Mobile Stroke Units in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5 "T Letter" Domains.

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) may be administered to stroke patients requiring immediate treatment more quickly than emergency medical services if certain conditions are met. These conditions include the presence of mobile stroke units (MSUs) with on-site treatment teams and a computed tomography scanner. We compared clinical outcomes of MSU conventional therapy by emergency medical services through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases from inception till September 2021. The primary outcomes were mortality at 7 and 90 days. The secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days, alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization, and time from symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis. We included 19 controlled trials and cohort studies to conduct our final analysis. Our comparison revealed that 90-day mortality significantly decreased in the MSU group compared with the conventional care group [risk ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.95], while there was no significant difference at 7 days (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). MSU achieved greater functional independence (modified Rankin Scale = 0-2) at 90 days (risk ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16). MSU was associated with shorter alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization time (mean difference = -29.69; 95% CI, -34.46 to -24.92), treating patients in an earlier time window, as shown through symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis (mean difference = -36.79; 95% CI, -47.48 to -26.10). MSU-treated patients had a lower rate of 90-day mortality and better 90-day functional outcomes by earlier initiation of IVT compared with conventional care.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS). METHODS: We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4). RESULTS: The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS. CONCLUSION: We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

The effect of influenza vaccine in reducing the severity of clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Recent evidence suggests that vaccination against influenza may reduce the clinical outcomes of COVID-19. This study looked at the link between influenza vaccination and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We searched five databases until August 2021. We included studies that reported the relationship between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes. We pooled the data as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the data pooled using fixed and random effects models according to the heterogeneity of results. Sixteen observational studies with 191,496 COVID-19 patients were included. In terms of mechanical ventilation, our analysis showed a significant favor for the influenza vaccinated group over the non-vaccinated group (RR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.54, 0.96], P = 0.03). However, the analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups in the term of mortality rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.71, 2.04], P = 0.50), hospital admissions (RR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.84, 1.29], P = 0.75), intensive care admissions (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.44, 1.62], P = 0.60). There were no significant differences between those who had received the influenza vaccine and those who had not in COVID-19 clinical outcomes, except for mechanical ventilation which showed a significantly lower risk in the influenza vaccinated group compared to the non-vaccinated one. However, future research is encouraged as our data have limitations, and the influenza vaccine is regularly updated. Also, this does not exclude the importance of the influenza vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic.