Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 194
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e056106, 2021 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504289

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Many inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being tested at various clinical trial stages for the control and prevention of COVID-19. We aim to comprehensively and objectively evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in healthy individuals through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE for RCTs from inception to 31 December 2021. We will also search conference abstracts, reference lists, and grey literature of all available records. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract information from the literature. Bias and the quality of included studies will be evaluated with the risk-bias assessment tool provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analysis will be performed using Cochrane's Review Manager (RevMan), V.5.3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval and patient informed consent are not required because we will be including published literature only. The findings of this research will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely through other scientific events such as conferences, seminars and symposia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021266285.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
2.
Pharmacol Res Perspect ; 9(6): e00861, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487514

ABSTRACT

Most but not all observational studies of statin treatment of COVID-19 patients suggest that treatment improves outcomes. However, almost all of these studies fail to consider that withdrawing statins after hospital admission may have detrimental effects, a finding which cardiovascular investigators have known for 15-20 years. Continuing or starting statin treatment after hospital admission consistently improves cardiovascular outcomes. Similarly, inpatient statin treatment of COVID-19 improves survival. For this reason, observational studies of the effectiveness of outpatient-documented statin treatment of COVID-19 patients must consider the negative consequences of statin withdrawal after hospital admission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Patient Admission , Treatment Outcome , Withholding Treatment
3.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 281, 2021 10 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486597

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study is twofold: (1) to examine the effect of COVID-19 safety measures, enacted to prevent transmission of SARS-nCOV-2, on total physical activity in the adult general population (≥ 18 years) and (2) to analyze the impact of the factor "severity of safety measures" on potential changes in physical activity. The secondary objective is to investigate the effects of safety measures on the respective PA intensities, i.e., sedentary behavior, light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity. METHODS: A systematic literature search will be performed in the following online databases: Medline (on Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, L.OVE Coronavirus disease by Epistemonikos, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. All obtained citations will undergo title and abstract as well as full-text screening by two independent reviewers. Observational studies investigating the effects of safety measures on physical activity patterns in the adult general population will be included. The standardized mean difference in total physical activity per time unit between pre- and during COVID-19 or between normative data and during COVID-19 will be the primary outcome. The standardized mean difference in sedentary time, light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Eligible studies will be divided between the reviewers for data extraction using a pilot-tested data form. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a standard assessment tool. If suitable, a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression with a unit of safety measure severity as the independent variable will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will synthesize available data reporting the effect of COVID-19 safety measures on physical activity patterns in adults. Furthermore, we will incorporate a unit for the severity of safety measures for better generalizability of the results. These findings will be of great value for public health policymaking and estimating future health consequences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021231039.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Exercise , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
5.
Front Public Health ; 9: 722458, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477891

ABSTRACT

Despite the massive distribution of different vaccines globally, the current pandemic has revealed the crucial need for an efficient treatment against COVID-19. Meta-analyses have historically been extremely useful to determine treatment efficacy but recent debates about the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients resulted in contradictory meta-analytical results. Different factors during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted key features of conducting a good meta-analysis. Some meta-analyses did not evaluate or treat substantial heterogeneity (I 2 > 75%); others did not include additional analysis for publication bias; none checked for evidence of p-hacking in the primary studies nor used recent methods (i.e., p-curve or p-uniform) to estimate the average population-size effect. These inconsistencies may contribute to contradictory results in the research evaluating COVID-19 treatments. A prominent example of this is the use of hydroxychloroquine, where some studies reported a large positive effect, whereas others indicated no significant effect or even increased mortality when hydroxychloroquine was used with the antibiotic azithromycin. In this paper, we first recall the benefits and fundamental steps of good quality meta-analysis. Then, we examine various meta-analyses on hydroxychloroquine treatments for COVID-19 patients that led to contradictory results and causes for this discrepancy. We then highlight recent tools that contribute to evaluate publication bias and p-hacking (i.e., p-curve, p-uniform) and conclude by making technical recommendations that meta-analyses should follow even during extreme global events such as a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Azithromycin , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control
6.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 5968, 2021 10 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467102

