-
World Neurosurgery Aug 2017Chiari malformation type 1 (CM-1) is a variation of hindbrain development that can sometimes occur in asymptomatic individuals. Conventional treatment is surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chiari malformation type 1 (CM-1) is a variation of hindbrain development that can sometimes occur in asymptomatic individuals. Conventional treatment is surgical decompression, but little is known about the natural history of patients who do not undergo surgical management. This information is critical to determine how these patients should be managed. We conducted a systematic literature review to determine the natural history of CM-1, particularly in patients who did not undergo surgery and in asymptomatic individuals, to help patients and physicians determine when surgery is likely to be beneficial.
METHODS
The literature search was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined.
RESULTS
In symptomatic patients who did not undergo surgery, headaches and nausea often improved, whereas ataxia and sensory disturbance tended not to improve spontaneously. Of patients, 27%-47% had an improvement in symptoms after 15 months, and 37%-40% with cough headache and 89% with nausea who were managed nonoperatively improved at follow-up. Most asymptomatic individuals with CM-1 remained asymptomatic (93.3%) even in the presence of syringomyelia.
CONCLUSIONS
The natural history of mild symptomatic and asymptomatic CM-1 in adults is relatively benign and nonprogressive; the decision to perform surgical decompression should be based on severity and duration of a patient's symptoms at presentation. It is reasonable to observe a patient with mild or asymptomatic symptoms even in the presence of significant tonsillar descent or syringomyelia.
Topics: Adult; Arnold-Chiari Malformation; Asymptomatic Diseases; Ataxia; Causality; Comorbidity; Disease Progression; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Headache; Humans; Incidence; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Nausea; Risk Factors; Sensation Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28435116
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.082 -
Reproductive Health Sep 2014There is increasingly a double burden of under-nutrition and obesity in women of reproductive age. Preconception underweight or overweight, short stature and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There is increasingly a double burden of under-nutrition and obesity in women of reproductive age. Preconception underweight or overweight, short stature and micronutrient deficiencies all contribute to excess maternal and fetal complications during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence was conducted to ascertain the possible impact of preconception care for adolescents, women and couples of reproductive age on maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes. A comprehensive strategy was used to search electronic reference libraries, and both observational and clinical controlled trials were included. Cross-referencing and a separate search strategy for each preconception risk and intervention ensured wider study capture.
RESULTS
Maternal pre-pregnancy weight is a significant factor in the preconception period with underweight contributing to a 32% higher risk of preterm birth, and obesity more than doubling the risk for preeclampsia, gestational diabetes. Overweight women are more likely to undergo a Cesarean delivery, and their newborns have higher chances of being born with a neural tube or congenital heart defect. Among nutrition-specific interventions, preconception folic acid supplementation has the strongest evidence of effect, preventing 69% of recurrent neural tube defects. Multiple micronutrient supplementation shows promise to reduce the rates of congenital anomalies and risk of preeclampsia. Although over 40% of women worldwide are anemic in the preconception period, only one study has shown a risk for low birth weight.
CONCLUSION
All women, but especially those who become pregnant in adolescence or have closely-spaced pregnancies (inter-pregnancy interval less than six months), require nutritional assessment and appropriate intervention in the preconception period with an emphasis on optimizing maternal body mass index and micronutrient reserves. Increasing coverage of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive strategies (such as food fortification; integration of nutrition initiatives with other maternal and child health interventions; and community based platforms) is necessary among adolescent girls and women of reproductive age. The effectiveness of interventions will need to be simultaneously monitored, and form the basis for the development of improved delivery strategies and new nutritional interventions.
Topics: Body Weight; Congenital Abnormalities; Dietary Supplements; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 25415364
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-S3-S3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016There is evidence that the process of transition from paediatric (child) to adult health services is often associated with deterioration in the health of adolescents... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is evidence that the process of transition from paediatric (child) to adult health services is often associated with deterioration in the health of adolescents with chronic conditions.Transitional care is the term used to describe services that seek to bridge this care gap. It has been defined as 'the purposeful, planned movement of adolescents and young adults with chronic physical and medical conditions from child-centred to adult-oriented health care systems'. In order to develop appropriate services for adolescents, evidence of what works and what factors act as barriers and facilitators of effective interventions is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the transition of care for adolescents from paediatric to adult health services.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2015, Issue 1, (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Knowledge to 19 June 2015. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted experts and study authors for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before- and after-studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs) that evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention (care model or clinical pathway), that aimed to improve the transition of care for adolescents from paediatric to adult health services. We considered adolescents with any chronic condition that required ongoing clinical care, who were leaving paediatric services and going on to receive services in adult healthcare units, and their families. Participating providers included all health professionals responsible for the care of young people.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from included papers, assessed the risk of bias of each study, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Authors were contacted for missing data. We reported the findings of the studies as pre- and post-intervention means and calculated the unadjusted absolute change from baseline with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs (N = 238 participants) that explored: a two-day workshop-based transition preparation training for adolescents with spina bifida; a nurse-led, one-on-one, teaching session with the additional support of a 'health passport' for adolescents with heart disease; a web- and SMS-based educational intervention for adolescents with a range of different conditions; and a structured comprehensive transition programme with a transition co-ordinator for adolescents with type 1 diabetes.One study evaluating a one-on-one nurse-led intervention, and one evaluating a technology-based intervention suggested that these interventions may lead to slight improvements in transitional readiness and chronic disease self-management measured at six- to eight-month follow-ups (low certainty evidence). Results with the TRAQ self-management tool were: MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.56 and MD 0.43; 95% CI; -0.09 to 0.95; with the TRAQ self-advocacy tool: MD 0.37; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.80; and with the PAM tool were: MD 10; 95% CI 2.96 to 17.04. In contrast, transition-preparation training delivered via a two-day workshop for patients with spina bifida may lead to little or no difference in measures of self-care practice and general health behaviours when measured using the DSCPI-90©.Two studies evaluated the use of health services. One study evaluated a technology-based intervention and another a comprehensive transition programme; these interventions may lead to slightly more young people taking positive steps to initiate contact with health professionals themselves (Relative risk (RR): 4.87; 95% CI 0.24 to 98.12 and RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 6.94, respectively; low certainty evidence.Young people's knowledge of their disease may slightly improve with a nurse-led, one-on-one intervention to prepare young people for transition to an adult congenital heart programme (MD 14; 95% CI 2.67 to 25.33; one study; low certainty evidence).Disease-specific outcome measures were reported in two studies, both of which led to little or no difference in outcomes (low certainty evidence). One study found little or no difference between intervention and control groups. A second study found that follow-up HbA1c in young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus increased by 1.2% for each percentage increase in baseline HbA1c, independent of treatment group (1.2%; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.9; P = 0.01).Transition interventions may lead to little or no difference in well-being or quality of life as measured with the PARS III or PedsQ (two studies; low certainty evidence). Both the technology-based intervention and the two-day workshop for young people with spina bifida found little or no difference between intervention and control groups (MD 1.29; 95% CI -4.49 to 7.07). One study did not report the data.Four telephone support calls from a transition co-ordinator may lead to little or no difference in rates of transfer from paediatric to adult diabetes services (one study; low certainty evidence). At 12-month follow-up, there was little or no difference between groups of young people receiving usual care or a telephone support (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.08)). They may slightly reduce the risk of disease-related hospital admissions at 12-month follow-up (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.40).