Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality among Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB (PTB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with PTB. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health, for cohort and case-control studies that reported risk factors for in-hospital mortality in PTB. We pooled all factors that were assessed for an association, and presented relative associations as pooled odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We identified 2,969 records, of which we retrieved 51 in full text; 11 cohort studies that evaluated 5,468 patients proved eligible. Moderate quality evidence suggested an association with co-morbid malignancy and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01-3.40). Low quality evidence showed no association with positive sputum smear (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.40-2.48), or male sex (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.84-1.41), and very low quality evidence showed no association with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.31, 95% IC 0.38-4.46), and previous TB infection (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.48-14.87). CONCLUSION: Co-morbid malignancy was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death among pulmonary TB patients. There is insufficient evidence to confirm positive sputum smear, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and previous TB infection as predictors of in-hospital mortality in TB patients.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a major public health issue worldwide, with 1.4 million deaths occurring annually. There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB. This knowledge gap complicates efforts to identify and improve the management of those individuals with TB at greatest risk of death. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to establish predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB to enhance the evidence base for public policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies will be identified by a MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health search. Eligible studies will be cohort and case-control studies that report predictors or risk factors for in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB and an adjusted analysis to explore factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to summarise the findings of some reported predictors. Teams of 2 reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of all citations identified in our search, independently and in duplicate, extract data, and assess scientific quality using standardised forms quality assessment and tools tailored. We will pool all factors that were assessed for an association with mortality that were reported by >1 study, and presented the OR and the associated 95% CI. When studies provided the measure of association as a relative risk (RR), we will convert the RR to OR using the formula provided by Wang. For binary data, we will calculate a pooled OR, with an associated 95% CI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is based on published data, and therefore ethical approval is not a requirement. Findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015025755.

Attitudes towards evaluation of psychiatric disability claims: a survey of Swiss stakeholders.

QUESTIONS: In Switzerland, evaluation of work capacity in individuals with mental disorders has come under criticism. We surveyed stakeholders about their concerns and expectations of the current claim process. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide online survey among five stakeholder groups. We asked 37 questions addressing the claim process and the evaluation of work capacity, the maximum acceptable disagreement in judgments on work capacity, and its documentation. RESULTS: Response rate among 704 stakeholders (95 plaintiff lawyers, 285 treating psychiatrists, 129 expert psychiatrists evaluating work capacity, 64 social judges, 131 insurers) varied between 71% and 29%. Of the lawyers, 92% were dissatisfied with the current claim process, as were psychiatrists (73%) and experts (64%), whereas the majority of judges (72%) and insurers (81%) were satisfied. Stakeholders agreed in their concerns, such as the lack of a transparent relationship between the experts' findings and their conclusions regarding work capacity, medical evaluations inappropriately addressing legal issues, and the experts' delay in finalising the report. Findings mirror the characteristics that stakeholders consider important for an optimal work capacity evaluation. For a scenario where two experts evaluate the same claimant, stakeholders considered an inter-rater difference of 10%‒20% in work capacity at maximum acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Plaintiff lawyers, treating psychiatrists and experts perceive major problems in work capacity evaluation of psychiatric claims whereas judges and insurers see the process more positively. Efforts to improve the process should include clarifying the basis on which judgments are made, restricting judgments to areas of expertise, and ensuring prompt submission of evaluations.