scholarly journals Effect of various treatment modalities on the novel coronavirus (nCOV-2019) infection in humans: a systematic review & meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubham Misra ◽  
Manabesh Nath ◽  
Vijay Hadda ◽  
Deepti Vibha
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

AbstractBackground and aimSeveral therapeutic agents have been investigated for the treatment of novel Coronavirus-2019 (nCOV-2019). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of various treatment modalities in nCOV-2019 patients.MethodsAn extensive literature search was conducted before 22 May 2020 in PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane library databases. Quality assessment was performed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A fixed-effect model was applied if I2 <50%, else the results were combined using random-effect model. Risk Ratio (RR) or Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) along-with 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) were used to pool the results. Between study heterogeneity was explored using influence and sensitivity analyses & publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Entire statistical analysis was conducted in R version 3.6.2.ResultsEighty-one studies involving 44 in vitro and 37 clinical studies including 8662 nCOV-2019 patients were included in the review. Lopinavir-Ritonavir compared to controls was significantly associated with shorter mean time to clinical improvement (SMD -0.32; 95%CI -0.57 to -0.06) and Remdesivir compared to placebo was significantly associated with better overall clinical improvement (RR 1.17; 95%CI 1.07 to 1.29). Hydroxychloroquine was associated with less overall clinical improvement (RR 0.88; 95%CI 0.79 to 0.98) and longer time to clinical improvement (SMD 0.64; 95%CI 0.33 to 0.94), It additionally had higher all-cause mortality (RR 1.6; 95%CI 1.26 to 2.03) and more total adverse events (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.13).ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that except in vitro studies, no treatment till now has shown clear-cut benefit on nCOV-2019 patients. Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Remdesivir have shown some benefits in terms less time to clinical improvement and better overall clinical improvement. Hydroxychloroquine use has a risk of higher mortality and adverse events. Results from upcoming large clinical trials must be awaited to draw any profound conclusions.

scholarly journals Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinky Kotecha ◽  
Alexander Light ◽  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Cristian Fiori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

scholarly journals The effectiveness of psychological interventions for anxiety in the perinatal period: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Clinkscales ◽  
Katherine Berlouis ◽  
Lisa Golds ◽  
Angus MacBeth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Perinatal Period ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Perinatal Anxiety

Background: Anxiety disorders are a relatively common occurring mental health issue during pregnancy and the perinatal period. There is evidence that untreated perinatal anxiety is a risk factor for adverse outcomes for mother and infant. Despite their potential acceptability to users, psychological interventions research for this population is still in its infancy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for reducing perinatal anxiety. Method: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases searched included EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, MIDIRS, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included: Psychological Therapy, Perinatal Period, Antenatal, Postnatal, Anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Phobia. Results: The search strategy identified 2025 studies. A total of 21 studies published between 2004 and 2021 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Of those, 17 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall results indicated that psychological interventions were more effective than control conditions in reducing symptoms of perinatal anxiety with a medium post treatment effect size. Significant effect sizes were also identified for online, face-to-face, group and guided self-help treatment modalities. Limitations: A small sample of studies are represented and limited to articles published in English. The review was unable to draw specific conclusions about what works (i.e. therapeutic modality/delivery) for whom (i.e. specific diagnoses) due to purposefully broad inclusion criteria. The longer-term effects of psychological interventions for perinatal anxiety and infant outcomes could not be established. Conclusions: This review demonstrates that psychological interventions are effective in reducing symptoms of both anxiety and comorbid anxiety and depression in the antenatal and postnatal periods. The results also demonstrate the efficacy of delivering such interventions in multiple settings, including online, and in group format. Further research is required to optimise treatment delivery to individual needs.

scholarly journals Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047344
Author(s):  
Qingwu Wu ◽  
Lianxiong Yuan ◽  
Huijun Qiu ◽  
Xinyue Wang ◽  
Xuekun Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Polyps ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2 test and the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=−1.20; 95% CI −1.48 to −0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=−0.67; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=−15.62; 95% CI −19.79 to −11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=−1.84; 95% CI −2.43 to −1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020207639.

scholarly journals Anterior Fontanel Size Among Term Newborns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Oumer ◽  
Ashenafi Tazebew ◽  
Mekuriaw Alemayehu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anterior Fontanel ◽  
Test Statistic ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Mean Size ◽  
Term Newborns

