ABSTRACT
Abstract Background Leishmaniasis is caused by an intracellular protozoan of the Leishmania genus. Mannose-binding lectin (MBL) is a serum complement protein and recognizes lipoprotein antigens in protozoa and the bacterial plasma membrane. Nucleotide variants in the promoter region and exon 1 of the MBL gene can influence its expression or change its molecular structure. Objective To evaluate, through a systematic review, case-control studies of the genetic association of variants in the MBL2 gene and the risk of developing leishmaniasis. Methods This review carried out a search in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Lilacs databases for case-control publications with six polymorphisms in the mannose-binding Lectin gene. The following strategy was used: P = Patients at risk of leishmaniasis; I = Presence of polymorphisms; C = Absence of polymorphisms; O = Occurrence of leishmaniasis. Four case/control studies consisting of 791 patients with leishmaniasis and 967 healthy subjects (Control) are included in this meta-analysis. The association of variants in the mannose-binding Lectin gene and leishmaniasis under the allelic genetic model, -550 (Hvs. L), -221 (X vs. Y), +4 (Q vs. P), CD52 (A vs. D), CD54 (A vs. B), CD57 (A vs. C) and A/O genotype (A vs. O) was evaluated. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020201755. Results The meta-analysis results for any allelic genetic model showed no significant association for the variants within the promoter, the untranslated region, and exon 1, as well as for the wild-type A allele and mutant allele O with leishmaniasis. Study limitations Caution should be exercised when interpreting these results, as they are based on a few studies, which show divergent results when analyzed separately. Conclusions This meta-analysis showed a non-significant association between the rs11003125, rs7096206, rs7095891, rs5030737, rs1800450, and rs1800451 polymorphisms of the Mannose-binding Lectin gene and leishmaniasis in any allelic and heterogeneous evaluation.
ABSTRACT
A Colaboração Cochrane (CC) é uma organização internacional que tem como objetivo ajudar profissionais da área da saúde a tomar decisões clínicas bem informadas através da preparação, manutenção e promoção da acessibilidade às revisões sistemáticas sobre os efeitos das intervenções, sensibilidade e especificidade de testes diagnósticos em saúde e associação de fatores de risco e ocorrência de determinada doença. Entretanto, alguns estudos apontaram a constante ausência ou insuficiência de evidências nas revisões sistemáticas da Colaboração Cochrane para a tomada de decisão clínica. Verificar a proporção de revisões sistemáticas completas do grupo de Odontologia da Colaboração Cochrane que permitem ou não a aplicação prática dos resultados, cujos autores consideram reunir evidências suficientes para recomendá-las ou desestimulá-las. Estudo sistemático de revisões da Biblioteca Cochrane, edição 8, 2013. Foram incluídas todas as revisões sistemáticas completas do grupo de Odontologia que preencheram os critérios de inclusão deste trabalho.143 revisões sistemáticas foram analisadas, o que correspondeu a 100% da totalidade disponível na Biblioteca pertinente ao grupo de Odontologia da Colaboração Cochrane. Evidências que apoiam a intervenção 22,38% (95% IC 16 - 29); evidências contra a intervenção 6,29% (95% IC 3 - 10); ausência de evidências 71,33% (95% IC 64 - 78). O total de revisões sistemáticas que recomendam a realização de mais estudos foi de 140 (97,90 %) (95% IC, 96 100). A média do número de estudos incluídos foi de 13 e o total de meta-análises incluído nas revisões sistemáticas avaliadas foi de 161...
The Cochrane Collaboration (CC) is an international organization that aims to help health care professionals to making clinical decisions well informed by preparing, supporting and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews about the intervention effects, sensibility and specificity of diagnostic health tests and association of risk factors and occurrence of a particular disease. However, some studies indicated the constant absence or insufficient evidences in systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration to making clinical decision. To determine the proportion of complete systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration Dentistry Group which allow or not the practical application of the results, which author consider bring enough evidence to recommend or discourage them. Systematic study of the reviews from Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2013. Was included all the complete systematic reviews of the Dentistry Group who met inclusion criteria for this study. 143 systematic reviews were analyzed, corresponding to 100% of all available of the Library pertinent to the Cochrane Collaboration dentistry Group. Evidences supporting intervention 22,38% (95% IC 16 29); evidence against intervention 6,29% (95% IC 3 - 10); absence of evidence 71,33% (95% IC 64 - 78). The total of systematic reviews that recommend further studies was 140 (97,90 %) (95% IC, 96 100). The mean of included studies was 13 and the total of meta-analyzes included in systematic reviews evaluated was 161. Only 28,67 of the complete systematic reviews of the the Cochrane Collaboration Dentistry Group showed sufficient evidence to recommend or discourage the treatment of interest and also suggested further studies, or be, none of them showed consistent results...