scholarly journals Acute phase proteins and IP-10 as triage tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.S. Santos ◽  
D. Goletti ◽  
K. Kontogianni ◽  
E.R. Adams ◽  
B. Molina-Moya ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2019-318245
Author(s):  
Ming-Hsiu Chiang ◽  
Hsingjin Eugene Liu ◽  
Jinn-Li Wang

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of low-dose or no aspirin with conventional high-dose aspirin for the initial treatment in the acute-phase of Kawasaki disease (KD).DesignA meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised control trials and cohort studies.MethodsAll available articles that compared different dosage of aspirin in the acute-phase of KD published until 20 September 2019 were included from the databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Central without language restrictions. Extracted data from eligible studies were reviewed by two authors independently and analysed by using RStudio software.ResultsNine cohorts with a total of 12 182 children were enrolled. We found that low-dose (3–5 mg/kg/day) or no aspirin in the acute-phase KD was associated with reducing the risk of coronary artery lesions (CALs, OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95). No differences were observed in intravenous immunoglobulin resistance, length of hospital stay and fever days after admission (OR=1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.98; standard mean difference (SMD)=0.17, 95% CI −1.07 to 1.4; SMD=0.3, 95% CI −1.51 to 2.11) in the low-dose/no aspirin subgroup compared with the high-dose (≥30 mg/kg/day) aspirin subgroup. We did not identify any potential factors affecting the homogeneity of CAL risk as well as clinical important effects in all included studies.ConclusionsPrescribing low-dose or no aspirin in the acute-phase of KD might be associated with a decreased incidence of CAL. However, additional well-designed prospective trials are required to support the theory.


BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Driessen ◽  
Zachary D. Cohen ◽  
Myrna M. Weissman ◽  
John C. Markowitz ◽  
Erica S. Weitz ◽  
...  

Background Antidepressant medication and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both recommended interventions in depression treatment guidelines based on literature reviews and meta-analyses. However, ‘conventional’ meta-analyses comparing their efficacy are limited by their reliance on reported study-level information and a narrow focus on depression outcome measures assessed at treatment completion. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, considered the gold standard in evidence synthesis, can improve the quality of the analyses when compared with conventional meta-analysis. Aims We describe the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and IPT for adult acute-phase depression across a range of outcome measures, including depressive symptom severity as well as functioning and well-being, at both post-treatment and follow-up (PROSPERO: CRD42020219891). Method We will conduct a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised clinical trials comparing antidepressants and IPT in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression. We will invite the authors of these studies to share the participant-level data of their trials. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects at post-treatment and follow-up for all outcome measures that are assessed in at least two studies. Conclusions This will be the first IPD meta-analysis examining antidepressants versus IPT efficacy. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by comparing the short- and long-term effects of two widely used interventions across a range of outcome measures using state-of-the-art statistical techniques.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziana Carandini ◽  
Viviana Bozzano ◽  
Elio Scarpini ◽  
Nicola Montano ◽  
Monica Solbiati

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Chen ◽  
Spencer R. Haupert ◽  
Lauren Zimmermann ◽  
Xu Shi ◽  
Lars G. Fritsche ◽  
...  

Importance As SARS-CoV-2 pervades worldwide, considerable focus has been placed on the longer lasting health effects of the virus on the human host and on the anticipated healthcare needs. Objective The primary aim of this study is to examine the prevalence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), commonly known as long COVID, across the world and to assess geographic heterogeneities through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A second aim is to provide prevalence estimates for individual symptoms that have been commonly reported as PASC, based on the existing literature. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, and iSearch for preprints from medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and others, were searched on July 5, 2021 with verification extending to August 12, 2021. Study Selection Studies written in English that consider PASC (indexed as ailments persisting at least 28 days after diagnosis or recovery for SARS-CoV-2 infection) and that examine corresponding prevalence, risk factors, duration, or associated symptoms were included. A total of 40 studies were included with 9 from North America, 1 from South America, 17 from Europe, 11 from Asia, and 2 from other regions. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data extraction was performed and separately cross-validated on the following data elements: title, journal, authors, date of publication, outcomes, and characteristics related to the study sample and study design. Using a random effects framework for meta-analysis with DerSimonian-Laird pooled inverse-variance weighted estimator, we provide an interval estimate of PASC prevalence, globally, and across regions. This meta-analysis considers variation in PASC prevalence by hospitalization status during the acute phase of infection, duration of symptoms, and specific symptom categories. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence of PASC worldwide and stratified by regions. Results Global estimated pooled PASC prevalence derived from the estimates presented in 29 studies was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.63), with a higher pooled PASC prevalence estimate of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.68), among those hospitalized during the acute phase of infection. Females were estimated to have higher pooled PASC prevalence than males (0.49 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.63] versus 0.37 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.51], respectively). Regional pooled PASC prevalence estimates in descending order were 0.49 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.42) for Asia, 0.44 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.59) for Europe, and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.66) for North America. Global pooled PASC prevalence for 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after index test positive date were estimated to be 0.36 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.48), 0.24 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.39), 0.29 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.57) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.59), respectively. Among commonly reported PASC symptoms, fatigue and dyspnea were reported most frequently, with a prevalence of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.38) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.19), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that, worldwide, PASC comprises a significant fraction (0.43 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.63]) of COVID-19 tested positive cases and more than half of hospitalized COVID-19 cases, based on available literature as of August 12, 2021. Geographic differences appear to exist, as lowest to highest PASC prevalence is observed for North America (0.30 [95% CI: 0.32, 0.66]) to Asia (0.49 [95% CI: 0.21, 0.42]). The case-mix across studies, in terms of COVID-19 severity during the acute phase of infection and variation in the clinical definition of PASC, may explain some of these differences. Nonetheless, the health effects of COVID-19 appear to be prolonged and can exert marked stress on the healthcare system, with 237M reported COVID-19 cases worldwide as of October 12, 2021.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document