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence (four small studies; N = 238), covers a limited range of interventions developed to facilitate transition in a limited number of clinical conditions, with only four to 12 months follow-up. These follow-up periods may not be long enough for any changes to become apparent as transition is a lengthy process. There was evidence of improvement in patients' knowledge of their condition in one study, and improvements in self-efficacy and confidence in another, but since few studies were eligible for this review, and the overall certainty of the body of this evidence is low, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the intervention effect and likely could change our conclusions. There is considerable scope for the rigorous evaluation of other models of transitional care, reporting on clinical outcomes with longer term follow-up.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Health Services; Chronic Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Heart Diseases; Humans; Practice Patterns, Nurses'; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Care; Spinal Dysraphism; Transition to Adult Care
PubMed: 27128768
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009794.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- to middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple-micronutrient (MMN) deficiencies often coexist among women of reproductive age in low- to middle-income countries. They are exacerbated in pregnancy due to the increased demands, leading to potentially adverse effects on the mother and developing fetus. Though supplementation with MMNs has been recommended earlier because of the evidence of impact on pregnancy outcomes, a consensus is yet to be reached regarding the replacement of iron and folic acid supplementation with MMNs. Since the last update of this Cochrane review, evidence from a few large trials has recently been made available, the inclusion of which is critical to inform policy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits of oral multiple-micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy on maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles and key reviews. We also contacted experts in the field for additional and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All prospective randomised controlled trials evaluating MMN supplementation with iron and folic acid during pregnancy and its effects on the pregnancy outcome were eligible, irrespective of language or the publication status of the trials. We included cluster-randomised trials, but quasi-randomised trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen trials (involving 138,538 women) were identified as eligible for inclusion in this review but only 17 trials (involving 137,791 women) contributed data to the review. Fifteen of these 17 trials were carried out in low and middle-income countries and compared MMN supplements with iron and folic acid versus iron with or without folic acid. Two trials carried out in the UK compared MMN with a placebo. MMN with iron and folic acid versus iron, with or without folic acid (15 trials): MMN resulted in a significant decrease in the number of newborn infants identified as low birthweight (LBW) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.91; high-quality evidence) or small-for-gestational age (SGA) (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; moderate-quality evidence). No significant differences were shown for other maternal and pregnancy outcomes: preterm births (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; high-quality evidence), stillbirth (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87, 1.09; high-quality evidence), maternal anaemia in the third trimester (average RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24), miscarriage (average RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03), maternal mortality (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48), perinatal mortality (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.13; high-quality evidence), neonatal mortality (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; high-quality evidence), or risk of delivery via a caesarean section (average RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.46).A number of prespecified, clinically important outcomes could not be assessed due to insufficient or non-available data. Single trials reported results for: very preterm birth < 34 weeks, macrosomia, side-effects of supplements, nutritional status of children, and congenital anomalies including neural tube defects and neurodevelopmental outcome: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) scores. None of these trials reported pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, cost of supplementation, and maternal well-being or satisfaction.When assessed according to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for the review's primary outcomes overall was good. Pooled results for primary outcomes were based on multiple trials with large sample sizes and precise estimates. The following outcomes were graded to be as of high quality: preterm birth, LBW, perinatal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal mortality. The outcome of SGA was graded to be of moderate quality, with evidence downgraded by one for funnel plot asymmetry and potential publication bias.We carried out sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high levels of sample attrition (> 20%); results were consistent with the main analysis except for the findings for SGA (average RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00). We explored heterogeneity through subgroup analyses by maternal height and body mass index (BMI), timing of supplementation and dose of iron. Subgroup differences were observed for maternal BMI for the outcome preterm birth, with significant findings among women with low BMI. Subgroup differences were also observed for maternal BMI and maternal height for the outcome SGA, indicating a significant impact among women with higher maternal BMI and height. The overall analysis of perinatal mortality, although showed a non-significant effect of MMN supplements versus iron with or without folic acid, was found to have substantial statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup differences were observed for timing of supplementation for this outcome, indicating a significantly higher impact with late initiation of supplementation. The findings between subgroups for other primary outcomes were inconclusive. MMN versus placebo (two trials): A single trial in the UK found no clear differences between groups for preterm birth, SGA, LBW or maternal anaemia in the third trimester. A second trial reported the number of women with pre-eclampsia; there was no evidence of a difference between groups. Other outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings support the effect of MMN supplements with iron and folic acid in improving some birth outcomes. Overall, pregnant women who received MMN supplementation had fewer low birthweight babies and small-for-gestational-age babies. The findings, consistently observed in several systematic evaluations of evidence, provide a basis to guide the replacement of iron and folic acid with MMN supplements containing iron and folic acid for pregnant women in low and middle-income countries where MMN deficiencies are common among women of reproductive age. Efforts could focus on the integration of this intervention in maternal nutrition and antenatal care programs in low and middle-income countries.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Drug Interactions; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Iron, Dietary; Micronutrients; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28407219
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004905.pub5 -
American Journal of Public Health Jan 2016Birth defects remain a significant source of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Strong scientific evidence shows that folic acid fortification of a region's food supply... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Birth defects remain a significant source of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Strong scientific evidence shows that folic acid fortification of a region's food supply leads to a decrease in spina bifida (a birth defect of the spine). Still, many countries around the world have yet to approve mandatory fortification through government legislation.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of period prevalence of spina bifida by folic acid fortification status, geographic region, and study population.
