VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube Versus Conventional Double-Lumen Tube for One-Lung Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the safety and effectiveness of VivaSight double-lumen tubes (VS-DLTs) in one-lung ventilation (OLV) compared to conventional DLTs (c-DLTs). The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement's guidelines. From the database's inception to December 2022, we searched seven different databases. We included 364 patients from six randomized controlled trials who were scheduled to undergo surgery requiring OLV. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was utilized to determine the risk of bias. The odds ratio (OR) was estimated for categorical variables, while the mean difference was calculated for continuous variables. Patients were randomly assigned to the VS-DLT or c-DLT group. The results revealed that patients in the c-DLT group have longer intubation time than the VS-DLT patients (mean difference [MD] = -90.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], -161.33 to -18.69; P = 0.01). Significantly, more secretions were present in the VS-DLT group than in the c-DLT group (OR = 4.24; CI, 1.96 to 9.13; P = 0.0002). Also, the fiberoptic bronchoscope was used more frequently in the c-DLT group compared to the VS-DLT group (OR = 0.01 [0.00, 0.07]; P < 0.00001). We found that VS-DLT was safe as the pooled analysis showed no significant difference according to side effects such as hoarseness and sore throat. The other outcomes, such as dislodgement, the clearance of secretions, and the quality of lung deflation (excellent), were non-significant between the two groups.

Posterior pericardiotomy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with postoperative pericardial effusion is the most commonly reported adverse event after cardiac surgery. AIMS: We aimed to determine the role of posterior pericardiotomy in preventing postoperative AF (POAF). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and EBSCO from inception until 30 June 2022. We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared posterior pericardiotomy (PP) versus control (no PP) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery. The secondary endpoints were supraventricular arrhythmias, early/late pericardial effusion, pericardial tamponade, pleural effusion, length of hospital/intensive care unit stay, intra-aortic balloon pump use, revision surgery for bleeding, and mortality. RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs comprising 4,467 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall incidence rate of POAF was 11.7% in the PP group compared with 23.67% in the no PP or control group, with a significant decrease in the risk of POAF following PP (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.61). Compared with the control group, the risk of supraventricular tachycardia (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89), early pericardial effusion (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.22-0.46), late pericardial effusion (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.25), and pericardiac tamponade (OR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10-0.33) were lower in the PP group. CONCLUSIONS: PP is an effective intervention for reducing the risk of POAF after cardiac surgery. Also, PP is economically efficient in terms of decreasing the length of hospital stay.

Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Surveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value <0.05. RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = < 0.00001) compared to voucher (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08,1.31; P = < 0.0005) and lottery (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03,1.22; P = < 0.009). CONCLUSION: Monetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys.

Cognitive, emotional, physical, and behavioral stress-related symptoms and coping strategies among university students during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Stress is manifested by different physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral stress-related symptoms, and everyone experiences it uniquely. The COVID-19 Pandemic has tremendously affected university students' lives. So, we conducted this study to determine the stress frequency, causes, determinants, and related symptoms involving physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral traits and coping strategies among university students in Egypt during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional study targeted 1,467 randomly selected undergraduate university students, representing all colleges from 30 universities in Egypt, through a validated self-administrated questionnaire. Results: The total stress-related symptom score was statistically significant (p < 0.05), higher among females, married, living on campus, with a (B) GPA, and those who had both organic and psychological disorders. The top 10 prevalent physical symptoms were headaches, chronic fatigue, hair loss, low back pain, neck pain, shoulders and arm pain, ophthalmological symptoms, acne, shakiness of extremities, and palpitations, respectively. The most reported symptoms regarding the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects were anxiety and racing thoughts, moodiness and irritability, and excessive sleeping, respectively. Nine hundred and thirty-seven (63.9%) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic badly affected their lives, either directly or indirectly. The study showed that the prevalence of stress among university students is more than 97%. One thousand and five (68.5%) preferred isolation as a relieving technique. Conclusion: Stress and its related physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral symptoms are prevalent among university students. Most of the university students who were recruited reported that the COVID-19 pandemic badly affected their lives and used negative ways to deal with stress, like staying alone and sleeping too much. Positive ways to deal with stress, like seeing a therapist or meditating, were less common.

The Efficacy and Safety of Pridopidine on Treatment of Patients with Huntington's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pridopidine is a novel drug that helps stabilize psychomotor function in patients with Huntington's disease (HD) by activating the cortical glutamate pathway. It promises to achieve the unmet needs of current therapies of HD without worsening other symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature discussing the efficacy of pridopidine in alleviating motor symptoms and its safety in patients with HD. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Wiley, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pridopidine on HD. Data from eligible studies were extracted and pooled as mean differences for efficacy and risk ratios (RRs) for safety using RevMan software version 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 4 relevant RCTs with 1130 patients were selected (816 in the pridopidine group and 314 in the placebo group). The pooled effect size favored pridopidine over placebo insignificantly in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale Total Motor Score (mean difference [MD], -0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.01 to 0.14; P = 0.09), whereas the effect size of 3 studies significantly favored pridopidine over placebo in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale Modified Motor Score (MD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.48 to -0.13; P = 0.02). Pridopidine generally was well tolerated. None of the adverse effects were considerably higher in the case of pridopidine compared with placebo in overall adverse events (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13; P = 0.49) and serious adverse events (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.88-2.99; P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The effects of pridopidine on motor functions (especially voluntary movements) in patients with HD are encouraging and provide a good safety profile that motivates further clinical trials on patients to confirm its effectiveness and safety.