Background: Anterior fontanel is an integral element of an infant craniofacial system. There are six fontanels in the newborn skull, namely anterior, posterior, two mastoid, and two sphenoid fontanels. The anterior fontanel is the largest, prominent, and most important for clinical evaluation. Sex, race, genetics, gestational age, and region are the principal factors that influence anterior fontanel size. There exist inconclusive findings on the size of anterior fontanel in newborns. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled mean size of anterior fontanel among term newborns and to identify the pooled mean difference of anterior fontanel size between males and females.Methods: PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, JBI Library, embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. All essential data were extracted using a standardized data extraction format. The heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q test statistic, I2 test statistic, and p-values. A fixed-effect model and random effect model were used to estimate the pooled mean size of anterior fontanel and the pooled mean difference between male newborns and female newborns, respectively. To deal with heterogeneity, sub-group analysis, meta-regression analysis, and sensitivity analysis were considered. JBI quality appraisal checklist was used to evaluate the quality of studies.Results: In this meta-analysis, 8, 661 newborns were involved in twenty-six studies. Among studies, 13 conducted in Asia, 7 in Africa, 5 in America, and 1 in Europe. The pooled mean size of anterior fontanel was 2.58 cm (95% CI: 2.31, 2.85 cm). The pooled mean size of anterior fontanel for Asia, Africa, America, and Europe region was 2.49, 3.15, 2.35, and 2.01 cm, respectively. A statistically significant mean difference was detected between male and female newborns (D + L pooled MD = 0.15 cm, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.29 cm).Conclusion: The pooled estimate of this review does provide the mean value of the anterior fontanel size in the newborns. There was a statistically significant mean fontanel size difference between male and female newborns. Therefore, male newborns had a significantly larger mean size than female newborns.

scholarly journals Efficacy of zinc as adjunctive pneumonia treatment in children aged 2 to 60 months in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Brown ◽  
Antti Juhani Kukka ◽  
Andreas Mårtensson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Pneumonia ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries

BackgroundDespite advances in vaccination and case management, pneumonia remains the single largest contributor to early child mortality worldwide. Zinc has immune-enhancing properties, but its role in adjunctive treatment of pneumonia in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is controversial and research still active.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of zinc and placebo in pneumonia in children aged 2 to 60 months in LMICs. Databases included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, SciELO, the WHO portal, Scopus, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included accepted signs of pneumonia and clear measure of outcome. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors. ORs with 95% CI were used for calculating the pooled estimate of dichotomous outcomes including treatment failure and mortality. Time to recovery was expressed as HRs. Sensitivity analyses considering risk of bias and subgroup analyses for pneumonia severity were performed.ResultsWe identified 11 trials published between 2004 and 2019 fulfilling the a priori defined criteria, 7 from South Asia and 3 from Africa and 1 from South America. Proportional treatment failure was comparable in both zinc and placebo groups when analysed for all patients (OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.14)) and only for those with severe pneumonia (OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14)). No difference was seen in mortality between zinc and placebo groups (OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.31)). Time to recovery from severe pneumonia did not differ between the treatment and control groups for patients with severe pneumonia (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.14)). Removal of four studies with high risk of bias made no difference to the conclusions.ConclusionThere is no evidence that adjunctive zinc treatment improves recovery from pneumonia in children in LMICs.Trial registration numberCRD42019141602.

scholarly journals Is dezocine effective and safe in preventing opioids-induced cough during general anaesthesia induction? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035691
Author(s):  
Li-xian He ◽  
Ken Shao ◽  
Jie Ma ◽  
Yuan-yuan Zhao ◽  
Yun-tai Yao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Anaesthesia Induction

IntroductionCough is often observed when administrating a bolus of opioids. Opioid-induced cough (OIC) is mostly transient, benign and self-limiting, but could be associated with adverse effects. Numerous pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used to manage OIC with controversial efficacy and safety. Recent studies suggested that, pretreatment of intravenous dezocine (DZC) could completely suppress OIC during anaesthesia induction. To address this knowledge lack, we will perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DZC on OIC and possible complications. We provide here a protocol that will outline the methods and analyses planned for the systematic review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science as well as Chinese BioMedical Literature & Retrieval System (SinoMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and VIP Data will be searched from 1978 to 31 December 2019 to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing DZC with placebo on the incidence and severity of OIC. Primary outcomes of interest include the incidence and severity of OIC. Secondary outcomes of interest include possible complications or adverse effects of DZC. Two authors will independently extract relevant variables and outcome data. For continuous variables, treatment effects will be calculated as weighted mean difference and 95% CI. For dichotomous data, treatment effects will be calculated as OR and 95% CI. Each outcome will be tested for heterogeneity, and randomised-effects or fixed-effects model will be used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be done by examining the influence of statistical model and individual trial(s) on estimated treatment effects. Publication bias will be explored through visual inspection of funnel plots of the outcomes. Statistical significance will be defined as p<0.05.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a protocol of meta-analysis of previously published literatures, ethical approval was not necessary according to the Ethical Committee of Fuwai Hospital. The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via research presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141255.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai-Bo Yao ◽  
Jie-Ru Peng ◽  
Xue-Mei Zheng ◽  
Zhuo Yang ◽  
Huang Yan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19. However, the findings of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies vary regarding the effectiveness of remdesivir. We aimed to comprehensively review the available evidence identify the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.Methods: Seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang database, SinoMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Science Journal Database) were searched for literatures published until November 2020.Following the PRISMA flow diagram, we included RCTs and prospective observational studies that reported the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. With extracting study details, as well as patient characteristics and outcomes, data were meta-analyzed by using Review Manager software version 5.4.1. Meta-analyses were conducted with fixed-effect model or random-effect model to calculate risk ratio (RR).Results: Four studies involving 2,279 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, 10-day remdesivir was associated with significant increased clinical improvement on days 14 and 28 with RR 1.19 (95%CI 1.09-1.30) and RR 1.09 (95%CI 1.03-1.16). The clinical improvement of 5-day remdesivir was better than 10-day remdesivir on days 7 with RR 1.20 (95%CI 1.02-1.41), but the efficacy advantage of 5-day remdesivir disappeared on days 14 (RR 1.08; 95%CI 0.90-1.29). Remdesivir was associated with lower serious adverse events rates and grade 3 or 4 adverse events rates as compared with placebo with RR 0.75(95%CI 0.63-0.89) and RR 0.89(95%CI 0.80-0.99). Compared with 10-day remdesivir, 5-day remdesivir for patients with COVID-19 decreased the risk of serious adverse events rates and grade 3 or 4 adverse events rates with RR 0.65(95%CI 0.47-0.88) and RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.58-0.95). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that remdesivir would increase clinical improvement conditions and decrease serious adverse events on patients with COVID-19. 5-day remdesivir had the similar clinical effectiveness and mortality with 10-day remdesivir, and had lower serious adverse events rate. Comprehensive considering the cost and benefit, 5-day remdesivir may be a better therapeutic option if available medical resources are limited.