SEARCH METHODS
An expert research librarian used terms related to neural tube defects and epidemiology from primary research from 1985 to 2010 to search in EMBASE and MEDLINE. We searched the reference lists of included articles and key review articles identified by experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Inclusion criteria included studies in English or French reporting on prevalence published between January 1985 and December 2010 that (1) were primary research, (2) were population-based, and (3) reported a point or period prevalence estimate of spina bifida (i.e., prevalence estimate with confidence intervals or case numerator and population denominator). Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligible articles, then 2 authors screened full texts in duplicate for final inclusion. Disagreements were resolved through consensus or a third party.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA, abstracting data related to case ascertainment, study population, folic acid fortification status, geographic region, and prevalence estimate independently and in duplicate. We extracted overall data and any subgroups reported by age, gender, time period, or type of spina bifida. We classified each period prevalence estimate as "mandatory" or "voluntary" folic acid fortification according to each country's folic acid fortification status at the time data were collected (as determined by a well-recognized fortification monitoring body, Food Fortification Initiative). We determined study quality on the basis of sample representativeness, standardization of data collection and birth defect assessment, and statistical analyses. We analyzed study-level period prevalence estimates by using a random effects model (α level of < 0.05) for all meta-analyses. We stratified pooled period prevalence estimates by birth population, fortification status, and continent.
RESULTS
Of 4078 studies identified, we included 179 studies in the systematic review and 123 in a meta-analysis. In studies of live births (LBs) alone, period prevalences of spina bifida were (1) lower in geographical regions with mandatory (33.86 per 100,000 LBs) versus voluntary (48.35 per 100,000 LBs) folic acid fortification, and (2) lower in studies of LBs, stillbirths, and terminations of pregnancy in regions with mandatory (35.22 per 100,000 LBs) versus voluntary (52.29 per 100,000 LBs) fortification. In LBs, stillbirths, and terminations of pregnancy studies, the lowest pooled prevalence estimate was in North America (38.70 per 100,000). Case ascertainment, surveillance methods, and reporting varied across these population-based studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Mandatory legislation enforcing folic acid fortification of the food supply lags behind the evidence, particularly in Asian and European countries. This extensive literature review shows that spina bifida is significantly more common in world regions without government legislation regulating full-coverage folic acid fortification of the food supply (i.e., Asia, Europe) and that mandatory folic acid fortification resulted in a lower prevalence of spina bifida regardless of the type of birth cohort. African data were scarce, but needed, as many African nations are beginning to adopt folic acid legislation.
Topics: Female; Folic Acid; Food, Fortified; Global Health; Humans; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Spinal Dysraphism; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 26562127
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302902 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015It has been reported that neural tube defects (NTD) can be prevented with periconceptional folic acid supplementation. The effects of different doses, forms and schemes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It has been reported that neural tube defects (NTD) can be prevented with periconceptional folic acid supplementation. The effects of different doses, forms and schemes of folate supplementation for the prevention of other birth defects and maternal and infant outcomes are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to examine whether periconceptional folate supplementation reduces the risk of neural tube and other congenital anomalies (including cleft palate) without causing adverse outcomes in mothers or babies. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review on this topic.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015). Additionally, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 August 2015) and contacted relevant organisations to identify ongoing and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of periconceptional folate supplementation alone, or in combination with other vitamins and minerals, in women independent of age and parity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included studies, checked data entry for accuracy and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials involving 7391 women (2033 with a history of a pregnancy affected by a NTD and 5358 with no history of NTDs) were included. Four comparisons were made: 1) supplementation with any folate versus no intervention, placebo or other micronutrients without folate (five trials); 2) supplementation with folic acid alone versus no treatment or placebo (one trial); 3) supplementation with folate plus other micronutrients versus other micronutrients without folate (four trials); and 4) supplementation with folate plus other micronutrients versus the same other micronutrients without folate (two trials). The risk of bias of the trials was variable. Only one trial was considered to be at low risk of bias. The remaining studies lacked clarity regarding the randomisation method or whether the allocation to the intervention was concealed. All the participants were blinded to the intervention, though blinding was unclear for outcome assessors in the five trials.The results of the first comparison involving 6708 births with information on NTDs and other infant outcomes, show a protective effect of daily folic acid supplementation (alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals) in preventing NTDs compared with no interventions/placebo or vitamins and minerals without folic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.58); five studies; 6708 births; high quality evidence). Only one study assessed the incidence of NTDs and showed no evidence of an effect (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 4862 births) although no events were found in the group that received folic acid. Folic acid had a significant protective effect for reoccurrence (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64); four studies; 1846 births). Subgroup analyses suggest that the positive effect of folic acid on NTD incidence and recurrence is not affected by the explored daily folic acid dosage (400 µg (0.4 mg) or higher) or whether folic acid is given alone or with other vitamins and minerals. These results are consistent across all four review comparisons.There is no evidence of any preventive or negative effects on cleft palate (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.89; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), cleft lip ((RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.36; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), congenital cardiovascular defects (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence), miscarriages (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.28; five studies; 7391 pregnancies; moderate quality evidence) or any other birth defects (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.66; three studies; 5612 births; low quality evidence). There were no included trials assessing the effects of this intervention on neonatal death, maternal blood folate or anaemia at term.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Folic acid, alone or in combination with vitamins and minerals, prevents NTDs, but does not have a clear effect on other birth defects.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Infant; Neural Tube Defects; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 26662928
