scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction in adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (14) ◽  
pp. 1428-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha B Ross ◽  
Katherine Jones ◽  
Bianca Blanch ◽  
Rajesh Puranik ◽  
Kevin McGeechan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Physiological Adaptation ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Pathological Disease ◽  
Cmr Imaging

Abstract Aims To assess the reported prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) in different adult cohorts, taking in to consideration the role of diagnostic criteria and imaging modalities used. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting LVNC prevalence in adults. Studies were sourced from Pre-Medline, Medline, and Embase and assessed for eligibility according to inclusion criteria. Eligible studies provided a prevalence of LVNC in adult populations (≥12 years). Studies were assessed, and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Fifty-nine eligible studies documenting LVNC in 67 unique cohorts were included. The majority of studies were assessed as moderate or high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence estimates for LVNC were consistently higher amongst cohorts diagnosed on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging (14.79%, n = 26; I2 = 99.45%) compared with echocardiogram (1.28%, n = 36; I2 = 98.17%). This finding was unchanged when analysis was restricted to studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The prevalence of LVNC varied between disease and population representative cohorts. Athletic cohorts demonstrated high pooled prevalence estimates on echocardiogram (3.16%, n = 5; I2 = 97.37%) and CMR imaging (27.29%, n = 2). Conclusion Left ventricular non-compaction in adult populations is a poorly defined entity which likely encompasses both physiological adaptation and pathological disease. There is a higher prevalence with the introduction of newer imaging technologies, specifically CMR imaging, which identify LVNC changes more readily. The clinical significance of these findings remains unclear; however, there is significant potential for overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and unnecessary follow-up.

Prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. rapm-2020-101960
Author(s):  
Christine Hunt ◽  
Rajat Moman ◽  
Ashley Peterson ◽  
Rachel Wilson ◽  
Stephen Covington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Prevalence Estimates

BackgroundThe reported prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) varies widely due, in part, to differences in the taxonomy of chronic pain. A widely used classification system is available to describe subcategories of chronic pain in SCI, but the prevalence of chronic pain in SCI based on this system is unknown.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification system.Evidence reviewA comprehensive search of databases from January 1980 to August 2019 was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty in prevalence estimates.FindingsA total of 1305 records were screened, and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain was 68% (95% CI 63% to 73%). The pooled prevalence of neuropathic pain in 13 studies was 58% (95% CI 49% to 68%); the pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in 11 studies was 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%); the pooled prevalence of visceral pain in 8 studies was 20% (95% CI 11% to 29%) and the pooled prevalence of nociceptive pain in 2 studies was 45% (95% CI 13% to 78%). Meta-regression of risk of bias (p=0.20), traumatic versus non-traumatic etiology of injury (p=0.59), and studies where pain was a primary outcome (p=0.32) demonstrated that these factors were not significant moderators of heterogeneity. Certainty in prevalence estimates was judged to be low due to unexplained heterogeneity.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis extends the findings of previous studies by reporting the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the ISCIP classification system, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity in the reporting of pain prevalence related to SCI.

scholarly journals Frequency of neurological manifestations in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 350 studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubham Misra ◽  
Kavitha Kolappa ◽  
Manya Prasad ◽  
Divya Radhakrishnan ◽  
Kiran T Thakur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Neurological Manifestations ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Acute Confusion

SummaryObjectiveTo summarize the frequency of neurological manifestations reported in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysisEligibility criteriaStudies enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients (probable or confirmed) presenting with neurological manifestations.Data sourcesPubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, clinicaltrials.gov and EMBASE from 31st December 2019 to 15th December 2020.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by literature search. Risk of bias was examined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for neurological manifestations. Odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated to determine the association of neurological manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I-square, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2.ResultsOf 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,634 COVID-19 patients, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurological manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurological symptoms included: fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%) and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurological diagnosis (pooled prevalence-2%). In COVID-19 patients aged >60, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34% and the presence of any neurological manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11 to 2.91).ConclusionsUp to one-third of COVID-19 patients analysed in this review experienced at least one neurological manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those over 60, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurological manifestations in this group was associated with near doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted keeping in view the limitations of observational studies and associated bias.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020181867.What is already known on this topicThe frequency of neurological manifestations including fatigue, myalgia, taste and smell impairments, headache and dizziness in COVID-19 patients has been reported in a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, considerable heterogeneity has been observed in terms of methodological quality of the studies, severity of the disease, mean age and hospitalization status of the patients. The evidence regarding the frequency of neurological diagnoses including stroke, encephalitis, Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) is also limited to case reports and case series and no data exists thus far on the pooled prevalence estimates for neurological diagnoses in COVID-19 patients.What this study addsTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date (including 350 studies with data on 145,634 cases) summarizing the evidence on the frequency of the full spectrum of neurological manifestations in COVID-19 patients in the overall, young and elderly populations. For the first time, our review reports the pooled prevalence of stroke in COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias, old age and disease severity were potential determinants of the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations as well as its association with mortality. Our review also highlights the need to develop reporting standards for studies describing the frequency of clinical features. Moreover, we note that this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject to include studies reported in all languages.

scholarly journals Prevalence of smoking in adults with spinal cord stimulators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-218
Author(s):  
W Michael Hooten ◽  
Rajat N Moman ◽  
Jodie Dvorkin ◽  
E Morgan Pollard ◽  
Robalee Wonderman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vascular Diseases ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

BackgroundSmoking adversely impacts pain-related outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). However, the proportion of SCS patients at risk of worse outcomes is limited by an incomplete knowledge of smoking prevalence in this population. Thus, the primary aim of this systematic review is to determine the prevalence of smoking in adults with chronic pain treated with SCS.MethodsA comprehensive search of databases from 1 January 1980 to 3 January 2019 was conducted. Eligible study designs included (1) randomized trials; (2) prospective and retrospective cohort studies; and (3) cross-sectional studies. The risk of bias was assessed using a tool specifically developed for prevalence studies. A total of 1619 records were screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, and the total number of participants was 10 838.ResultsThirteen studies had low or moderate risk of bias, and six had a high risk of bias. All 19 studies reported smoking status and the pooled prevalence was 38% (95% CI 30% to 47%). The pooled prevalence in 6 studies of peripheral vascular diseases was 56% (95% CI 42% to 69%), the pooled prevalence of smoking in 11 studies of lumbar spine diagnoses was 28% (95% CI 20% to 36%) and the pooled prevalence in 2 studies of refractory angina was 44% (95% CI 31% to 58%).ConclusionsThe estimated prevalence of smoking in SCS patients is 2.5 times greater than the general population. Future research should focus on development, testing and deployment of tailored smoking cessation treatments for SCS patients.

scholarly journals Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Young ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Rikke K. Jensen ◽  
Ewa M. Roos ◽  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Case Definitions ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and are reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication data and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA.Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO, awaiting registration

scholarly journals Prevalence and Risk Factors for Spasticity After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huangling Zeng ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Yang Guo ◽  
Sheng Tan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Hemorrhagic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Severe Spasticity

Background: Spasticity is a common sequela of stroke. The incidence of poststroke spasticity (PSS) has not been systematically reviewed in recent years, and some risk factors remain debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prevalence and risk factors for PSS.Methods: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG and CBM) inception to May 12, 2020. Observational studies summarizing the incidence or risk factors for PSS were included. Only cohort studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. For risk factors examined in at least three different studies, we combined effects into odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: One thousand four hundred sixty-seven studies were retrieved and 23 were involved in meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of spasticity after stroke was 25.3% and that after the first-ever stroke was 26.7%. The incidence of spasticity after the first-ever stroke with paresis was 39.5%. The prevalence of disabling or severe spasticity (MAS ≥ 3) in stroke patients with paresis was 9.4% (95% CI 0.056–0.133), and severe spasticity was 10.3% (95% CI 0.058–0.149). Moderate to severe paresis (OR = 6.573, 95% CI 2.579–16.755, I2 = 0.0%), hemorrhagic stroke (OR = 1.879, 95% CI 1.418–2.490, I2 = 27.3%) and sensory disorder were risk factors for PSS.Conclusions: The incidence of PSS was significantly higher in stroke patients with paresis. Patients with moderate to severe paresis and sensory disorder should be closely followed up. The role of hemorrhagic stroke in predicting PSS remains to be further explored.

scholarly journals Role of personality disorder in randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for adults with mood disorders: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e025145
Author(s):  
Bianca E Kavanagh ◽  
Sharon Lee Brennan-Olsen ◽  
Alyna Turner ◽  
Olivia M Dean ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Mood Disorders ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionRemission rates for mood disorders, including depressive and bipolar disorders, remain relatively low despite available treatments, and many patients fail to respond adequately to these interventions. Evidence suggests that personality disorder may play a role in poor outcomes. Although personality disorders are common in patients with mood disorders, it remains unknown whether personality disorder affects treatment outcomes in mood disorders. We aim to review currently available evidence regarding the role of personality disorder on pharmacological interventions in randomised controlled trials for adults with mood disorders.Methods and analysisA systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) via cochranelibrary.com, PubMed via PubMed, EMBASE via embase.com, PsycINFO via Ebsco and CINAHL Complete via Ebsco databases will be conducted to identify randomised controlled trials that have investigated pharmacological interventions in participants aged 18 years or older for mood disorders (ie, depressive disorders and bipolar spectrum disorders) and have also included assessment of personality disorder. One reviewer will screen studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria, and a second reviewer will confirm eligible studies. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A systematic review, and if sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be completed. Meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. A random effects model will be employed and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I2 statistic. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be completed.Ethics and disseminationAs this systematic review will use published data, ethics permission will not be required. The outcomes of this systematic review will be published in a relevant scientific journal and presented at a research conference.Trial registration numberCRD42018089279.