ABSTRACT

There is conflicting evidence on the influence of weather on COVID-19 transmission. Our aim is to estimate weather-dependent signatures in the early phase of the pandemic, while controlling for socio-economic factors and non-pharmaceutical interventions. We identify a modest non-linear association between mean temperature and the effective reproduction number (Re) in 409 cities in 26 countries, with a decrease of 0.087 (95% CI: 0.025; 0.148) for a 10 °C increase. Early interventions have a greater effect on Re with a decrease of 0.285 (95% CI 0.223; 0.347) for a 5th - 95th percentile increase in the government response index. The variation in the effective reproduction number explained by government interventions is 6 times greater than for mean temperature. We find little evidence of meteorological conditions having influenced the early stages of local epidemics and conclude that population behaviour and government interventions are more important drivers of transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Meteorological Concepts , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Basic Reproduction Number , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cities , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Regression Analysis , Seasons , Temperature , Weather
7.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e052993, 2021 10 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462971

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Sharps injuries, including needlestick injuries and splash exposures, constitute serious occupational health problems for healthcare workers, carrying the risk of bloodborne infections. However, data on such occupational incidents and their risk factors in healthcare settings are scarce and not systematically summarised in the Arab countries.The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to review published literature about sharps injuries and splash exposures of healthcare workers in Arab countries, with the objectives to determine the incidence and/or prevalence of these events, their identified risk factors and the applied preventive and postexposure prophylactic measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. A comprehensive presearch developed in January to March 2021 in the database PubMed will be followed by a systematic search of six, core medical and health science databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Africa-Wide Information in May 2021. The search will be performed without any filters or restrictions for publication years. Covidence systematic review tool will be used for document management, blinded screening and study selection. Two reviewers will independently screen the records, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment. Results will be synthesised narratively in summary tables, and, if findings allow, meta-analysis will be conducted on the incidence and/or prevalence of sharps injuries and splash exposures, and on the effect size of risk factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design based only on published studies. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated to stakeholders and made publicly available. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242416.


Subject(s)
Needlestick Injuries , Arabs , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Needlestick Injuries/epidemiology , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
8.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e050362, 2021 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462962

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR? ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.


Subject(s)
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Respiration Disorders , Adult , Exercise , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Quality of Life , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
9.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 232, 2021 08 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456005

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death in children and youth, with suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts (referred to as non-fatal suicidal behaviors (NFSB)) being among its strongest predictors. Positive parenting (e.g., warmth, responsiveness), negative parenting (e.g., control, hostility), and parent-child relationship quality (e.g., trust, communication) have been reported to be associated with differences in NFSB in this population. To date, no comprehensive systematic review has considered together the wide range of parenting factors studied in relation to NFSB, and no meta-analysis of existing findings has been conducted. The present study will critically appraise and synthesize the existing evidence from observational studies that examine the relationships between parenting factors and (i) suicidal ideation and (ii) suicide attempt in children and youth. METHODS: Studies will be retrieved from APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases. Retrospective, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies, conducted in clinical and population settings, among youth aged less than 25 years and published as articles and dissertations in English or French will be eligible. Two reviewers will select articles using the Covidence Software after title and abstract screening and full-text assessment, will extract information using double data entry, and will appraise studies' quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Any disagreements will be discussed with a third reviewer. Publication bias will be evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. In addition to a narrative summary of results, meta-analyses will be conducted using results from at least three studies. Three-level random effect models will allow to derive pooled estimates from dependent effect sizes (from the same sample or study). In case of significant heterogeneity, moderation analyses will be performed considering participants' characteristics and methodological aspects of studies. The results will be reported according to the PRISMA guidelines, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: In highlighting parenting factors associated with NFSB and in estimating the overall strength of these associations in children and youth, our results will inform further intervention and prevention strategies designed for young people experiencing NFSB and their families. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020165345.