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007950.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016There is evidence that certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are teratogenic and are associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation. The majority of women... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is evidence that certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are teratogenic and are associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation. The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking AEDs throughout pregnancy; therefore it is important that comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with AED treatment is available.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to AEDs on the prevalence of congenital malformations in the child.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1974 to September 2015), Pharmline (1978 to September 2015), Reprotox (1983 to September 2015) and conference abstracts (2010-2015) without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries and randomised controlled trials. Participants were women with epilepsy taking AEDs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and women with epilepsy who were not taking AEDs during pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Five authors completed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of a major congenital malformation. Secondary outcomes included specific types of major congenital malformations. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 50 studies, with 31 contributing to meta-analysis. Study quality varied, and given the observational design, all were at high risk of certain biases. However, biases were balanced across the AEDs investigated and we believe that the results are not explained by these biases.Children exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 1367 vs 2146, risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.36) and women with untreated epilepsy (N = 3058 vs 1287, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.19). Children exposed to phenobarbital (PB) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 345 vs 1591, RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.13). Children exposed to phenytoin (PHT) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 477 vs 987, RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 640 vs 1256, RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.08). Children exposed to topiramate (TPM) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 359 vs 442, RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.07). The children exposed to valproate (VPA) were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 467 vs 1936, RR 5.69, 95% CI 3.33 to 9.73) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 1923 vs 1259, RR 3.13, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.54). There was no increased risk for major malformation for lamotrigine (LTG). Gabapentin (GBP), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), primidone (PRM) or zonisamide (ZNS) were not associated with an increased risk, however, there were substantially fewer data for these medications.For AED comparisons, children exposed to VPA had the greatest risk of malformation (10.93%, 95% CI 8.91 to 13.13). Children exposed to VPA were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children exposed to CBZ (N = 2529 vs 4549, RR 2.44, 95% CI 2.00 to 2.94), GBP (N = 1814 vs 190, RR 6.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.23), LEV (N = 1814 vs 817, RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.81), LTG (N = 2021 vs 4164, RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.77 to 4.58), TPM (N = 1814 vs 473, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.95), OXC (N = 676 vs 238, RR 3.71, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.33), PB (N = 1137 vs 626, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.29, PHT (N = 2319 vs 1137, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.71) or ZNS (N = 323 vs 90, RR 17.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 277.48). Children exposed to CBZ were at a higher risk of malformation than those exposed to LEV (N = 3051 vs 817, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.29) and children exposed to LTG (N = 3385 vs 4164, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). Children exposed to PB were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children exposed to GBP (N = 204 vs 159, RR 8.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 50.00), LEV (N = 204 vs 513, RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.00) or LTG (N = 282 vs 1959, RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.88). Children exposed to PHT had a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LTG (N = 624 vs 4082, RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.94) or to LEV (N = 566 vs 817, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.85); however, the comparison to LEV was not significant in the random-effects model. Children exposed to TPM were at a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LEV (N = 473 vs 817, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.85) or LTG (N = 473 vs 3975, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.94). There were no other significant differences, or comparisons were limited to a single study.We found significantly higher rates of specific malformations associating PB exposure with cardiac malformations and VPA exposure with neural tube, cardiac, oro-facial/craniofacial, and skeletal and limb malformations in comparison to other AEDs. Dose of exposure mediated the risk of malformation following VPA exposure; a potential dose-response association for the other AEDs remained less clear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Exposure in the womb to certain AEDs carried an increased risk of malformation in the foetus and may be associated with specific patterns of malformation. Based on current evidence, LEV and LTG exposure carried the lowest risk of overall malformation; however, data pertaining to specific malformations are lacking. Physicians should discuss both the risks and treatment efficacy with the patient prior to commencing treatment.
Topics: Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Anticonvulsants; Cardiovascular Abnormalities; Craniofacial Abnormalities; Epilepsy; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Musculoskeletal Abnormalities; Neural Tube Defects; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 27819746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010224.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Description of the condition Malaria, an infectious disease transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes from several Anopheles species, occurs in 87 countries with ongoing transmission (WHO 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that, in 2019, approximately 229 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, with 94% occurring in the WHO's African region (WHO 2020). Of these malaria cases, an estimated 409,000 deaths occurred globally, with 67% occurring in children under five years of age (WHO 2020). Malaria also negatively impacts the health of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period (WHO 2020). Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), an antifolate antimalarial, has been widely used across sub-Saharan Africa as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria since it was first introduced in Malawi in 1993 (Filler 2006). Due to increasing resistance to SP, in 2000 the WHO recommended that one of several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) be used instead of SP for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum (Global Partnership to Roll Back Malaria 2001). However, despite these recommendations, SP continues to be advised for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) and intermittent preventive treatment in infants (IPTi), whether the person has malaria or not (WHO 2013). Description of the intervention Folate (vitamin B9) includes both naturally occurring folates and folic acid, the fully oxidized monoglutamic form of the vitamin, used in dietary supplements and fortified food. Folate deficiency (e.g. red blood cell (RBC) folate concentrations of less than 305 nanomoles per litre (nmol/L); serum or plasma concentrations of less than 7 nmol/L) is common in many parts of the world and often presents as megaloblastic anaemia, resulting from inadequate intake, increased requirements, reduced absorption, or abnormal metabolism of folate (Bailey 2015; WHO 2015a). Pregnant women have greater folate requirements; inadequate folate intake (evidenced by RBC folate concentrations of less than 400 nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL), or 906 nmol/L) prior to and during the first month of pregnancy increases the risk of neural tube defects, preterm delivery, low birthweight, and fetal growth restriction (Bourassa 2019). The WHO recommends that all women who are trying to conceive consume 400 micrograms (µg) of folic acid daily from the time they begin trying to conceive through to 12 weeks of gestation (WHO 2017). In 2015, the WHO added the dosage of 0.4 mg of folic acid to the essential drug list (WHO 2015c). Alongside daily oral iron (30 mg to 60 mg elemental iron), folic acid supplementation is recommended for pregnant women to prevent neural tube defects, maternal anaemia, puerperal sepsis, low birthweight, and preterm birth in settings where anaemia in pregnant women is a severe public health problem (i.e. where at least 40% of pregnant women have a blood haemoglobin (Hb) concentration of less than 110 g/L). How the intervention might work Potential interactions between folate status and malaria infection The malaria parasite requires folate for survival and growth; this has led to the hypothesis that folate status may influence malaria risk and severity. In rhesus monkeys, folate deficiency has been found to be protective against Plasmodium cynomolgi malaria