, 1.655, p < 0.001). The data sources used in the studies included civil registration systems, surveys, public cemeteries, funeral counts, obituary notifications, burial site imaging, and demographic surveillance systems. The primary techniques used to estimate excess mortality were statistical forecast modelling and geospatial analysis. One out of the 24 studies found higher excess mortality in urban settings.
CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrate that excess mortality in LLMICs during the pandemic was substantial. However, estimates of excess mortality are uncertain due to relatively poor data. Understanding the drivers of excess mortality, will require more research using various techniques and data sources.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Developing Countries; Mortality; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38902661
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19154-w -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2024Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We...
INTRODUCTION
Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to maternal and child health. Vaping is used for smoking cessation but evidence on health effects during pregnancy is scarce. We conducted a systematic review of health outcomes of vaping during pregnancy.
METHODS
We searched six databases for maternal/fetal/infant outcomes and vaping, including quantitative, English language, human studies of vaping during pregnancy, to November 10th, 2023. We assessed study quality with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. We focused on comparisons of exclusive-vaping with non-use of nicotine and tobacco products and with smoking. Presentation is narrative as the studies were of insufficient quality to conduct meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 26 studies, with 765,527 women, with one randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing vaping and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation, 23 cohort studies and two case-control studies. While the RCT met 4/5 quality criteria, the quality of the cohort studies and case-control studies was poor; none adequately assessed exposure to smoking and vaping. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping with 'non-use', more reported no increased risk for vaping (three studies) than reported increased risk for maternal pregnancy/postpartum outcomes (one study) and for fetal and infant outcomes (20 studies no increased risk, four increased risk), except for birth-weight and neurological outcomes where two studies each observed increased and no increased risk. When the RCT compared non-users with those not smoking but vaping or using NRT, irrespective of randomisation, they reported no evidence of risk for vaping/NRT. For studies comparing exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, most studies provided evidence for a comparable risk for different outcomes. One maternal biomarker study revealed a lower risk for vaping. For small-for-gestational-age/mean-birth-centile equal numbers of studies found lower risk for vaping than for smoking as found similar risk for the two groups (two each).
CONCLUSIONS
While more studies found no evidence of increased risk of exclusive-vaping compared with non-use and evidence of comparable risk for exclusive-vaping and exclusive-smoking, the quality of the evidence limits conclusions. Without adequate assessment of exposure to vaping and smoking, findings cannot be attributed to behaviour as many who vape will have smoked and many who vape may do so at low levels.
STUDY REGISTRATION
https://osf.io/rfx4q/ .
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Vaping; Pregnancy Outcome; Smoking Cessation; Pregnancy Complications; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 38902658
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06633-6 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Aug 2024Diet and inflammation may contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Diet and inflammation may contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between proinflammatory diet, as estimated by the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®), and the likelihood of developing MS or other demyelinating autoimmune diseases. A systematic search was performed of search engines and databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Embase) to identify relevant studies before 10th June 2023. The search identified 182 potential studies, from which 39 full-text articles were screened for relevance. Five articles with case-control design (n = 4,322, intervention group: 1714; control group: 2608) met the study inclusion criteria. The exposure variable was DII, with studies using two distinct models: quartile-based comparisons of DII and assessment of continuous DII. The meta-analysis of high versus low quartiles of DII with four effect sizes showed a significant association with MS/demyelinating autoimmune disease likelihood, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16, 9.10). The meta-analysis of four studies with DII fit as a continuous variable showed a 31% increased likelihood of MS per unit increment; which was not statistically significant at the nominal alpha equals 0.05 (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.95, 1.81). In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of a positive association between higher DII scores with the likelihood of developing MS, highlighting that diet-induced inflammation could play a role in MS or other demyelinating autoimmune diseases risk.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Diet; Inflammation; Demyelinating Diseases; Autoimmune Diseases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38901931
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.04.022 -
BMJ Health & Care Informatics Jun 2024Risk stratification tools that predict healthcare utilisation are extensively integrated into primary care systems worldwide, forming a key component of anticipatory...
OBJECTIVES
Risk stratification tools that predict healthcare utilisation are extensively integrated into primary care systems worldwide, forming a key component of anticipatory care pathways, where high-risk individuals are targeted by preventative interventions. Existing work broadly focuses on comparing model performance in retrospective cohorts with little attention paid to efficacy in reducing morbidity when deployed in different global contexts. We review the evidence supporting the use of such tools in real-world settings, from retrospective dataset performance to pathway evaluation.
METHODS
A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the development, validation and deployment of models that predict healthcare utilisation in unselected primary care cohorts, comparable to their current real-world application.
RESULTS
Among 3897 articles screened, 51 studies were identified evaluating 28 risk prediction models. Half underwent external validation yet only two were validated internationally. No association between validation context and model discrimination was observed. The majority of real-world evaluation studies reported no change, or indeed significant increases, in healthcare utilisation within targeted groups, with only one-third of reports demonstrating some benefit.
DISCUSSION
While model discrimination appears satisfactorily robust to application context there is little evidence to suggest that accurate identification of high-risk individuals can be reliably translated to improvements in service delivery or morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence does not support further integration of care pathways with costly population-level interventions based on risk prediction in unselected primary care cohorts. There is an urgent need to independently appraise the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of risk prediction systems that are already widely deployed within primary care.
Topics: Humans; Risk Assessment; Primary Health Care; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Algorithms
PubMed: 38901863
DOI: 10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101065 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies May 2024Various trials are investigating the effect of digital and face-to-face interventions on nurse resilience; however, it remains unclear whether these interventions have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Various trials are investigating the effect of digital and face-to-face interventions on nurse resilience; however, it remains unclear whether these interventions have immediate, short-term or long-term effects.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the systematic review is to identify the types of interventions and assess the immediate (<3 months), short-term (3-6 months), and long-term (>6 months) effects of these interventions on nurse resilience.
DESIGN
This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registered Number: CRD 42023434924), and results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol.
METHODS
Data were collated from the databases of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase (OVID), Medline, and Scopus between March and May 2023. The research protocol was determined following the framework of population, exposure, outcomes, and type of study. The articles with full text published between 2000 and 2023 were included. Studies were included if they (1) involved the nurses who provided patient care directly, (2) utilised digital or face-to-face interventions, (3) reported resilience outcomes, and (4) were randomised controlled trials or clinical trials. The JBI critical appraisal tool was utilised to assess the risk of bias for the studies collected.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies met the criteria and were analysed. Pooled results demonstrated that digital interventions had a statistically significant positive effect on nurse resilience at 4-5-month follow-ups (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.71; 95 % CI = 0.13, 1.29; P = 0.02) compared to no interventions. Additionally, pooled data showed no effect on nurse resilience at all the follow-ups, compared to no interventions. No significant results were observed in comparisons of digital or face-to-face interventions between the intervention and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The review assessed digital and face-to-face resilience interventions in nurses across 18 trials. Digital methods showed a short-term impact within 4-5 months, whilst face-to-face interventions had no effect during follow-ups. Realistic expectations, ongoing support, and tailored interventions are crucial for nurse resilience enhancement. Tweetable abstract It was identified digital interventions had a short-term impact on nurse resilience, whilst face-to-face interventions had no effect during follow-ups @fionayyu.
PubMed: 38901125
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104825