scholarly journals Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Natalia Krzyzaniak ◽  
Chris Del Mar ◽  
Anna Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Acute Respiratory Infections ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), and assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI), or influenza events. Methods: Systematic review of randomised trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI, or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. Searches were conducted in CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries (April 2020) and data extraction completed by independent pairs of reviewers. Results: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.23, 95%CI 0.78-1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared to the soap group; two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. Conclusion: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission, however direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

scholarly journals Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose–response analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e046175
Author(s):  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Natalia Krzyzaniak ◽  
Chris Del Mar ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Acute Respiratory Infections ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.Inclusion criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.Data extraction and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.ResultsEighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose–response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.ConclusionsAdequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

scholarly journals Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Gordon ◽  
Anthony Akobeng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

scholarly journals Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Adult Mortality Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis of 207,291 Participants

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 174
Author(s):  
Wanich Suksatan ◽  
Sajjad Moradi ◽  
Fatemeh Naeini ◽  
Reza Bagheri ◽  
Hamed Mohammadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Adult Mortality ◽  
Calorie Intake ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
All Cause Mortality

We performed a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of observational studies assessing the association between UPF consumption and adult mortality risk. A systematic search was conducted using ISI Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus electronic databases from inception to August 2021. Data were extracted from seven cohort studies (totaling 207,291 adults from four countries). Using a random-effects model, hazard ratios (HR) of pooled outcomes were estimated. Our results showed that UPF consumption was related to an enhanced risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.30; I2 = 21.9%; p < 0.001), cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)-cause mortality (HR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.37, 1.63; I2 = 0.0%; p < 0.001), and heart-cause mortality (HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.50, 1.85; I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.022), but not cancer-cause mortality. Furthermore, our findings revealed that each 10% increase in UPF consumption in daily calorie intake was associated with a 15% higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.21; I2 = 0.0%; p < 0.001). The dose–response analysis revealed a positive linear association between UPF consumption and all-cause mortality (Pnonlinearity = 0.879, Pdose–response = p < 0.001), CVDs-cause mortality (Pnonlinearity = 0.868, Pdose–response = p < 0.001), and heart-cause mortality (Pnonlinearity = 0.774, Pdose–response = p < 0.001). It seems that higher consumption of UPF is significantly associated with an enhanced risk of adult mortality. Despite this, further experimental studies are necessary to draw a more definite conclusion.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of Anaferon for children and Anaferon for the prevention and treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory viral infections: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 335-347
Author(s):  
N.A. Geppe ◽  
◽  
A.L. Zaplatnikov ◽  
E.G. Kondyurina ◽  
O.I. Afanasieva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Respiratory Infections ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Respiratory Viral Infections

Aim: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the prevention and treatment of of acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI)/influenza using meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: the meta-analysis included data from 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 3079 patients aged 1 month to 69 years, of which: 1729 people were included in the meta-analysis of the preventive drugs efficacy, 1550 patients — in the meta-analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children. The evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy was conducted according to the criteria "disease duration" and/or "fever duration", the evaluation of the preventive efficacy was conducted according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza". The safety was evaluated taking into account the number of adverse events (AEs). Statistical methods included the exact Fisher criterion, the Student criterion, fixed and random effects models, the Z-test, the Cochrane-Mantel-Hensel criterion, Cochrane Q-statistics and the I2 coefficient, the Breslow-Day test, the calculation of relative risk (RR), odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza", the RR of Anaferon for children was 1.2 [95% CI 1.2; 1.3] with an OR of 2.2 [95% CI 1.7; 2.9], while for Anaferon, the RR was 6.7 [95% CI 3.8; 11.8] with an OR of 20.1 [95% CI 9.2; 44.0]. At the same time, the proportion of patients without ARVI/influenza during Anaferon intake exceeded that in the absence of preventive intervention by almost 8 times, and during Anaferon for children intake — 1.3 times vs. placebo. When evaluating the therapeutic effect of Anaferon for children, it was found that the average disease duration was 1.4 times shorter than during placebo intake, and was 4.71±2.53 days (p<0,001). The average fever duration was 2.19±1.21 days vs. 3.22±1.81 days during placebo intake (p<0,001). According to the criterion "disease duration", the weighted average effect value was 1.05 [95% CI 0.44; 1.67], according to the criterion "fever duration" — 0.97 [95% CI 0.61; 1.33] (p<0.001, p-value of the two-tailed Z-test; random effects model). The therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children did not depend on the etiology of ARVI, the symptoms, and the presence of comorbidity (asthma). The total number of AEs is similar to those in the comparison group. Conclusion: the conducted review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the treatment and prevention of ARVI/influenza allow us to conclude the following: 1) Anaferon for children is effective and safe for the treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory infections, regardless of the pathogen and the presence of comorbidity (asthma); 2) Anaferon and Anaferon for children are effective and safe for the prevention of acute respiratory infections/influenza, including patients with concomitant bronchopulmonary pathology and frequently ill children. KEYWORDS: ARVI, influenza, prevention, treatment, meta-analysis, Anaferon, Anaferon for children. FOR CITATION: Geppe N.A., Zaplatnikov A.L., Kondyurina E.G. et al. Efficacy and safety of Anaferon for children and Anaferon for the prevention and treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory viral infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2021;5(5):335–347 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2021-5-5-335-347.

Association of breastfeeding status with risk of autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review, dose-response analysis and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 101916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherief Ghozy ◽  
Linh Tran ◽  
Sadiq Naveed ◽  
Tran Thuy Huong Quynh ◽  
Ahmad Helmy Zayan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Response Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document