infection, compared to folate-replete animals (Metz 2007). Alternatively, malaria may induce or exacerbate folate deficiency due to increased folate utilization from haemolysis and fever. Further, folate status measured via RBC folate is not an appropriate biomarker of folate status in malaria-infected individuals since RBC folate values in these individuals are indicative of both the person's stores and the parasite's folate synthesis. A study in Nigeria found that children with malaria infection had significantly higher RBC folate concentrations compared to children without malaria infection, but plasma folate levels were similar (Bradley-Moore 1985). Why it is important to do this review The malaria parasite needs folate for survival and growth in humans. For individuals, adequate folate levels are critical for health and well-being, and for the prevention of anaemia and neural tube defects. Many countries rely on folic acid supplementation to ensure adequate folate status in at-risk populations. Different formulations for folic acid supplements are available in many international settings, with dosages ranging from 400 µg to 5 mg. Evaluating folic acid dosage levels used in supplementation efforts may increase public health understanding of its potential impacts on malaria risk and severity and on treatment failures. Examining folic acid interactions with antifolate antimalarial medications and with malaria disease progression may help countries in malaria-endemic areas determine what are the most appropriate lower dose folic acid formulations for at-risk populations. The WHO has highlighted the limited evidence available and has indicated the need for further research on biomarkers of folate status, particularly interactions between RBC folate concentrations and tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and antifolate antimalarial drugs (WHO 2015b). An earlier Cochrane Review assessed the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria areas; it demonstrated that iron supplementation did not increase the risk of malaria, as indicated by fever and the presence of parasites in the blood (Neuberger 2016). Further, this review stated that folic acid may interfere with the efficacy of SP; however, the efficacy and safety of folic acid supplementation on these outcomes has not been established. This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of daily folic acid supplementation in healthy and malaria-infected individuals living in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, it will contribute to achieving both the WHO Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 (WHO 2015d), and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (to ensure healthy lives and to promote well-being for all of all ages) (United Nations 2021), and evaluating whether the potential effects of folic acid supplementation, at different doses (e.g. 0.4 mg, 1 mg, 5 mg daily), interferes with the effect of drugs used for prevention or treatment of malaria.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of folic acid supplementation, at various doses, on malaria susceptibility (risk of infection) and severity among people living in areas with various degrees of malaria endemicity. We will examine the interaction between folic acid supplements and antifolate antimalarial drugs. Specifically, we will aim to answer the following. Among uninfected people living in malaria endemic areas, who are taking or not taking antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis, does taking a folic acid-containing supplement increase susceptibility to or severity of malaria infection? Among people with malaria infection who are being treated with antifolate antimalarials, does folic acid supplementation increase the risk of treatment failure?
METHODS
Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of studies Inclusion criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Quasi-RCTs with randomization at the individual or cluster level conducted in malaria-endemic areas (areas with ongoing, local malaria transmission, including areas approaching elimination, as listed in the World Malaria Report 2020) (WHO 2020) Exclusion criteria Ecological studies Observational studies In vivo/in vitro studies Economic studies Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses (relevant systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded but flagged for grey literature screening) Types of participants Inclusion criteria Individuals of any age or gender, living in a malaria endemic area, who are taking antifolate antimalarial medications (including but not limited to sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP), pyrimethamine-dapsone, pyrimethamine, chloroquine and proguanil, cotrimoxazole) for the prevention or treatment of malaria (studies will be included if more than 70% of the participants live in malaria-endemic regions) Studies assessing participants with or without anaemia and with or without malaria parasitaemia at baseline will be included Exclusion criteria Individuals not taking antifolate antimalarial medications for prevention or treatment of malaria Individuals living in non-malaria endemic areas Types of interventions Inclusion criteria Folic acid supplementation Form: in tablet, capsule, dispersible tablet at any dose, during administration, or periodically Timing: during, before, or after (within a period of four to six weeks) administration of antifolate antimalarials Iron-folic acid supplementation Folic acid supplementation in combination with co-interventions that are identical between the intervention and control groups. Co-interventions include: anthelminthic treatment; multivitamin or multiple micronutrient supplementation; 5-methyltetrahydrofolate supplementation. Exclusion criteria Folate through folate-fortified water Folic acid administered through large-scale fortification of rice, wheat, or maize Comparators Placebo No treatment No folic acid/different doses of folic acid Iron Types of outcome measures Primary outcomes Uncomplicated malaria (defined as a history of fever with parasitological confirmation; acceptable parasitological confirmation will include rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), malaria smears, or nucleic acid detection (i.e. polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), etc.)) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Severe malaria (defined as any case with cerebral malaria or acute P. falciparum malaria, with signs of severity or evidence of vital organ dysfunction, or both) (WHO 2010). This outcome is relevant for patients without malaria, given antifolate antimalarials for malaria prophylaxis. Parasite clearance (any Plasmodium species), defined as the time it takes for a patient who tests positive at enrolment and is treated to become smear-negative or PCR negative. This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Treatment failure (defined as the inability to clear malaria parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of antimalarial medicine, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are resolved) (WHO 2019). This outcome is relevant for patients with malaria, treated with antifolate antimalarials. Secondary outcomes Duration of parasitaemia Parasite density Haemoglobin (Hb) concentrations (g/L) Anaemia: severe anaemia (defined as Hb less than 70 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and Hb less than 80 g/L in other populations); moderate anaemia (defined as Hb less than 100 g/L in pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months; and less than 110 g/L in others) Death from any cause Among pregnant women: stillbirth (at less than 28 weeks gestation); low birthweight (less than 2500 g); active placental malaria (defined as Plasmodium detected in placental blood by smear or PCR, or by Plasmodium detected on impression smear or placental histology). Search methods for identification of studies A search will be conducted to identify completed and ongoing studies, without date or language restrictions. Electronic searches A search strategy will be designed to include the appropriate subject headings and text word terms related to each intervention of interest and study design of interest (see Appendix 1). Searches will be broken down by these two criteria (intervention of interest and study design of interest) to allow for ease of prioritization, if necessary. The study design filters recommended by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and those designed by Cochrane for identifying clinical trials for MEDLINE and Embase, will be used (SIGN 2020). There will be no date or language restrictions. Non-English articles identified for inclusion will be translated into English. If translations are not possible, advice will be requested from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and the record will be stored in the "Awaiting assessment" section of the review until a translation is available. The following electronic databases will be searched for primary studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Embase. MEDLINE. Scopus. Web of Science (both the Social Science Citation Index and the Science Citation Index). We will conduct manual searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Evaluation and Research Database (ERD), in order to identify relevant ongoing or planned trials, abstracts, and full-text reports of evaluations, studies, and surveys related to programmes on folic acid supplementation in malaria-endemic areas. Additionally, manual searches of grey literature to identify RCTs that have not yet been published but are potentially eligible for inclusion will be conducted in the following sources. Global Index Medicus (GIM). African Index Medicus (AIM). Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Western Pacific Region Index Medicus (WPRO). Index Medicus for the South-East Asian Region (IMSEAR). The Spanish Bibliographic Index in Health Sciences (IBECS) (ibecs.isciii.es/). Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) (journals.lww.com/ijmr/pages/default.aspx). Native Health Database (nativehealthdatabase.net/). Scielo (www.scielo.br/). Searching other resources Handsearches of the five journals with the highest number of included studies in the last 12 months will be conducted to capture any relevant articles that may not have been indexed in the databases at the time of the search. We will contact the authors of included studies and will check reference lists of included papers for the identification of additional records. For assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished studies, we will contact the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) and the Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria (DPDM) of the CDC, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Nutrition International (NI), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), and Hellen Keller International (HKI). Data collection and analysis Selection of studies Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by each search to assess eligibility, as determined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies deemed eligible for inclusion by both review authors in the abstract screening phase will advance to the full-text screening phase, and full-text copies of all eligible papers will be retrieved. If full articles cannot be obtained, we will attempt to contact the authors to obtain further details of the studies. If such information is not obtained, we will classify the study as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. The same two review authors will independently assess the eligibility of full-text articles for inclusion in the systematic review. If any discrepancies occur between the studies selected by the two review authors, a third review author will provide arbitration. Each trial will be scrutinized to identify multiple publications from the same data set, and the justification for excluded trials will be documented. A PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process will be presented to provide information on the number of records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusion (Moher 2009). The list of excluded studies, along with their reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening phase, will also be created. Data extraction and management Two review authors will independently extract data for the final list of included studies using a standardized data specification form. Discrepancies observed between the data extracted by the two authors will be resolved by involving a third review author and reaching a consensus. Information will be extracted on study design components, baseline participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. For individually randomized trials, we will record the number of participants experiencing the event and the number analyzed in each treatment group or the effect estimate reported (e.g. risk ratio (RR)) for dichotomous outcome measures. For count data, we will record the number of events and the number of person-months of follow-up in each group. If the number of person-months is not reported, the product of the duration of follow-up and the number of children evaluated will be used to estimate this figure. We will calculate the rate ratio and standard error (SE) for each study. Zero events will be replaced by 0.5. We will extract both adjusted and unadjusted covariate incidence rate ratios if they are reported in the original studies. For continuous data, we will extract means (arithmetic or geometric) and a measure of variance (standard deviation (SD), SE, or confidence interval (CI)), percentage or mean change from baseline, and the numbers analyzed in each group. SDs will be computed from SEs or 95% CIs, assuming a normal distribution of the values. Haemoglobin values in g/dL will be calculated by multiplying haematocrit or packed cell volume values by 0.34, and studies reporting haemoglobin values in g/dL will be converted to g/L. In cluster-randomized trials, we will record the unit of randomization (e.g. household, compound, sector, or village), the number of clusters in the trial, and the average cluster size. The statistical methods used to analyze the trials will be documented, along with details describing whether these methods adjusted for clustering or other covariates. We plan to extract estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each outcome. Where results are adjusted for clustering, we will extract the treatment effect estimate and the SD or CI. If the results are not adjusted for clustering, we will extract the data reported. Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the risk of bias for each included trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias 2' tool (RoB 2) for randomized studies (Sterne 2019). Judgements about the risk of bias of included studies will be made according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, or by involving a third review author. The interest of our review will be to assess the effect of assignment to the interventions at baseline. We will evaluate each primary outcome using the RoB2 tool. The five domains of the Cochrane RoB2 tool include the following. Bias arising from the randomization process. Bias due to deviations from intended interventions. Bias due to missing outcome data. Bias in measurement of the outcome. Bias in selection of the reported result. Each domain of the RoB2 tool comprises the following. A series of 'signalling' questions. A judgement about the risk of bias for the domain, facilitated by an algorithm that maps responses to the signalling questions to a proposed judgement. Free-text boxes to justify responses to the signalling questions and 'Risk of bias' judgements. An option to predict (and explain) the likely direction of bias. Responses to signalling questions elicit information relevant to an assessment of the risk of bias. These response options are as follows. Yes (may indicate either low or high risk of bias, depending on the most natural way to ask the question). Probably yes. Probably no. No. No information (may indicate no evidence of that problem or an absence of information leading to concerns about there being a problem). Based on the answer to the signalling question, a 'Risk of bias' judgement is assigned to each domain. These judgements include one of the following. High risk of bias Low risk of bias Some concerns To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the randomized studies, we will use the Excel template, available at www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cluster randomized controlled trials For the cluster randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 1b (bias arising from the timing of identification or recruitment of participants) and its related signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cluster RCTs, we will use the Excel template available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-cluster-randomized-trials. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Risk of bias in cross-over randomized controlled trials For cross-over randomized trials, we will be using the RoB2 tool to analyze the five standard domains listed above along with Domain 2 (bias due to deviations from intended interventions), and Domain 3 (bias due to missing outcome data), and their respective signalling questions. To generate the risk of bias judgement for each domain in the cross-over RCTs, we will use the Excel template, available at https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-crossover-trials, for each risk of bias judgement of cross-over randomized studies. This file will be stored on a scientific data website, available to readers. Overall risk of bias The overall 'Risk of bias' judgement for each specific trial being assessed will be based on each domain-level judgement. The overall judgements include the following. Low risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains). Some concerns (the trial is judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain but is not judged to be at high risk of bias for any domain). High risk of bias (the trial is judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain, or is judged to have some concerns for multiple domains in a way that substantially lowers confidence in the result). The 'risk of bias' assessments will inform our GRADE evaluations of the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes presented in the 'Summary of findings' tables and will also be used to inform the sensitivity analyses; (see Sensitivity analysis). If there is insufficient information in study reports to enable an assessment of the risk of bias, studies will be classified as "awaiting assessment" until further information is published or made available to us. Measures of treatment effect Dichotomous data For dichotomous data, we will present proportions and, for two-group comparisons, results as average RR or odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. Ordered categorical data Continuous data We will report results for continuous outcomes as the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. Where some studies have reported endpoint data and others have reported change-from-baseline data (with errors), we will combine these in the meta-analysis, if the outcomes were reported using the same scale. We will use the standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% CIs, to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. If we do not find three or more studies for a pooled analysis, we will summarize the results in a narrative form. Unit of analysis issues Cluster-randomized trials We plan to combine results from both cluster-randomized and individually randomized studies, providing there is little heterogeneity between the studies. If the authors of cluster-randomized trials conducted their analyses at a different level from that of allocation, and they have not appropriately accounted for the cluster design in their analyses, we will calculate the trials' effective sample sizes to account for the effect of clustering in data. When one or more cluster-RCT reports RRs adjusted for clustering, we will compute cluster-adjusted SEs for the other trials. When none of the cluster-RCTs provide cluster-adjusted RRs, we will adjust the sample size for clustering. We will divide, by the estimated design effects (DE), the number of events and number evaluated for dichotomous outcomes and the number evaluated for continuous outcomes, where DE = 1 + ((average cluster size 1) * ICC). The derivation of the estimated ICCs and DEs will be reported. We will utilize the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC), derived from the trial (if available), or from another source (e.g., using the ICCs derived from other, similar trials) and then calculate the design effect with the formula provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2021). If this approach is used, we will report it and undertake sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of variations in ICC. Studies with more than two treatment groups If we identify studies with more than two intervention groups (multi-arm studies), where possible we will combine groups to create a single pair-wise comparison or use the methods set out in the Cochrane Handbook to avoid double counting study participants (Higgins 2021). For the subgroup analyses, when the control group was shared by two or more study arms, we will divide the control group (events and total population) over the number of relevant subgroups to avoid double counting the participants. Trials with several study arms can be included more than once for different comparisons. Cross-over trials From cross-over trials, we will consider the first period of measurement only and will analyze the results together with parallel-group studies. Multiple outcome events In several outcomes, a participant might experience more than one outcome event during the trial period. For all outcomes, we will extract the number of participants with at least one event. Dealing with missing data We will contact the trial authors if the available data are unclear, missing, or reported in a format that is different from the format needed. We aim to perform a 'per protocol' or 'as observed' analysis; otherwise, we will perform a complete case analysis. This means that for treatment failure, we will base the analyses on the participants who received treatment and the number of participants for which there was an inability to clear malarial parasitaemia or prevent recrudescence after administration of an antimalarial medicine reported in the studies. Assessment of heterogeneity Heterogeneity in the results of the trials will be assessed by visually examining the forest plot to detect non-overlapping CIs, using the Chi2 test of heterogeneity (where a P value of less than 0.1 indicates statistical significance) and the I2 statistic of inconsistency (with a value of greater than 50% denoting moderate levels of heterogeneity). When statistical heterogeneity is present, we will investigate the reasons for it, using subgroup analysis. Assessment of reporting biases We will construct a funnel plot to assess the effect of small studies for the main outcome (when including more than 10 trials). Data synthesis The primary analysis will include all eligible studies that provide data regardless of the overall risk of bias as assessed by the RoB2 tool. Analyses will be conducted using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Cluster-RCTs will be included in the main analysis after adjustment for clustering (see the previous section on cluster-RCTs). The meta-analysis will be performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model or the generic inverse variance method (when adjustment for clustering is performed by adjusting SEs), as appropriate. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity The overall risk of bias will not be used as the basis in conducting our subgroup analyses. However, where data are available, we plan to conduct the following subgroup analyses, independent of heterogeneity. Dose of folic acid supplementation: higher doses (4 mg or more, daily) versus lower doses (less than 4 mg, daily). Moderate-severe anaemia at baseline (mean haemoglobin of participants in a trial at baseline below 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and below 110 g/L for other populations) versus normal at baseline (mean haemoglobin above 100 g/L for pregnant women and children aged six to 59 months, and above 110 g/L for other populations). Antimalarial drug resistance to parasite: known resistance versus no resistance versus unknown/mixed/unreported parasite resistance. Folate status at baseline: Deficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration of less than 305 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration of less than 7nmol/L) and Insufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration from 305 to less than 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration from 7 to less than 25 nmol/L) versus Sufficient (e.g. RBC folate concentration above 906 nmol/L, or serum folate concentration above 25 nmol/L). Presence of anaemia at baseline: yes versus no. Mandatory fortification status: yes, versus no (voluntary or none). We will only use the primary outcomes in any subgroup analyses, and we will limit subgroup analyses to those outcomes for which three or more trials contributed data. Comparisons between subgroups will be performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020). Sensitivity analysis We will perform a sensitivity analysis, using the risk of bias as a variable to explore the robustness of the findings in our primary outcomes. We will verify the behaviour of our estimators by adding and removing studies with a high risk of bias overall from the analysis. That is, studies with a low risk of bias versus studies with a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence For the assessment across studies, we will use the GRADE approach, as outlined in (Schünemann 2021). We will use the five GRADE considerations (study limitations based on RoB2 judgements, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the primary outcomes. The GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GRADEpro) will be used to import data from Review Manager 5.4 (Review Manager 2020) to create 'Summary of Findings' tables. The primary outcomes for the main comparison will be listed with estimates of relative effects, along with the number of participants and studies contributing data for those outcomes. These tables will provide outcome-specific information concerning the overall certainty of evidence from studies included in the comparison, the magnitude of the effect of the interventions examined, and the sum of available data on the outcomes we considered. We will include only primary outcomes in the summary of findings tables. For each individual outcome, two review authors (KSC, LFY) will independently assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011). For assessments of the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome that includes pooled data from included trials, we will downgrade the evidence from 'high certainty' by one level for serious (or by two for very serious) study limitations (risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias).
