scholarly journals Chlamydia psittaci (psittacosis) as a cause of community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 145 (15) ◽  
pp. 3096-3105 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. HOGERWERF ◽  
B. DE GIER ◽  
B. BAAN ◽  
W. VAN DER HOEK
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Burden Of Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Chlamydia Psittaci ◽  
Reasonable Assumption ◽  
Causative Pathogen ◽  
Incident Cases

SUMMARYPsittacosis is a zoonotic infectious disease caused by the transmission of the bacterium Chlamydia psittaci from birds to humans. Infections in humans mainly present as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, most cases of CAP are treated without diagnostic testing, and the importance of C. psittaci infection as a cause of CAP is therefore unclear. In this meta-analysis of published CAP-aetiological studies, we estimate the proportion of CAP caused by C. psittaci infection. The databases MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies published from 1986 onwards. Only studies that consisted of 100 patients or more were included. In total, 57 studies were selected for the meta-analysis. C. psittaci was the causative pathogen in 1·03% (95% CI 0·79–1·30) of all CAP cases from the included studies combined, with a range between studies from 0 to 6·7%. For burden of disease estimates, it is a reasonable assumption that 1% of incident cases of CAP are caused by psittacosis.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Infectious Diseases Testing Outside Clinics: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eneyi E Kpokiri ◽  
Gifty Marley ◽  
Weiming Tang ◽  
Noah Fongwen ◽  
Dan Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Linkage To Care ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Delivery Models

Abstract Background Most people around the world do not have access to facility-based diagnostic testing, and the gap in availability of diagnostic tests is a major public health challenge. Self-testing, self-sampling, and institutional testing outside conventional clinical settings are transforming infectious disease diagnostic testing in a wide range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examined the delivery models of infectious disease diagnostic testing outside clinics to assess the impact on test uptake and linkage to care. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching 6 databases and including original research manuscripts comparing testing outside clinics with conventional testing. The main outcomes were test uptake and linkage to care, delivery models, and adverse outcomes. Data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes within thematic areas of interest were pooled, and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019140828). We identified 10 386 de-duplicated citations, and 76 studies were included. Data from 18 studies were pooled in meta-analyses. Studies focused on HIV (48 studies), chlamydia (8 studies), and multiple diseases (20 studies). HIV self-testing increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (9 studies: pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95% CI, 1.06–6.29; moderate quality). Self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (7 studies: pooled OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.97–3.12; moderate quality). Conclusions.  Testing outside of clinics increased test uptake without significant adverse outcomes. These testing approaches provide an opportunity to expand access and empower patients. Further implementation research, scale-up of effective service delivery models, and policies in LMIC settings are needed.

scholarly journals Occupational Asbestos Exposure and Kidney Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris C Y Pang ◽  
Kevin Phan ◽  
Md Nazmul Karim ◽  
Afsana Afroz ◽  
Matthew Winter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Asbestos Exposure ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Standardized Mortality Ratio ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Incidence Studies ◽  
Incident Cases

Abstract Objectives An estimated 125 million workers are exposed to asbestos worldwide. Asbestos is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. The association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer is not well established however. This study aimed to determine the mortality and incidence of kidney cancer in workers who have been exposed to asbestos. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer. Methods Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for articles on occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer. The studies reported the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) or standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of kidney cancer in workers exposed to asbestos. SMRs or SIRs with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using a fixed-effect model. Results Forty-nine cohort studies involving 335 492 workers were selected for analysis. These studies included 468 kidney cancer deaths and 160 incident cases. The overall pooled-SMR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86–1.05), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.09, I2 = 24.87%). The overall pooled-SIR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.79–1.11), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.68, I2 = 0.00%). Subgroup analysis did not find any increased association with occupational asbestos exposure. There was no evidence of publication bias with Egger’s test P values of 0.08 for mortality studies and 0.99 for incidence studies. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis did not show evidence of association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer mortality or incidence.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Katherine P Hooper ◽  
Matthew H Anstey ◽  
Edward Litton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%–72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document