scholarly journals Prevalence of dog-mediated rabies in Ethiopia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis from 2010 to 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiret Belete ◽  
Melke Meseret ◽  
Haileyesus Dejene ◽  
Ayalew Assefa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Addis Ababa ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Human Rabies ◽  
Individual Study ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Vaccination Campaigns

Abstract Background Ethiopia accommodates the second largest number of human rabies deaths in Africa. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize and pool estimates of dog-mediated rabies status in Ethiopia. Methods Published researches between 2010 and 2020 were comprehensively searched and the required information was extracted. The prevalence was estimated using the random-effects meta-analysis because higher heterogeneity between studies was expected. Results The pooled estimate of rabies was 32% (95% CI: 19–46%), with individual study prevalence estimates ranged from 1 to 78%. Studies were approximately weighted equally with individual weight ranging from 5.19–5.28%. Subgroup analysis indicated that the random pooled prevalence of rabies was 28% (95% CI: 0–81%) in animals and 33% (95% CI: 20–47%) in humans. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis across regions indicated that the pooled prevalence was 78% in Addis Ababa, 46% in Oromia, 40% in Tigray and 5% in Amhara regional states. No single study was reported from the country’s eastern and southern parts to be included in this meta-analysis. Conclusion The estimated pooled rabies prevalence was found high and showed varying among study regions. Therefore, focusing on mass dog vaccination campaigns and public awareness should be implemented to control the disease.

scholarly journals Gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2020-101529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony K Akobeng ◽  
Ciaran Grafton-Clarke ◽  
Ibtihal Abdelgadir ◽  
Erica Twum-Barimah ◽  
Morris Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Gastrointestinal Manifestations ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

ObjectivesTo summarise the published evidence on the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO’s database of publications on novel coronavirus. We included English language studies that had described original demographic and clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported on the presence or absence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was expressed as proportion and 95% CI.ResultsThe search identified 269 citations. Thirteen studies (nine case series and four case reports) comprising data for 284 patients were included. Overall, we rated four studies as having a low risk of bias, eight studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of nine studies, comprising 280 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 22.8% (95% CI 13.1% to 35.2%; I2=54%). Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptom followed by vomiting and abdominal pain.ConclusionsNearly a quarter of children with COVID-19 have gastrointestinal symptoms. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the gastrointestinal manifestation of COVID-19.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020177569.

scholarly journals Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women of childbearing age in Africa during 2000–2016: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e024345
Author(s):  
Tawanda Chivese ◽  
Mahmoud M Werfalli ◽  
Itai Magodoro ◽  
Rekai Lionel Chinhoyi ◽  
A P Kengne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
African Women ◽  
Women Of Childbearing Age ◽  
Childbearing Age ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

ObjectivesThe aim of this research was to estimate the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), in African women of childbearing age.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis of relevant African studies published from January 2000 to December 2016.Data sourcesWe searched several databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, grey literature and references of included studies.SettingStudies carried out in African communities or any population-based studies were included.ParticipantsWe included studies, carried out in Africa, with non-pregnant women of childbearing age. Studies must have been published between the years 2000 and 2016.OutcomesThe primary outcome was prevalent T2DM. The secondary outcomes were IFG and IGT.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and, using the adapted Hoy risk of bias tool, independently assessed for risk of bias. We used random-effects meta-analysis models to pool prevalence estimates across studies. We used Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 39 studies from 27 countries were included, totaling 52 075 participants, of which 3813 had T2DM. The pooled prevalence of T2DM was 7.2% (95% CI 5.6% to 8.9%) overall and increased with age. The pooled prevalence was 6.0% (95% CI 4.2% to 8.2%) for impaired fasting glycemia while the prevalence of IGT ranged from 0.9% to 37.0% in women aged 15–24 and 45–54 years, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity across studies was not explained by major studies characteristics such as period of publication, rural/urban setting or whether a study was nationally representative or not.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for interventions to prevent and control diabetes in African women of childbearing age, in view of the significant prevalence of T2DM and prediabetes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015027635

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document