scholarly journals Can Smartphone Apps Increase Physical Activity? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia Romeo ◽  
Sarah Edney ◽  
Ronald Plotnikoff ◽  
Rachel Curtis ◽  
Jillian Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Steps Per Day

BACKGROUND Smartphone apps are a promising tool for delivering accessible and appealing physical activity interventions. Given the large growth of research in this field, there are now enough studies using the “gold standard” of experimental design—the randomized controlled trial design—and employing objective measurements of physical activity, to support a meta-analysis of these scientifically rigorous studies. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of smartphone apps for increasing objectively measured physical activity in adults. METHODS A total of 7 electronic databases (EMBASE, EmCare, MEDLINE, Scopus, Sport Discus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from 2007 to January 2018. Following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study Design format, studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials involving adults, used a smartphone app as the primary or sole component of the physical activity intervention, used a no- or minimal-intervention control condition, and measured objective physical activity either in the form of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes or steps. Study quality was assessed using a 25-item tool based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. A meta-analysis of study effects was conducted using a random effects model approach. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine whether intervention effectiveness differed on the basis of intervention length, target behavior (physical activity alone vs physical activity in combination with other health behaviors), or target population (general adult population vs specific health populations). RESULTS Following removal of duplicates, a total of 6170 studies were identified from the original database searches. Of these, 9 studies, involving a total of 1740 participants, met eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 studies could be included in a meta-analysis of the effects of physical activity apps on steps per day. In comparison with the control conditions, smartphone apps produced a nonsignificant (P=.19) increase in participants’ average steps per day, with a mean difference of 476.75 steps per day (95% CI −229.57 to 1183.07) between groups. Sensitivity analyses suggested that physical activity programs with a duration of less than 3 months were more effective than apps evaluated across more than 3 months (P=.01), and that physical activity apps that targeted physical activity in isolation were more effective than apps that targeted physical activity in combination with diet (P=.04). Physical activity app effectiveness did not appear to differ on the basis of target population. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis provides modest evidence supporting the effectiveness of smartphone apps to increase physical activity. To date, apps have been most effective in the short term (eg, up to 3 months). Future research is needed to understand the time course of intervention effects and to investigate strategies to sustain intervention effects over time.

scholarly journals Global Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amer Alsaied ◽  
Nazmul Islam ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Necrotizing Enterocolitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vlbw Infants ◽  
Funnel Plots ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity

Abstract Background: Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), yet the global incidence of NEC has not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies reporting the incidence of NEC in infants with Very Low Birth Weight (VLBW).Methods: The databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and grey literature. Eligible studies were cohort or population-based studies of newborns including registry data reporting incidence of NEC. Data were extracted from the selected papers included incidence of NEC cases and size of population at risk, author and publication details, follow up period covered by the study, location and setting of the study and whether it was VLBW infants or preterm infants. Additionally, risk of bias assessment of the included studies were carried out using a validated tool. Bias adjusted Quality Effect Model (QEM) were used to pool the estimates. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity, Random Effect Models (REM) were used as an additionally sensitivity analyses. The heterogeneity between studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Q statistics and Higgin’s I2 value. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots as appropriate for ratio measures were used to assess publication bias. Results: A systematic and comprehensive search of databases identified 27 cohort studies reporting the incidence of NEC. The pooled estimate of the global incidence of NEC was 6.0% (95% CI: 4.0%-9.0%). There were substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 100%) between studies. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias.Conclusion: Seven out of 100 of all VLBW infants in NICU are likely to develop NEC. However, there were considerable heterogeneity between studies. High quality studies assessing incidence of NEC along with associated risk factors are warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document