Impact of point-of-care diagnostics on maternal outcomes in HIV-infected women: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Mobile health devices are emerging applications that could help deliver point-of-care (POC) diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited laboratory infrastructure, such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The advent of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in an increased deployment and use of mHealth-linked POC diagnostics in SSA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in SSA. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We exhaustively searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and CINAHL with full text via EBSCOhost databases, from mHealth inception to March 2021. The statistical analyses were conducted using OpenMeta-Analyst software. All 11 included studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The included studies focused on malaria infections, Schistosoma haematobium, Schistosoma mansoni, soil-transmitted helminths, and Trichuris trichiura. The pooled summary of sensitivity and specificity estimates were moderate compared to those of the reference representing the gold standard. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of mobile-linked POC diagnostic devices were as follows: 0.499 (95% CI: 0.458–0.541), 0.535 (95% CI: 0.401–0.663), 0.952 (95% CI: 0.60–1.324), 1.381 (95% CI: 0.391–4.879), and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.579–1.538), respectively. Evidence shows that the diagnostic accuracy of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in detecting infections in SSA is presently moderate. Future research is recommended to evaluate mHealth devices’ diagnostic potential using devices with excellent sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing diseases in this setting.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Mobile-linked Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Sub-Saharan Africa

10.20944/preprints202104.0373.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ernest Osei ◽

Sphamandla Josias Nkambule ◽

Portia Nelisiwe Vezi ◽

Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Likelihood Ratio ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽

Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

Point Of Care Diagnostics ◽

Sub Saharan

Mobile health devices are emerging applications that could help deliver point-of-care (POC) diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited laboratory infrastructure, such as sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The advent of coronavirus has resulted in an increased deployment and use of mHealth-linked POC diagnostics in SSA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in SSA. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). We exhaustively searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and CINAHL with full-text via EBSCOhost databases from mHealth inception to March 2021. The statistical analyses were conducted using OpenMeta-Analyst software. All 11 included studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The included studies focused on malaria infections, Schistosoma haematobium, Schistosoma mansoni, soil-transmitted helminths, and trichuris trichiura. The pooled summary of sensitivity and specificity estimates were moderate compared to the gold reference standard. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of mobile-linked POC diagnostic devices were as follows: 0.499 (95% CI: 0.458-0.541); 0.535 (95% CI: 0.401-0.663); 0.952 (95% CI: 0.60-1.324); 1.381 (95% CI: 0.391-4.879); and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.579-1.538), respectively. Evidence shows that mobile-linked POC diagnostics' diagnostic accuracy is presently moderate in detecting infections in sub-Saharan Africa. Future research is recommended to evaluate mHealth devices' diagnostics with excellent sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing diseases in this setting.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10040666 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 666

Author(s):

Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani ◽

Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz ◽

Razieh Bidhendi Yarandi ◽

Samira Behboudi-Gandevani

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Gestational Diabetes ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Diagnostic Criteria ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Population Based ◽

Maternal Outcomes ◽

Care Providers ◽

Iadpsg Criteria ◽

The Impact

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different gestational-diabetes (GDM) diagnostic-criteria on the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes. The search process encompassed PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases to retrieve original, population-based studies with the universal GDM screening approach, published in English language and with a focus on adverse-maternal-outcomes up to January 2020. According to GDM diagnostic criteria, the studies were classified into seven groups. A total of 49 population-based studies consisting of 1409018 pregnant women with GDM and 7,667,546 non-GDM counterparts were selected for data analysis and knowledge synthesis. Accordingly, the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes including primary-cesarean, induction of labor, maternal-hemorrhage, and pregnancy-related-hypertension, overall, regardless of GDM diagnostic-criteria and in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups were significantly higher than non-GDM counterparts. However, in meta-regression, the increased risk was not influenced by the GDM diagnostic-classification and the magnitude of the risks among patients, using the IADPSG criteria-classification as the most strict-criteria, was similar to other criteria. In conclusion, a reduction in the diagnostic-threshold increased the prevalence of GDM, but the risk of adverse-maternal-outcome was not different among those women who were diagnosed through more or less intensive strategies. Our review findings can empower health-care-providers to select the most cost-effective approach for the screening of GDM among pregnant women.

Download Full-text

Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽

10.3390/diagnostics11020363 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 363

Author(s):

Vânia M. Moreira ◽

Paulo Mascarenhas ◽

Vanessa Machado ◽

João Botelho ◽

José João Mendes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

High Sensitivity ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Sample Collection ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Oropharyngeal Swab ◽

Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

Download Full-text

Biomechanical differences at the hemiparetic knee in people with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Physical Therapy Reviews ◽

10.1080/10833196.2021.1880037 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

Clifford Waller ◽

Bahram Sangelaji ◽

Peter Lamb ◽

Suzanne Kuys ◽

Stephanie J. Woodley

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Analysis Protocol

Download Full-text

A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01624-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽

Wai Tak Victor Li ◽

Wing-Zi Shum ◽

Sheung Chit Chu ◽

Hang-Long Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Data ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Olfactory Dysfunction ◽

Statistical Analyses ◽

Human Populations ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Download Full-text