Subject(s)
Parenting , Suicidal Ideation , Adolescent , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Systematic Reviews as Topic
10.
BMJ Open ; 11(4): e047134, 2021 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455715

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) decreases the morbidity and mortality risk among patients with cardiac diseases; however, the impact of CR on patients with diabetes remains underexplored. This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis methodology to explore if the effect of CR on mortality and morbidity is the same in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Interventional and non-interventional studies comparing the effect of CR, for at least 1 month, on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation and rehospitalisation in adults with cardiac diseases will be deemed eligible for inclusion. Studies published between 1990 and 2020 will be searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus and in registries for randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies will be selected using the Covidence software, and their salient details regarding the design, population, tested interventions and outcomes of interest will be gathered. The quality of studies to be deemed eligible and reviewed will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tools. The appraisal process will be based on the study design (interventional and non-interventional). In the meta-analysis step, the pooled effect of CR on the outcomes will be estimated. All meta-analyses will be done using the random-effects model approach (inverse-variance method). I 2 and p value of χ2 statistics will guide the heterogeneity assessment. Subgroup analyses will also be performed. The small study effect will be investigated by generating the funnel plots. The symmetry of the latter will be tested by performing Egger's test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review will use data from published literature; hence, no ethical approval will be required. Findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and will be disseminated in local and international scientific meetings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020148832.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Rehabilitation , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Myocardial Infarction , Adult , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Morbidity , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
11.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e045615, 2021 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455713

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The mental health burden and treatment gap in South and Southeast Asia is high and significant. Capacity building of healthcare workers is essential to support programmes related to the detection and management of patients with mental health conditions. We aim to conduct a systematic review to summarise the research on educational, training and capacity-building interventions aimed at the healthcare workforce in detection and management of mental health conditions in South and Southeast Asia. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence on (1) the types of educational and training interventions that have been used to improve the knowledge, skills and attitudes of healthcare workers in South and Southeast Asian countries in the detection and management of mental health conditions; (2) the effectiveness, including cost-effectiveness of the interventions; and (3) the enabling factors and barriers that influence the effectiveness of these interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We will search six electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Global Health for empirical studies published from 1 January 2000 to 31 August 2020. Search results from each database will be combined and uploaded in Covidence library. Title, abstract and full-text screening, and data extraction of each included study will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer and study team. Quality of included studies will be assessed by the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool and ROBINS-I tool. Data will be synthesised and if a meta-analysis is not appropriate, a stepwise thematic analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, fact sheets, multimedia press briefings, conferences, seminars and symposia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203955.


Subject(s)
Mental Disorders , Mental Health , Health Personnel , Humans , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e044888, 2021 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455712

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200246.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Prospective Studies , Research Design , Retrospective Studies , Systematic Reviews as Topic
13.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e042035, 2020 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455708

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common and is associated with negative long-term outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of the syndrome, the ability to predict outcomes of AKI may be beneficial towards effectively using resources and personalising AKI care. This systematic review will identify, describe and assess current models in the literature for the prediction of outcomes in hospitalised patients with AKI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Relevant literature from a comprehensive search across six databases will be imported into Covidence. Abstract screening and full-text review will be conducted independently by two team members, and any conflicts will be resolved by a third member. Studies to be included are cohort studies and randomised controlled trials with at least 100 subjects, adult hospitalised patients, with AKI. Only those studies evaluating multivariable predictive models reporting a statistical measure of accuracy (area under the receiver operating curve or C-statistic) and predicting resolution of AKI, progression of AKI, subsequent dialysis and mortality will be included. Data extraction will be performed independently by two team members, with a third reviewer available to resolve conflicts. Results will be reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Risk of bias will be assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We are committed to open dissemination of our results through the registration of our systematic review on PROSPERO and future publication. We hope that our review provides a platform for future work in realm of using artificial intelligence to predict outcomes of common diseases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019137274.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Artificial Intelligence , Acute Kidney Injury/diagnosis , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Adult , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Renal Dialysis , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(10): 1505-1513, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455490

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is the leading principle for managing postoperative pain. Recent guidelines recommend combinations of paracetamol and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for most surgeries. Glucocorticoids have been used for decades due to their potent anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. Subsequently, glucocorticoids may improve postoperative analgesia. We will perform a systematic review to assess benefits and harms of adding glucocorticoids to paracetamol and NSAIDs. We expect to uncover pros and cons of the addition of glucocorticoid to the basic standard regimen of paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia. METHOD: This protocol for a systematic review was written according to the The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search for trials in the following electronic databases: Medline, CENTRAL, CDSR and Embase. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess risk of bias using Cochrane's ROB 2 tool. We will analyse data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines and results will be validated according to the eight-step procedure suggested by Jakobsen et al We will present our primary findings in a 'summary of findings' table. We will evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This review will aim to explore the combination of glucocorticoids together with paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative pain. We will attempt to provide reliable evidence regarding the role of glucocorticoids as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in combination with paracetamol and NSAID.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Glucocorticoids , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Systematic Reviews as Topic
15.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(10): 848-854, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454702

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.


Subject(s)
Dissection/adverse effects , Facial Nerve/surgery , Hemostasis, Surgical/instrumentation , Parotid Gland/surgery , Blood Loss, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , Drainage/trends , Electrocoagulation/adverse effects , Facial Paralysis/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Postoperative Period , Surgical Instruments/adverse effects
16.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 215, 2020 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456002

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research highlights the pervasive harms of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health throughout the life-course. However, findings from prior reviews and recent longitudinal studies investigating the association between types of ACEs and persistent pain have yielded inconsistent findings in the strength and direction of associations. The purpose of this review is to appraise and summarize evidence on the relationship between ACEs and persistent pain and disability outcomes in adulthood. The specific aims are (1) to determine whether there is a relationship between exposure to ACE and persistent pain and disability in adults and (2) to determine whether unique and cumulative ACEs exposures (number and type) increase the risk of developing persistent pain and disability in adulthood. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies will be conducted. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PECOS approach: population, adults with persistent (≥ 3 months) musculoskeletal and somatoform painful disorders exposed to single or cumulative direct ACEs alone (i.e., physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect) or in combination to indirect types of ACE (e.g., parental death, exposure to domestic violence) in the first 18 years of life; comparators, unexposed individuals; outcomes, measurements for persistent pain (≥ 3 months) and disability using discrete and/or continuous measures; and settings, general population, primary care. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and nine other pertinent databases was conducted from inception to 29 August 2019 using a combination of key words and MeSh terms (the search will be updated prior to conducting the analyses). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen records and full text articles, and a third reviewer will be consulted in cases of disagreement. Data will be extracted using Endnote and Covidence and a meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. If heterogeneity is high, the findings will be presented in narrative form. DISCUSSION: The present review will help consolidate knowledge on persistent pain and disability by evaluating whether frequency and type of adverse childhood experiences produces the most harm. Findings may help inform practitioners and policy-makers who endeavor to prevent and/or mitigate the consequences of ACEs and promote healthy development and well-being of children, youth, and families. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020150230.


Subject(s)
Adverse Childhood Experiences , Disabled Persons , Pain , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Systematic Reviews as Topic
17.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 200, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The burden of opioid use disorder (OUD) has been increasing in North America. Administration of medication-assisted treatments (MATs) for OUD on an individual-dose basis has been shown to affect patient responses to treatment, proving to be, on occasion, dangerous. A genetic basis has been identified for some MAT responses in a candidate gene context, but consensus has not been reached for any genome-wide significant associations. This systematic review aims to identify and assess any genetic variants associated with MAT patient outcomes at genome-wide significance. METHODS: The databases searched by the authors will be: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pre-CINAHL, GWAS Catalog, GWAS Central, and NIH Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes. A title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be completed in duplicate for each study via Covidence. Treatment outcomes of interest include continued opioid use or abstinence during treatment or at follow-up, time to relapse, treatment retention rates, opioid overdose, other substance use, comorbid psychiatric disorders, risk taking behaviors, MAT plasma concentrations, and mortality rates. Analysis methods applied, if appropriate, will include random effects meta-analysis with pooled odds ratios for all outcomes. Subgroup analyses will also be implemented, when possible. DISCUSSION: This systematic review can hopefully inform the direction of future research, aiding in the development of a safer and more patient-centered treatment. It will be able to highlight genome-wide significant variants that are replicable and associated with MAT patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration ID CRD42020169121).


