Efficacy of blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio for predicting prognostic outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The associations between blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/albumin ratio and poor prognosis in patients with diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain to be clarified. METHODS: A search based on 4 electronic databases (i.e., EMBASE, Google scholar, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) was performed on June 23, 2022. The association of BUN/Albumin ratio with poor prognostic outcomes, defined as patients with mortality/severe illnesses, were analyzed. RESULTS: Results from analysis of 7 cohort studies (3600 individuals with COVID-19) published between 2020 and 2022 showed a higher BUN/Albumin ratio in the poor-prognosis group (Mean difference:  = 2.838, 95% confidence interval: 2.015-3.66, P < .001, I2 = 92.5%) than the good-prognosis group. Additional investigation into the connection between BUN/Albumin ratio as a binary variable (i.e., high or low) and the risk of poor outcome also supported an association between a higher BUN/Albumin ratio and a poor prognostic risk (odd ratio = 3.009, 95% confidence interval: 1.565-5.783, P = .001, I2 = 93.7%, 5 studies). Merged analysis of poor prognosis produced a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.72, and area under curve of 0.81. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between BUN/albumin ratio and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19. Additional large-scale prospective studies are needed to verify our findings.

Association of Prognostic Nutritional Index with Severity and Mortality of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The associations of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) with disease severity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to 10 May 2022. The associations of PNI with risk of mortality (primary outcome) and disease severity (secondary outcome) were investigated. Merged results from meta-analysis of 13 retrospective studies (4204 patients) published between 2020 and 2022 revealed a lower PNI among patients in the mortality group [mean difference (MD): -8.65, p < 0.001] or severity group (MD: -5.19, p < 0.001) compared to those in the non-mortality or non-severity groups. A per-point increase in PNI was associated with a reduced risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.9, p < 0.001, I2 = 67.3%, seven studies] and disease severity (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.92, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%, five studies). The pooled diagnostic analysis of mortality yielded a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.71, and area under curve (AUC) of 0.79. Regarding the prediction of disease severity, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.8, 0.61, and 0.65, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrated a negative association between PNI and prognosis of COVID-19. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Association between Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Prognosis of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Although the fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (F/R ratio) has been used as an inflammation marker to predict clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases, its association with the prognosis of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 20 June 2022. The associations of F/R ratio with poor prognosis (defined as the occurrence of mortality or severe disease) were investigated in patients with COVID-19. A total of 10 studies (seven from Turkey, two from China, one from Croatia) involving 3675 patients published between 2020 and 2022 were eligible for quantitative syntheses. Merged results revealed a higher F/R ratio in the poor prognosis group (standardized mean difference: 0.529, p < 0.001, I2 = 84.8%, eight studies) than that in the good prognosis group. In addition, a high F/R ratio was associated with an increased risk of poor prognosis (odds ratio: 2.684, I2 = 59.5%, five studies). Pooled analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.75, specificity of 0.66, and area under curve of 0.77 for poor prognosis prediction. In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed a positive correlation between F/A ratio and poor prognostic outcomes of COVID-19. Because of the limited number of studies included, further investigations are warranted to support our findings.

Association of Prognostic Nutritional Index with Severity and Mortality of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The associations of prognostic nutritional index (PNI) with disease severity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to 10 May 2022. The associations of PNI with risk of mortality (primary outcome) and disease severity (secondary outcome) were investigated. Merged results from meta-analysis of 13 retrospective studies (4204 patients) published between 2020 and 2022 revealed a lower PNI among patients in the mortality group [mean difference (MD): −8.65, p < 0.001] or severity group (MD: −5.19, p < 0.001) compared to those in the non-mortality or non-severity groups. A per-point increase in PNI was associated with a reduced risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.9, p < 0.001, I2 = 67.3%, seven studies] and disease severity (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.92, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%, five studies). The pooled diagnostic analysis of mortality yielded a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.71, and area under curve (AUC) of 0.79. Regarding the prediction of disease severity, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.8, 0.61, and 0.65, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrated a negative association between PNI and prognosis of COVID-19. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

In pre-hospital settings, efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging; therefore, the application of mechanical CPR devices continues to increase. However, the evidence of the benefits of using mechanical CPR devices in pre-hospital settings for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is controversial. This meta-analysis compared the effects of mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage on clinical outcomes after OHCA. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until October 2021. Studies comparing mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage for survival outcomes of adult OHCA were eligible. Data abstraction, quality assessment, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation were conducted. Seven randomized controlled and 15 observational studies were included. Compared to manual CPR, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR showed a positive effect in achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to admission. No difference was found in survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological status, with inconclusive results in TSA. In conclusion, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices may benefit adult OHCA in achieving ROSC and survival to admission. With low certainty of evidence, more well-designed large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

Estimation of the secondary attack rate of COVID-19 using proportional meta-analysis of nationwide contact tracing data in Taiwan.

Crude secondary attack rate (SAR) of COVID-19 in Taiwan was 0.84% using nationwide contact-tracing data till April 8, 2020. The random-effect Bayesian metaanalysis yielded 95% credible intervals of 0.42%-1.69% and 0.08%-8.32%, respectively, for estimated SAR pooling from 15 case series and for predicted SAR in the future if pandemic continues.