ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children. METHODS: A search on PubMed and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies published up to 22 January 2022 that reported on postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children (<18 years) with follow-up of ≥2 months since detection of infection or ≥1 month since recovery from acute illness. We assessed the consideration of confounding bias and causality, as well as the risk of bias. RESULTS: 21 studies including 81 896 children reported up to 97 symptoms with follow-up periods of 2.0-11.5 months. Fifteen studies had no control group. The reported proportion of children with post-COVID syndrome was between 0% and 66.5% in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=16 986) and between 2.0% and 53.3% in children without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=64 910). Only two studies made a clear causal interpretation of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the main outcome of 'post-COVID syndrome' and provided recommendations regarding prevention measures. The robustness of all 21 studies was seriously limited due to an overall critical risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children is seriously limited, at least in all the published articles we could identify. None of the studies provided evidence with reasonable certainty on whether SARS-CoV-2 infection has an impact on postacute health outcomes, let alone to what extent. Children and their families urgently need much more reliable and methodologically robust evidence to address their concerns and improve care.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Bias , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of bariatric surgery have yet to be established, and a number of important studies have recently emerged. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of bariatric surgery on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and cancer compared to non-surgical treatment. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to July 13, 2015, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies comparing bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment and reporting data on the three defined outcomes at 1 year or longer. We analyzed RCTs and non-randomized controlled studies, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, 4 non-randomized controlled trials, and 17 cohort studies were included. The randomized evidence suggested substantial uncertainty regarding the effects on all-cause mortality (0/382 vs. 1/287; 7 studies), cancer (OR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.22 to 2.71; 4 studies), and cardiovascular events (no data). The pooled adjusted estimates from non-randomized studies suggested that, compared to the control, the surgical group had lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.46 to 0.65; 10 studies), cancer (OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.65 to 0.85; 2 studies), and cardiovascular events (MI: OR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.54 to 0.94; stroke: OR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.89; and their composite: OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.54 to 0.83; 1 study). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, bariatric surgery could reduce all-cause mortality and probably reduce the risk of any type of cancer. The inference was, however, based on studies with limited methodological rigor. Uncertainty remains regarding the effects on cardiovascular events.
