Gastrointestinal involvement in systemic sclerosis: An updated review.

The gastrointestinal tract (GI) is the second most affected organ system in individuals suffering from systemic/localized scleroderma (SSc) or localized scleroderma. SSc can affect any part of the GI, between the oral cavity and anorectum. The annual incidence of SSc in the United States is estimated to be 19.3 cases per million adults, with the highest incidence reported in people aged 44 to 55. Females are 5 times more likely than males to suffer from SSc. Morbidity and mortality rates associated with SSc are predominantly elevated among patients with GI manifestations. Esophageal and intestinal manifestations impact 90% and 40% to 70% of patients with systemic scleroderma, respectively. SSc patients are known to suffer from small bowel hypomotility and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, which cause malabsorption and malnutrition, ultimately contributing to the 50% mortality rate. Fecal incontinence is a common symptom of SSc that can lead to depression. SSc patients may suffer from gastrointestinal complications that can negatively impact their quality of life on a daily basis. Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary for systematically managing gastrointestinal complications associated with SSc. A prospective study should focus on developing targeted therapies to improve recovery patterns and prognosis in cases of SSc. This article summarizes the epidemiology, commonly reported clinical manifestations, complications, and available treatments for treating GI pathology in SSc patients.

Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has left a significant impact on the world's health, economic and political systems; as of November 20, 2020, more than 57 million people have been infected worldwide, with over 1.3 million deaths. While the global spotlight is currently focused on combating this pandemic through means ranging from finding a treatment among existing therapeutic agents to inventing a vaccine that can aid in halting the further loss of life. AIM: To collect all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published related to COVID-19 to better identify available evidence, highlight gaps in knowledge, and elucidate further meta-analyses and umbrella reviews that are yet to be performed. METHODS: We explored studies based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the key-terms, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS virus, coronavirus disease, COVID-19, and SARS coronavirus-2. The included studies were extracted from Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. The publication timeframe of included studies ranged between January 01, 2020, to October 30, 2020. Studies that were published in languages other than English were not considered for this systematic review. The finalized full-text articles are freely accessible in the public domain. RESULTS: Searching Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases resulted in 1906, 669, and 19 results, respectively, that comprised 2594 studies. 515 duplicates were subsequently removed, leaving 2079 studies. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 860 results were excluded for being a review article, scope review, rapid review, panel review, or guideline that produced a total of 1219 studies. After screening articles were categorized, the included articles were put into main groups of clinical presentation, epidemiology, screening and diagnosis, severity assessment, special populations, and treatment. Subsequently, there was a second subclassification into the following groups: gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, stroke, thrombosis, anosmia and dysgeusia, ocular manifestations, nephrology, cutaneous manifestations, D-dimer, lymphocyte, anticoagulation, antivirals, convalescent plasma, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, technology, diabetes mellitus, obesity, pregnancy, children, mental health, smoking, cancer, and transplant. CONCLUSION: Among the included articles, it is clear that further research is needed regarding treatment options and vaccines. With more studies, data will be less heterogeneous, and statistical analysis can be better applied to provide more robust clinical evidence. This study was not designed to give recommendations regarding the management of COVID-19.