scholarly journals 1170. Do Rotavirus Strains Affect Vaccine Effectiveness? A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S676-S676
Author(s):  
Jordan Cates ◽  
Avnika Amin ◽  
Jacqueline Tate ◽  
Ben Lopman ◽  
Umesh D Parashar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Income Level ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
P Value ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Rotavirus Vaccines ◽  
Strain Type

Abstract Background Rotavirus causes 215,000 deaths from severe childhood diarrhea annually. Two rotavirus vaccines – a monovalent vaccine containing a single rotavirus strain (RV1) and a pentavalent vaccine containing 5 rotavirus strains (RV5) – are used in routine immunization programs of nearly 100 countries. Concerns exist that rotavirus vaccines may be less effective against rotavirus strains not contained in the vaccines which could subsequently cause selective pressure and strain replacement. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of RV1 and RV5 against vaccine (homotypic) and non-vaccine (partially and fully heterotypic) strains. Methods After conducting a systematic review, we meta-analyzed 31 case-control studies (N=27,293) conducted between 2006 and 2020 using a random-effect regression model. Results In high-income countries, RV1 VE was 10% lower against partially heterotypic (p-value=0.04) and fully heterotypic (p-value=0.10) compared to homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 90% [95% CI: 82, 94]; partially heterotypic VE: 79% [95% CI: 71, 85]; fully heterotypic VE: 80% [95% CI: 65, 88]; Figure 1). In middle-income countries, RV1 VE was 14 to 16% lower against partially heterotypic (p-value=0.06) and fully heterotypic (p-value=0.04) compared to homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 81% [95% CI: 69, 88]; partially heterotypic VE: 67% [95% CI: 54, 76]; fully heterotypic VE: 65% [95% CI: 52, 75]; Figure 1). Strain-specific RV5 VE differences were less pronounced (Figure 2). Limited data were available from low-income countries. Figure 1. Vaccine effectiveness by country income level and strain type, for RV1. Figure 2. Vaccine effectiveness by country income level and strain type, for RV5. Conclusion Vaccine effectiveness of RV1 and RV5 was somewhat lower VE against non-vaccine than vaccine strains. Ongoing surveillance is crucial to continue long-term monitoring for strain replacement, particularly in low-income settings where data are limited. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Global incidence of surgical site infection after appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Jean Joel Bigna ◽  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Aimé Mbonda ◽  
Clarence Mvalo Mbanga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Site Infection

BackgroundAlthough surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most studied healthcare-associated infections, the global burden of SSI after appendectomy remains unknown.ObjectiveWe estimated the incidence of SSI after appendectomy at global and regional levels.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ParticipantsAppendectomy patients.Data sourcesEMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science were searched, with no language restrictions, to identify observational studies and clinical trials published between 1 January 2000 and 30 December 2018 and reporting on the incidence of SSI after appendectomy. A random-effect model meta-analysis served to obtain the pooled incidence of SSI after appendectomy.ResultsIn total, 226 studies (729 434 participants from 49 countries) were included in the meta-analysis. With regard to methodological quality, 59 (26.1%) studies had low risk of bias, 147 (65.0%) had moderate risk of bias and 20 (8.8%) had high risk of bias. We found an overall incidence of SSI of 7.0 per 100 appendectomies (95% prediction interval: 1.0–17.6), varying from 0 to 37.4 per 100 appendectomies. A subgroup analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity showed that the incidence varied from 5.8 in Europe to 12.6 per 100 appendectomies in Africa (p<0.0001). The incidence of SSI after appendectomy increased when the level of income decreased, from 6.2 in high-income countries to 11.1 per 100 appendectomies in low-income countries (p=0.015). Open appendectomy (11.0 per 100 surgical procedures) was found to have a higher incidence of SSI compared with laparoscopy (4.6 per 100 appendectomies) (p=0.0002).ConclusionThis study suggests a high burden of SSI after appendectomy in some regions (especially Africa) and in low-income countries. Strategies are needed to implement and disseminate the WHO guidelines to decrease the burden of SSI after appendectomy in these regions.Prospero registration numberCRD42017075257.

A commentary on “Economic impact of surgery on households and individuals in low income countries: A systematic review” (Int J Surg 2021; 90: 105956)

2021 ◽  
pp. 105991
Author(s):  
Michael Gregorio Ortega-Sierra ◽  
María del Carmen Castillo-Montalvo ◽  
Jesús Alberto Manotas-Berdugo ◽  
Jonhatan Guillermo Jiménez-Chimá ◽  
Maria Paz Bolaño-Romero
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Low Income Countries

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Neurosurgical Care in Low-Income Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 100068
Author(s):  
Hannah K. Weiss ◽  
Roxanna M. Garcia ◽  
Jesutofunmi A. Omiye ◽  
Dominique Vervoort ◽  
Robert Riestenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Low Income Countries

scholarly journals Clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes of paediatric COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-321385
Author(s):  
Omar Irfan ◽  
Fiona Muttalib ◽  
Kun Tang ◽  
Li Jiang ◽  
Zohra S Lassi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
World Bank ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Income Level ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries