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , Genome-Wide Association Study , Opioid-Related Disorders , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , North America , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/genetics , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
18.
Syst Rev ; 9(1): 160, 2020 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456000

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: More than eight in ten of the world's 1.65 million adolescents living with human immunodeficiency virus (ALHIV) live in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and poor viral suppression are reported among ALHIV which may in turn compromise the gains achieved so far. The evidence on whether knowing one's own human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status and self-disclosure to others benefit adherence to ART or not is inconclusive. This review aims to estimate the association between knowing one's HIV status and self-disclosure on adherence to ART among ALHIV in SSA. METHODS: Comprehensive search strings will be used to identify relevant observational studies published in English up to May 2020 in major databases: Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), PubMed, and Ovid/MEDLINE. To access African studies and also to freely access subscription-based articles, the African Index Medicus (AIM) and the WHO HINARI databases will be searched. The AfroLib database will be searched to access the gray literature of African studies. We will use the COVIDENCE software for title/abstract screening, full-text screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. Two authors will independently screen retrieved articles, and a third author authorized to resolve conflicts will handle disagreements. The Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical appraisal tools will be used to assess study quality. Appropriate statistical tests will be conducted to quantify the between studies heterogeneity and for the assessment of publication bias. We will check individual study influence analysis and also do subgroup analysis. The STATA version 14.2 will be used for statistical analysis. DISCUSSION: A high-level adherence to ART is required to achieve adequate viral suppression and improve quality of life. Consequently, the evidence on how adherence to ART differs with knowledge of one's own HIV status and self-disclosure may help guide interventions aimed at improving adherence to ART.


Subject(s)
Disclosure , HIV Infections , Adolescent , Africa South of the Sahara , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Medication Adherence , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Quality of Life , Review Literature as Topic , Self Disclosure
19.
BMJ Open ; 10(11): e040881, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455706

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Driving is one of the main modes of transport with safe driving requiring a combination of visual, cognitive and physical skills. With population ageing, the number of people living with vision impairment is set to increase in the decades ahead. Vision impairment may negatively impact an individual's ability to safely drive. The association between vision impairment and motor vehicle crash involvement or driving participation has yet to be systematically investigated. Further, the evidence for the effectiveness of vision-related interventions aimed at decreasing crashes and driving errors has not been synthesised. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search will be conducted for relevant studies on Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health from their inception to March 2020 without date or geographical restrictions. Two investigators will independently screen abstracts and full texts using Covidence software with conflicts resolved by a third investigator. Data extraction will be conducted on all included studies, and their quality assessed to determine the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Outcome measures include crash risk, driving cessation and surrogate measures of driving safety (eg, driving errors and performance). The results of this review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. Meta-analysis will be undertaken for outcomes with sufficient data and reported following the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. Where statistical pooling is not feasible or appropriate, narrative summaries will be presented following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis in systematic reviews guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will only report on published data thus no ethics approval is required. Results will be included in the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health, published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020172153.


Subject(s)
Automobile Driving , Accidents, Traffic/prevention & control , Global Health , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Vision, Ocular
20.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(1): 128-134, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455487

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Post-operative pain treatment with ketamine has been demonstrated to have post-operative opioid-sparing and anti-hyperalgesic effects. However, evidence regarding the beneficial and harmful effects and the optimal dose and timing of perioperative treatment with ketamine for patients undergoing spinal surgery is unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the analgesic, serious and non-serious adverse effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine for patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review is written according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, WHO's ICTRP, EU Clinical Trial Register and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We will include all randomised clinical trials assessing perioperative ketamine treatment versus placebo or no intervention for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB tool. We will analyse data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines and results will be validated according to the eight-step procedure suggested by Jakobsen et al. We will present our primary findings in a 'summary of findings' table. We will evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will assess the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine for patients undergoing spinal surgery and have the potential to inform best practice and advance research.


Subject(s)
Ketamine , Humans , Ketamine/therapeutic use , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Systematic Reviews as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...