Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing pain in preterm infants: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most effective non-pharmacological measures for pain control in preterm infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). METHODS: A Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish from April 2020 to December 2023. The data sources used were MedLine via PubMed, LILACS, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Pedro. We performed the risk of bias analysis with Rob 2 and the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. We assessed heterogeneity using the Higgins and Thompson I2 test, the classification of interventions using the P-score, and inconsistencies using the Direct Evidence Plot. RESULTS: From 210 publications identified, we utilized 12 studies in analysis with 961 preterm infants, and we combined ten studies in network meta-analysis with 716 preterm infants, and 12 combinations of non-pharmacological measures. With moderate confidence, sensory saturation, sugars, non-nutritive sucking, maternal heart sound, lullaby, breast milk odor/taste, magnetic acupuncture, skin-to-skin contact, and facilitated tucking have been shown to reduce pain in preterm infants when compared to no intervention, placebo, proparacaine or standard NICU routine: sensory saturation [SMD 5,25 IC 95%: -8,98; -1,53], sugars [SMD 2,32 IC 95%: -3,86; -0,79], pacifier [SMD 3,74 IC 95%: -7,30; 0,19], and sugars and pacifier SMD [3,88 IC 95% -7,72; -0,04]. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological measures are strongly recommended for pain management in preterm infants in the NICU. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of this study have important implications for policy and practice. This is the only systematic review that compared the effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures, thus making it possible to identify which measure presents the best results and could be the first choice in clinical decision making.

Weight loss and mortality in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the first reported cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, people living with HIV (PLHIV) suffered weight loss, which was an independent predictor of mortality. Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has changed this scenario for ideal weight, overweight, and even obesity. However, some PLHIV, even on HAART, continue to lose weight. Thus, the guiding question of the study was: do PLHIV hospitalized using HAART with weight loss have higher mortality than hospitalized PLHIV using HAART without weight loss? METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, searched in the MedLine, Embase, and LILACS databases from March 2020, until October 2023, reported by MOOSE. We analyzed the methodological quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Cohort Studies; used the risk ratio (RR) to calculate the probability of hospitalized PLWH who lost weight dying, applied the random effect model and created the funnel plot. We used the inverse variance test estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel method, considering a 95% confidence interval (CI), heterogeneity (I2), total effect size (Z), and significance value of p < 0.05. We performed a sensitivity analysis with meta-regression and meta-analyses on subgroups to diagnose influence and outliers. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendation were analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (GRADE). RESULTS: We included 10 of the 711 studies identified, totaling 1,637 PLHIV. The studies were from South Africa (1), Canada (1), China (1), Brazil (1), Cameroon (1), Ethiopia (1), Thailand (1), Colombia (1), and Tanzania (2), from 1996 to 2017. The average age of the participants was 33.1 years old, and the male was predominant. The leading causes of hospital admission were related to co-infections, and the average hospitalization time was 20.5 days. The prevalence of death in hospitalized PLHIV using HAART who lost weight was 57.5%, with a 1.5 higher risk of dying (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.19, p = 0.04) than hospitalized PLHIV who did not lose weight. CONCLUSION: We concluded, with a very low confidence level, that that weight loss significantly increased the risk of death in hospitalized PLWH using HAART. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND FUNDING: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020191246 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191246 .

Usability of Telehealth Systems for Noncommunicable Diseases in Primary Care From the COVID-19 Pandemic Onward: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth was expanded without the opportunity to extensively evaluate the adopted technology's usability. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize evidence on health professionals' perceptions regarding the usability of telehealth systems in the primary care of individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs; hypertension and diabetes) from the COVID-19 pandemic onward. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective observational studies, and studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese from March 2020 onward. The databases queried were MEDLINE, Embase, BIREME, IEEE Xplore, BVS, Google Scholar, and grey literature. Studies involving health professionals who used telehealth systems in primary care and managed patients with NCDs from the COVID-19 pandemic onward were considered eligible. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed. Data were extracted to provide a narrative qualitative evidence synthesis of the included articles. The risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies were analyzed. The primary outcome was the usability of telehealth systems, while the secondary outcomes were satisfaction and the contexts in which the telehealth system was used. RESULTS: We included 11 of 417 retrieved studies, which had data from 248 health care professionals. These health care professionals were mostly doctors and nurses with prior experience in telehealth in high- and middle-income countries. Overall, 9 studies (82%) were qualitative studies and 2 (18%) were quasiexperimental or multisite trial studies. Moreover, 7 studies (64%) addressed diabetes, 1 (9%) addressed diabetes and hypertension, and 3 (27%) addressed chronic diseases. Most studies used a survey to assess usability. With a moderate confidence level, we concluded that health professionals considered the usability of telehealth systems to be good and felt comfortable and satisfied. Patients felt satisfied using telehealth. The most important predictor for using digital health technologies was ease of use. The main barriers were technological challenges, connectivity issues, low computer literacy, inability to perform complete physical examination, and lack of training. Although the usability of telehealth systems was considered good, there is a need for research that investigates factors that may influence the perceptions of telehealth usability, such as differences between private and public services; differences in the level of experience of professionals, including professional experience and experience with digital tools; and differences in gender, age groups, occupations, and settings. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated incredible demand for virtual care. Professionals' favorable perceptions of the usability of telehealth indicate that it can facilitate access to quality care. Although there are still challenges to telehealth, more than infrastructure challenges, the most reported challenges were related to empowering people for digital health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021296887; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=296887. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.21801/ppcrj.2022.82.6.