scholarly journals The short-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre R. Marra ◽  
Takaaki Kobayashi ◽  
Hiroyuki Suzuki ◽  
Mohammed Alsuhaibani ◽  
Bruna Marques Tofaneto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Stratified Analysis

Abstract Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine. Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028–0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%–97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%–94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%–97.6%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.

The impact of smoking on prevalence of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (10) ◽  
pp. 2695-2710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ummugulsum Gazel ◽  
Gizem Ayan ◽  
Dilek Solmaz ◽  
Servet Akar ◽  
Sibel Z Aydin
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
General Population ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Past History ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives In this systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the impact of cigarette smoking on the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Method We performed a systematic literature review using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register databases. The literature included publications from January 1980 to July 2019. The studies that provided clear information on the number of patients with ever smoking data were included in the meta-analysis. Results The systematic literature review identified 52 and 24 articles for the prevalence of smoking in psoriasis and PsA, respectively. Of these, 16 articles on psoriasis and three and four (general population and psoriasis, respectively) articles on PsA met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of ever smoking was increased in psoriasis compared with the general population (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.4, 2.3). For PsA the prevalence of ever smoking was reduced in psoriasis patients (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.81), but not changed compared with the general population (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.32). Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that ever smoking increases the risk of psoriasis in the general population, but may reduce the risk of PsA in psoriasis patients. The latter may be also due to the collider effect. Whether smoking cessation neutralizes the risk of developing psoriasis requires a well-defined smoking data collection for the past history and this is currently unavailable in the literature.

scholarly journals Mesothelin as a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 923-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRISTIAN MADEIRA ◽  
EDUARDO R. DONDOSSOLA ◽  
BRUNA F. DE FARIAS ◽  
CARLA S. SIMON ◽  
MARIA C.M. ALEXANDRE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Tissue ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Quantitative Systematic Review ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

The objective of this work was to estimate the accuracy of mesothelin as a biomarker for ovarian cancer. A quantitative systematic review was performed. A comprehensive search of the Medline, LILACS, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Biomed Central, and ISI Web of Science databases was conducted from January 1990 to June 2015. For inclusion in this systematic review, the papers must have measured mesothelin levels in at least two histological diagnoses; ovarian cancer (borderline or ovarian tumor) vs. benign or normal ovarian tissue. For each study, 2 x 2 contingency tables were constructed. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. The verification bias was performed according to QUADAS-2. Statistical analysis was performed with the software Stata 11, Meta-DiSc(r) and RevMan 5.2. Twelve studies were analyzed, which included 1,561 women. The pooled sensitivity was 0.62 (CI 95% 0.58 - 0.66) and specificity was 0.94 (CI 95% 0.92 - 0.95). The DOR was 38.92 (CI 95% 17.82 - 84.99). Our systematic review shows that mesothelin cannot serve alone as a biomarker for the detection of ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals Tuberculosis Transmission from Healthcare Workers to Patients and Co-workers: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e0121639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Sañé Schepisi ◽  
Giovanni Sotgiu ◽  
Silvia Contini ◽  
Vincenzo Puro ◽  
Giuseppe Ippolito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Tuberculosis Transmission

scholarly journals Influenza vaccine effectiveness among high-risk groups: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 724-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Restivo ◽  
Claudio Costantino ◽  
Stefania Bono ◽  
Marialuisa Maniglia ◽  
Valentina Marchese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness

scholarly journals Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre R.MD MarraMS ◽  
Takaaki Kobayashi ◽  
Hiroyuki Suzuki ◽  
Mohammed Alsuhaibani ◽  
Bruna Marques Tofaneto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Short Term

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review of Adverse Events Associated with Systemic Treatments Used in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Sarcoma ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Colosia ◽  
Shahnaz Khan ◽  
Michelle D. Hackshaw ◽  
Alan Oglesby ◽  
James A. Kaye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Cancer Agent

This systematic literature review describes adverse events (AEs) among patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who received second-line or later anticancer therapies. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of adults with advanced or metastatic STS who received systemic anticancer therapy before enrollment in a randomized-controlled trial of pazopanib, another targeted cancer agent, or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Of 204 publications identified, seven articles representing six unique studies met inclusion criteria. Additional safety results for pazopanib were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. Hematologic toxicities were common with all therapies evaluated (pazopanib, trabectedin, dacarbazine ± gemcitabine, gemcitabine ± docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and ifosfamide). Studies differed in AE type, timing of assessment, and outcomes reported, although patient populations and AE assessment timing were relatively similar for pazopanib and trabectedin. AEs that were more common with trabectedin than pazopanib were anemia, neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase. An AE that was more common with pazopanib than trabectedin was anorexia. Only the pazopanib study reported AE frequencies versus placebo. A planned meta-analysis was not feasible, as there was no common comparator. More well-designed studies that include common comparators are needed for comparison of safety effects among treatments for STS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document