Does Surgical Crown Lengthening Procedure Produce Stable Clinical Outcomes for Restorative Treatment? A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. e103-e109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeyad H. Al-Sowygh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Restorative Treatment ◽  
Crown Lengthening

Effects of nutritional support on the clinical outcomes of well-nourished patients with cancer: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 1389-1400
Author(s):  
Xingxia Zhang ◽  
Xinrong Chen ◽  
Jie Yang ◽  
Yanjie Hu ◽  
Ka Li
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Nutritional Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patients With Cancer

scholarly journals Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

scholarly journals The Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Spine Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Wei-Ting Wu ◽  
Tsung-Min Lee ◽  
Der-Sheng Han ◽  
Ke-Vin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Degenerative Spine ◽  
Degenerative Spine Disease ◽  
Spine Disease

The association of sarcopenia with poor clinical outcomes has been identified in various medical conditions, although there is a lack of quantitative analysis to validate the influence of sarcopenia on patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease (LDSD) from the available literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LDSD and examine its impact on clinical outcomes. The electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were systematically searched from inception through December 2020 for clinical studies investigating the association of sarcopenia with clinical outcomes in patients with LDSD. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out for data synthesis. This meta-analysis included 14 studies, comprising 1953 participants. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia among patients with LDSD was 24.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3%–34.3%). The relative risk of sarcopenia was not significantly increased in patients with LDSD compared with controls (risk ratio, 1.605; 95% CI, 0.321–8.022). The patients with sarcopenia did not experience an increase in low back and leg pain. However, lower quality of life (SMD, −0.627; 95% CI, −0.844–−0.410) were identified postoperatively. Sarcopenia did not lead to an elevated rate of complications after lumbar surgeries. Sarcopenia accounts for approximately one-quarter of the population with LDSD. The clinical manifestations are less influenced by sarcopenia, whereas sarcopenia is associated with poorer quality of life after lumbar surgeries. The current evidence is still insufficient to support sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications.

scholarly journals Statin use and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139172
Author(s):  
Rimesh Pal ◽  
Mainak Banerjee ◽  
Urmila Yadav ◽  
Sukrita Bhattacharjee
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Fixed Effects Model ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Risk Estimates ◽  
Statin Use

PurposeObservations studies have shown that prior use of statins is associated with a reduced risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the available data are limited, inconsistent and conflicting. Besides, no randomised controlled trial exists in this regard. Hence, the present meta-analysis was conducted to provide an updated summary and collate the effect of statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 using unadjusted and adjusted risk estimates.MethodsPubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using appropriate keywords till December 18 2020, to identify observational studies reporting clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients using statins versus those not using statins. Prior and in-hospital use of statins were considered. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs were calculated.ResultsWe included 14 observational studies pooling data retrieved from 19 988 patients with COVID-19. All the studies were of high/moderate quality. Pooled analysis of unadjusted data showed that statin use was not associated with improved clinical outcomes (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.50, p=0.94, I2=94%, random-effects model). However, on pooling adjusted risk estimates, the use of statin was found to significantly reduce the risk of adverse outcomes (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.63, p<0.0005, I2=0%, fixed-effects model).ConclusionsStatin use is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Individuals with multiple comorbidities on statin therapy should be encouraged to continue the drug amid the ongoing pandemic.

Clinical Outcomes Deriving from Transfer of Blastocysts Developed in Day 7: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Frozen-Thawed IVF Cycles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Corti ◽  
Greta Chiara Cermisoni ◽  
Alessandra Alteri ◽  
Luca Pagliardini ◽  
Guido Ambrosini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document