Topics: Child; Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Child, Preschool; Antimalarials; Sulfadoxine; Pyrimethamine; Folic Acid Antagonists; Birth Weight; Parasitemia; Vitamins; Folic Acid; Anemia; Neural Tube Defects; Dietary Supplements; Iron; Recurrence
PubMed: 36321557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217 -
The Lancet. Global Health Dec 2022We aimed to identify the aetiological distribution and the diagnostic methods for paediatric hydrocephalus across Africa, for which there is currently scarce evidence. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to identify the aetiological distribution and the diagnostic methods for paediatric hydrocephalus across Africa, for which there is currently scarce evidence.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Embase (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), Maternity & Infant Care (Ovid), Scopus, African Index Medicus (Global Index Medicus, WHO) and Africa-Wide Information (EBSCO) from inception to Nov 29, 2021. We included studies from any African country reporting on the distribution of hydrocephalus aetiology in children aged 18 years and younger, with no language restrictions. Hydrocephalus was defined as radiological evidence of ventriculomegaly or associated clinical symptoms and signs of the disorder, or surgical treatment for hydrocephalus. Exclusion criteria were studies only reporting on one specific subgroup or one specific cause of hydrocephalus. We also excluded conference and meetings abstracts, grey literature, editorials, commentaries, historical reviews, systematic reviews, case reports and clinical guidelines, as well as studies on non-humans, fetuses, or post-mortem reports. The proportions of postinfectious hydrocephalus, non-postinfectious hydrocephalus, and hydrocephalus related to spinal dysraphism were calculated using a random-effects model. Additionally, we included a category for unclear cases. Diagnostic methods were described qualitatively. To assess methodological study quality, we applied critical appraisal checklists provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42020219038).
FINDINGS
Our search yielded 3783 results, of which 1880 (49·7%) were duplicates and were removed. The remaining 1903 abstracts were screened and 122 (6·4%) full articles were sought for retrieval; of these, we included 38 studies from 18 African countries that studied a total of 6565 children. The pooled proportion of postinfectious hydrocephalus was 28% (95% CI 22-36), non-postinfectious hydrocephalus was 21% (95% CI 13-30), and of spinal dysraphism was 16% (95% CI 12-20), with substantial heterogeneity. The pooled proportion of hydrocephalus of unclear aetiology was 20% (95% CI 13-28).
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that postinfectious hydrocephalus is the single most common cause of paediatric hydrocephalus in Africa. For targeted investments to be optimal, there is a need for consensus regarding the aetiological classification of hydrocephalus and improved access to diagnostic services.
FUNDING
Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Topics: Pregnancy; Child; Humans; Female; Prevalence; Causality; Hydrocephalus; Africa; Global Health; Neural Tube Defects
PubMed: 36400085
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00430-2 -
Journal of Neurological Surgery Reports Apr 2024Diastematomyelia is a rare congenital disorder characterized by the separation of the spinal cord by an osseocartilaginous or fibrous septum. While diastematomyelia has...
Diastematomyelia is a rare congenital disorder characterized by the separation of the spinal cord by an osseocartilaginous or fibrous septum. While diastematomyelia has been reported to be more common in the thoracic and lumbar regions, the true incidence of cervical diastematomyelia is currently unknown. In this study, we conducted the most comprehensive systematic review to date of all other case reports of diastematomyelia to better characterize the incidence of cervical diastematomyelia and provide comprehensive statistics on the clinical characteristics of diastematomyelia generally. Ninety-one articles were included in our study, which comprised 252 males (27.9%) and 651 females (72.0%) (and one patient with unspecified gender). In 507 cases, the vertebral level of the diastematomyelia was described, and we recorded those levels as either cervical ( = 8, 1.6%), thoracic ( = 220, 43.4%), lumbar ( = 277, 54.6%), or sacral ( = 2, 0.4%). In 719 cases, the type of diastematomyelia was specified as either Type I ( = 482, 67.0%) or Type II ( = 237, 33.0%). Our study found that diastematomyelia has been reported in the cervical region in only 1.6% of cases, and we provide comprehensive data that this disorder occurs in female-to-male ratio of approximately 2.6:1 and Type I versus Type II diastematomyelia in an estimated ratio of 2:1.
PubMed: 38798790
DOI: 10.1055/a-2319-3444