RESUMEN
Background@#Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes. @*Methods@#The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices. @*Results@#A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53–67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12–22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6–13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002). @*Conclusion@#Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.
RESUMEN
Objective@#Previous studies have shown that meteorological factors may increase COVID-19 mortality, likely due to the increased transmission of the virus. However, this could also be related to an increased infection fatality rate (IFR). We investigated the association between meteorological factors (temperature, humidity, solar irradiance, pressure, wind, precipitation, cloud coverage) and IFR across Spanish provinces ( @*Methods@#We estimated IFR as excess deaths (the gap between observed and expected deaths, considering COVID-19-unrelated deaths prevented by lockdown measures) divided by the number of infections (SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals plus excess deaths) and conducted Spearman correlations between meteorological factors and IFR across the provinces.@*Results@#We estimated 2,418,250 infections and 43,237 deaths. The IFR was 0.03% in < 50-year-old, 0.22% in 50-59-year-old, 0.9% in 60-69-year-old, 3.3% in 70-79-year-old, 12.6% in 80-89-year-old, and 26.5% in ≥ 90-year-old. We did not find statistically significant relationships between meteorological factors and adjusted IFR. However, we found strong relationships between low temperature and unadjusted IFR, likely due to Spain's colder provinces' aging population.@*Conclusion@#The association between meteorological factors and adjusted COVID-19 IFR is unclear. Neglecting age differences or ignoring COVID-19-unrelated deaths may severely bias COVID-19 epidemiological analyses.
Asunto(s)
Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto Joven , COVID-19/virología , Conceptos Meteorológicos , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/fisiología , España/epidemiología , Tiempo (Meteorología)RESUMEN
Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December of 2019 in China, the estimation of the pandemics case fatality rate (CFR) has been the focus and interest of many stakeholders. In this manuscript, we prove that the method of using the cumulative CFR is static and does not reflect the trend according to the daily change per unit of time. A proportion meta-analysis was carried out on CFR in every country reporting COVID-19 cases. Based on the results, we performed a meta-analysis for global COVID-19 CFR. Each analysis was performed on two different calculations of CFR: according to calendar date and according to days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case. We thus explored an innovative and original calculation of CFR concurrently based on the date of the first confirmed case as well as on a daily basis. For the first time, we showed that using meta-analyses, according to calendar date and days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case were different. We propose that CFR according to days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case might be a better predictor of the current CFR of COVID-19 and its kinetics.
RESUMEN
Globally and in Africa specifically, female sex workers (FSWs) are at an extraordinarily high risk of contracting human immunodeficiencyvirus (HIV). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has emerged as an effective and ethical method with which to preventHIV infection among FSWs. PrEP efficacy is, however, closely linked to adherence, and adherence to PrEP among FSWs is a complexand interrelated process that has been shown to be of importance to public health policies and HIV control and interventionprograms. This comprehensive review categorizes barriers to and facilitators of adherence to HIV PrEP for FSWs, and describes fivestrategies for promoting PrEP adherence among FSWs. These strategies encompass 1) a long-term educational effort to decreasethe stigma associated with sex work and PrEP use, 2) education on how PrEP works, 3) lifestyle modification, 4) research on nextgenerationPrEP products to address the inconvenience of taking daily pills, and 5) integration of PrEP into existing services, suchas social services and routine primary care visits, to reduce the economic burden of seeking the medication. Our review is expectedto be useful for the design of future PrEP intervention programs. Multidisciplinary intervention should be considered to promotePrEP adherence among FSWs in order to help control the HIV epidemic.