ObjectiveCompare paediatric COVID-19 disease characteristics, management and outcomes according to World Bank country income level and disease severity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingBetween 1 December 2019 and 8 January 2021, 3350 articles were identified. Two reviewers conducted study screening, data abstraction and quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Observational studies describing laboratory-confirmed paediatric (0–19 years old) COVID-19 were considered for inclusion.Main outcomes and measuresThe pooled proportions of clinical findings, treatment and outcomes were compared according to World Bank country income level and reported disease severity.Results129 studies were included from 31 countries comprising 10 251 children of which 57.4% were hospitalised. Mean age was 7.0 years (SD 3.6), and 27.1% had a comorbidity. Fever (63.3%) and cough (33.7%) were common. Of 3670 cases, 44.1% had radiographic abnormalities. The majority of cases recovered (88.9%); however, 96 hospitalised children died. Compared with high-income countries, in low-income and middle-income countries, a lower proportion of cases were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) (9.9% vs 26.0%) yet pooled proportion of deaths among hospitalised children was higher (relative risk 2.14, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.20). Children with severe disease received antimicrobials, inotropes and anti-inflammatory agents more frequently than those with non-severe disease. Subgroup analyses showed that a higher proportion of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) were admitted to ICU (47.1% vs 22.9%) and a higher proportion of hospitalised children with MIS-C died (4.8% vs 3.6%) compared with the overall sample.ConclusionPaediatric COVID-19 has a favourable prognosis. Further severe disease characterisation in children is needed globally.

scholarly journals Challenges of Virtual Medical Sciences Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Salari ◽  
Vida Sepahi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Education ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Virtual Education ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Multiple Challenges ◽  
Sudden Transition

Context: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous higher education challenges. Medical universities have been urged to dispel students from educational and clinical settings and led them toward virtual education. This sudden transition has been accompanied by multiple challenges. Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the challenges of virtual medical education in the COVID-19 pandemic. Study Selection: This systematic review was performed by reviewing the current literature on the research subject and the studies conducted in this regard during March 2019 to April 2021 by searching via five key search engines and databases, including Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC. Results: In total, 23 studies were assessed, and different virtual education challenges in medical universities were classified into three categories of structural challenges, student-related challenges, and teacher-related challenges. In addition, strategies were proposed for overcoming the identified challenges. Conclusions: Since medical education was not properly pursued before the COVID-19 pandemic and the necessary infrastructures are lacking in this area, designing and implementing such programs could bring about fundamental challenges in several countries (especially developing and low-income countries), thereby decreasing their success rate. On the other hand, the coronavirus crisis could be an opportunity to identify the weaknesses, shortcomings, and infrastructural deficiencies in e-learning and address these issues effectively.

scholarly journals International barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abirami Kirubarajan ◽  
Shannon Leung ◽  
Xinglin Li ◽  
Matthew Yau ◽  
Mara Sobel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Young People ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Age Group

Background Though cervical cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally, its incidence is nearly entirely preventable. Young people have been an international priority for screening. However, in both high-income and low-income countries, young people have not been screened appropriately according to country-specific guidelines and in many countries, screening rates for this age-group have even dropped. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to systematically characterize the existing literature on barriers and facilitators for cervical cancer screening among young people globally. Search Strategy We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines of four databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Selection Criteria We only examined original, peer-reviewed literature. Databases were examined from inception until the date of our literature searches (12/03/2020). Articles were excluded if they did not specifically discuss cervical cancer screening, were not specific to young people, or did not report outcomes or evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis All screening and extraction was completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers. Main Results Of the 2177 original database citations, we included 36 studies that met inclusion criteria. Our systematic review found that there are three large categories of barriers for young people: lack of knowledge/awareness, negative perceptions of the test, and practical barriers to testing. Facilitators included stronger relationships with healthcare providers, social norms, support from family, and self-efficacy. Conclusions Health systems worldwide should address the barriers and facilitators to increase cervical cancer screening rates in young people. Further research is required to understand this age group.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldano Zuniga ◽  
Silvia Coca ◽  
Giuliana Abeldano ◽  
Ruth Ana Maria Gonzalez Villoria
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis

Objective. The aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of drugs used in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. Method. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing treatment with remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma, for hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, duration of ventilation, duration of oxygen support, duration of hospitalization), virological clearance, and severe adverse events. Results. A total of 48 studies were retrieved from the databases. Ten articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative synthesis of results. The meta-analysis suggests a benefit of dexamethasone versus standard care in the reduction of risk of mortality at day 28; and the clinical improvement at days 14 and 28 in patients treated with remdesivir. Conclusions. Dexamethasone would have a better result in hospitalized patients, especially in low-resources settings. Significance of results. The analysis of the main treatments proposed for hospitalized patients is of vital importance to reduce mortality in low-income countries; since the COVID-19 pandemic had an economic impact worldwide with the loss of jobs and economic decline in countries with scarce resources. Keywords: Drugs; Antivirals; Clinical improvement; Mortality; COVID-19; SARS-CoV2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document