ABSTRACT
Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 to address limitations identified since the first version of the tool was published in 2008 and to increase the reliability of assessments. This study analyzed the frequency of usage of the RoB 2 and the adequacy of reporting the RoB 2 assessments in non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020. This meta-research study included non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020. For the reviews that used the RoB 2 tool, we analyzed the reporting of the RoB 2 assessment. Among 3880 included reviews, the Cochrane RoB 1 tool was the most frequently used (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (N = 267; 6.9%). From 267 reviews that reported using the RoB 2 tool, 213 (79.8%) actually used it. In 26 (12.2%) reviews, erroneous statements were used to indicate the RoB 2 assessment. Only 20 (9.4%) reviews presented a complete RoB 2 assessment with a detailed table of answers to all signaling questions. The judgment of risk of bias by the RoB 2 tool was not justified by a comment in 158 (74.2%) reviews. Only in 33 (14.5%) of reviews the judgment in all domains was justified in the accompanying comment. In most reviews (81.7%), the RoB was inadequately assessed at the study level. In conclusion, the majority of non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020 still used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Many reviews used the RoB 2 tool inadequately. Further studies about the uptake and the use of the RoB 2 tool are needed.
Subject(s)
Bias , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment , PublicationsABSTRACT
Background: Despite great advances in medicine, numerous available laboratory markers, and radiological imaging, the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in some cases still remains controversial and challenging for clinicians. Because of that, clinicians are still looking for an ideal marker that would be specific to AA. The red blood cell distribution width (RDW) has been recently investigated in several studies as a potential biomarker for AA. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically summarize and compare all relevant data on RDW as a diagnostic biomarker for AA. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica databaseEMBASE) were systematically searched for relevant comparative studies by two independent researches using keywords ((red cell distribution width) OR rdw) AND (appendicitis). An independent assessment of the methodological quality was performed by two authors using the Downs and Black scale. RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the final meta-analysis; the majority of the studies was retrospective. Nine studies compared the RDW values between AA and non-AA; four studies compared the same between AA and healthy controls, while two studies compared the RDW values among all three groups. The estimated heterogeneity among the studies for all outcome was statistically significant (I2 = 92−99%, p < 0.00001). The pooling the data demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the RDW values (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.03, 95% CI = (−0.46, 0.52), p = 0.91) between AA and healthy controls as well as between AA and non-AA cases (WMD = 0.23, 95%CI = (−0.19, 0.65), p = 0.28). A separate subanalysis was performed to evaluate the utility of this biomarker for the pediatric age group. Pooling the data demonstrated no significant difference among the AA and non-AA groups in terms of the RDW values (WMD = 0.99, 95% CI = (−0.35, 2.33), p = 0.15). Conclusion: The RDW value difference demonstrated no statistically significant difference in AA versus healthy individuals and AA versus non-AA individuals. At the moment, there is no evidence of RDW utility in diagnostic testing of AA. Further research with prospective, multicenter studies and studies targeting special patient groups with a large sample size are needed in this field.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted volume, management strategies and patient outcomes of acute appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in higher incidence of complicated appendicitis in children presenting with acute appendicitis compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. The secondary aim was to investigate the proportion of the patients treated by non-operative management (NOM). METHODS: A systematic search of four scientific databases was performed. The search terms used were (coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR novel coronavirus) AND (appendicitis). The inclusion criteria were all patients aged <18 years and diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. The proportion of children presenting with complicated appendicitis and the proportion of children managed by NOM was compared between the two groups. The Downs and Black scale was used for methodological quality assessment. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included thirteen studies (twelve retrospective studies and one cross-sectional study). A total of 2782 patients (1239 during the COVID-19 period) were included. A significantly higher incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-2.01, p < 0.00001) and a significantly higher proportion of children managed via the NOM (RR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.61, p < 0.00001) was observed in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. CONCLUSION: There is a significantly higher incidence of complicated appendicitis in children during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the pre-COVID-19 period. Additionally, a significantly higher proportion of children was managed via the NOM during the pandemic in comparison to the pre-pandemic period.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) in children has been widely performed in the last decades, although it is still not sufficiently researched in preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the recurrence and complication rates following laparoscopic hernia repair among preterm (PT) versus full-term (FT) newborns. METHODS: Scientific databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases) were systematically searched for relevant articles. The following terms were used: (laparoscopic hernia repair) AND (preterm). The inclusion criteria were all preterm newborns with a unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia who underwent LHR. The main outcomes were the incidence of recurrence of hernia and the proportion of children developing postoperative complications in comparison with FT newborns following LHR. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis included four comparative studies. Three studies had a retrospective study design while one was a prospective study. A total of 1702 children were included (PT n = 523, FT n = 1179). The incidence of hernia recurrence showed no significant difference between the PT versus FT groups (RR = 2.58, 95% CI 0.89-7.47, p = 0.08). A significantly higher incidence of complications was observed in the PT group compared to the FT group (RR = 4.05, 95% CI 2.11-7.77, p < 0.0001). The PT group of newborns accounted for 81% and 72% of the major and minor complications. The major complications were either non-surgical (i.e., severe respiratory distress requiring reintubation with prolonged ventilation (or high-frequency ventilation), seizures, bradycardia), or surgical (i.e., hydroceles requiring operative intervention and umbilical port-site hernia). CONCLUSIONS: LHR in PT infants is associated with similar recurrence rates as in FT infants. However, the incidence of complications is significantly higher in PT versus FT infants.
