scholarly journals Global epidemiology of acute generalised peritonitis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034326
Author(s):  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Ndip Valirie Agbor ◽  
Tianyi Tianyi Frank Leonel ◽  
Aime Mbonda ◽  
Desmond Aji Abang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Global Epidemiology ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionGlobally, acute generalised peritonitis (AGP) is a common medical and surgical emergency which is a major contributor to non-trauma deaths despite improvements in diagnosis and surgical and intensive care management. In order to determine the global burden of AGP, geared at tailoring key interventions to curb its morbidity and mortality, we proposed this first ever systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the contemporary prevalence, and to determine the most frequent AGP and the case fatality rate of AGP, at the global scene.Methods and analysisWe intend to searchAfricanJournalsOnline, Americana em Ciências da Saúde, Citation index, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Literatura Latino Africa Index Medicus, Medline and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2019 to identify studies that reported the prevalence, types of AGP, and case fatality rate of AGP in the global population without any language restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently at each level by a pair of independent investigators. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. The presence of heterogeneity will be evaluated using the χ² test on Cochrane’s Q statistic and quantified with the I² statistics. Publication bias will be evaluated statistically and visually using the Egger’s test and funnel plots, respectively. Findings will be reported and compared by countries, WHO regions and globally.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on published data, it does will not require an ethical approval. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. They will also be presented at scientific conferences and to relevant public health actors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019143331.

scholarly journals Global epidemiology of septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032289
Author(s):  
Frank Leonel Tianyi ◽  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Aime Mbonda ◽  
Mazou N Temgoua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Global Epidemiology

BackgroundSeptic shock is a life-threatening infection frequently responsible for hospital admissions or may be acquired as nosocomial infection in hospitalized patients with resultant significant morbidity and mortality . There is a dearth of data on a résumé and meta-analysis on the global epidemiology of this potentially deadly condition. Therefore, we propose the first systematic review to synthesize existing data on the global incidence, prevalence and case fatality rate of septic shock worldwide.MethodsWe will include cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies reporting on the incidence, and case fatality rate of septic shock. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, WHO Global Health Library and Web of Science will be searched for relevant records published between 1 January 2000 and 31 August 2019. Independents reviewers will perform study selection and data extraction, as well as assessment of methodological quality of included studies. Appropriate meta-analysis will then be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogenous. Egger’s test and funnel plots will be used to detect publication bias. Findings will be reported and compared by human development level of countries.Ethics and disseminationBeing a review, ethical approval is not required as it was obtained in the primary study which will make up the review. This review is expected to provide relevant data to help in evaluating the burden of septic shock in the general population. The overall findings of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019129783.

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19–Infected Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Han Han ◽  
Tianhui He ◽  
Kristen E Labbe ◽  
Adrian V Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Previous studies have indicated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer have a high fatality rate. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported fatalities in COVID-19 patients with cancer. A comprehensive meta-analysis that assessed the overall case fatality rate and associated risk factors was performed. Using individual patient data, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for each variable with outcomes. Results We included 15 studies with 3019 patients, of which 1628 were men; 41.0% were from the United Kingdom and Europe, followed by the United States and Canada (35.7%), and Asia (China, 23.3%). The overall case fatality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancer measured 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.3% to 28.0%). Univariate analysis revealed age (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 1.80 to 7.06), male sex (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.13), and comorbidity (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.04 to 3.85) were associated with increased risk of severe events (defined as the individuals being admitted to the intensive care unit, or requiring invasive ventilation, or death). In multivariable analysis, only age greater than 65 years (OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 1.45 to 6.88) and being male (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.87) were associated with increased risk of severe events. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 patients with cancer have a higher fatality rate compared with that of COVID-19 patients without cancer. Age and sex appear to be risk factors associated with a poorer prognosis.

scholarly journals Bacterial pathogens and resistance causing community acquired paediatric bloodstream infections in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Droz ◽  
Yingfen Hsia ◽  
Sally Ellis ◽  
Angela Dramowski ◽  
Mike Sharland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Culture ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Bacterial Pathogens ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries

Abstract Background Despite a high mortality rate in childhood, there is limited evidence on the causes and outcomes of paediatric bloodstream infections from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize the bacterial causes of paediatric bloodstream infections in LMICs and their resistance profile. Methods We searched Pubmed and Embase databases between January 1st 1990 and October 30th 2019, combining MeSH and free-text terms for “sepsis” and “low-middle-income countries” in children. Two reviewers screened articles and performed data extraction to identify studies investigating children (1 month-18 years), with at least one blood culture. The main outcomes of interests were the rate of positive blood cultures, the distribution of bacterial pathogens, the resistance patterns and the case-fatality rate. The proportions obtained from each study were pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and a random-effect meta-analysis model was used. Results We identified 2403 eligible studies, 17 were included in the final review including 52,915 children (11 in Africa and 6 in Asia). The overall percentage of positive blood culture was 19.1% [95% CI: 12.0–27.5%]; 15.5% [8.4–24.4%] in Africa and 28.0% [13.2–45.8%] in Asia. A total of 4836 bacterial isolates were included in the studies; 2974 were Gram-negative (63.9% [52.2–74.9]) and 1858 were Gram-positive (35.8% [24.9–47.5]). In Asia, Salmonella typhi (26.2%) was the most commonly isolated pathogen, followed by Staphylococcus aureus (7.7%) whereas in Africa, S. aureus (17.8%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (16.8%) were predominant followed by Escherichia coli (10.7%). S. aureus was more likely resistant to methicillin in Africa (29.5% vs. 7.9%), whereas E. coli was more frequently resistant to third-generation cephalosporins (31.2% vs. 21.2%), amikacin (29.6% vs. 0%) and ciprofloxacin (36.7% vs. 0%) in Asia. The overall estimate for case-fatality rate among 8 studies was 12.7% [6.6–20.2%]. Underlying conditions, such as malnutrition or HIV infection were assessed as a factor associated with bacteraemia in 4 studies each. Conclusions We observed a marked variation in pathogen distribution and their resistance profiles between Asia and Africa. Very limited data is available on underlying risk factors for bacteraemia, patterns of treatment of multidrug-resistant infections and predictors of adverse outcomes.

scholarly journals Case fatality rate in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanaka Kahathuduwa ◽  
Chathurika Dhanasekara ◽  
Shao-Hua Chin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Meta Regression

AbstractBackgroundEstimating the prevalence of severe or critical illness and case fatality of COVID-19 outbreak in December, 2019 remains a challenge due to biases associated with surveillance, data synthesis and reporting. We aimed to address this limitation in a systematic review and meta-analysis and to examine the clinical, biochemical and radiological risk factors in a meta-regression.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using pre-specified keywords on March 07, 2020. Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were examined. Numerators and denominators to compute the prevalence rates and risk factors were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results were corrected for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined the moderator effects of potential risk factors.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 29 studies representing 2,090 individuals. Pooled rates of severe illness, critical illness and case fatality among COVID-19 patients were 15%, 5% and 0.8% respectively. Adjusting for potential underreporting and publication bias, increased these estimates to 26%, 16% and 7.4% respectively. Increasing age and elevated LDH consistently predicted severe / critical disease and case fatality. Hypertension; fever and dyspnea at presentation; and elevated CRP predicted increased severity.ConclusionsRisk factors that emerged in our analyses predicting severity and case fatality should inform clinicians to define endophenotypes possessing a greater risk. Estimated case fatality rate of 7.4% after correcting for publication bias underscores the importance of strict adherence to preventive measures, case detection, surveillance and reporting.

scholarly journals Radiology artificial intelligence, a systematic evaluation of methods (RAISE): a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Kelly ◽  
Conor Judge ◽  
Stephanie M. Bollard ◽  
Simon M. Clifford ◽  
Gerard M. Healy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Introduction There has been a recent explosion of research into the field of artificial intelligence as applied to clinical radiology with the advent of highly accurate computer vision technology. These studies, however, vary significantly in design and quality. While recent guidelines have been established to advise on ethics, data management and the potential directions of future research, systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking. We aim to investigate the use of artificial intelligence as applied to radiology, to identify the clinical questions being asked, which methodological approaches are applied to these questions and trends in use over time. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (Pubmed), and EMBASE, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will take a task-centred approach rather than focusing on modality or clinical subspecialty. Sub-group analysis will be performed by segmentation tasks, identification tasks, classification tasks, pegression/prediction tasks as well as a sub-analysis for paediatric patients. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required for this study, as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020154790

scholarly journals Barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among people of Indian origin living globally: a systematic review and integrative synthesis—protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Indian Origin ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.

scholarly journals Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038994
Author(s):  
Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek ◽  
Joni Jackson ◽  
Sarah Dawson ◽  
Hazel Everitt ◽  
Peter Gillett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coeliac Disease ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionCoeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients’ quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity.Ethics and disseminationResults will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170766.

scholarly journals Technology-assisted depression screening tools for patients with cancer: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e041878
Author(s):  
Maria Isabel Lazaro-Escudero ◽  
Camila Alanna Burgos-Cardona ◽  
Karina Acevedo-Fernández ◽  
Eida Maria Castro-Figueroa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionAmong patients with cancer, depression is still under-detected. The use of technology-assisted screening tools is rising; however, little is known about the uptake of these devices as depression screening tools among patients with cancer.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The review is registered with PROSPERO and any adjustments to the protocol will be traced. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the most common and feasible depression screening information technology (IT) delivery models among patients with cancer, (2) identify the most common depression screening instrument used in IT devices and (3) describe the published technology-assisted depression screening tools for patients with cancer. PubMed, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar databases will be used. PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) guidelines will inform the inclusion criteria. Two researchers will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article review and data extraction. In the case of a disagreement, a third reviewer will make the final decision. Title/abstract screening will be conducted using a screening tool prepared by the researchers. Articles will be included for review if: (1) the study includes patients with cancer, cancer survivors and/or patients on remission, (2) depression is screened using technology and (3) technology-assisted depression screening effectiveness, efficacy, feasibility and/or acceptance is addressed. The quality of the articles will be assessed using the Methodological Index For Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS, maximum score 24) through independent coding of reviewers.Ethics and disseminationThis research is exempt from ethics approval given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which uses published data. Findings from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019121048.

scholarly journals Neuroimaging of headaches in patients with normal neurological examination: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernold Kenteu ◽  
Yannick F Fogang ◽  
Ulrich Flore Nyaga ◽  
Joseline G Zafack ◽  
Jean Jacques Noubiap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neurological Examination ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Standard Data ◽  
Ethical Approval

IntroductionHeadache disorders (HD) are among the most frequent neurological disorders seen in neurology practice. Because secondary HD are rare, patients’ examination is most often unremarkable. However, the will to relieve patients’ anxiety and the fear of prosecutions lead to overuse of neuroimaging thus resulting in the discovery of incidental findings (IF) or normal variants that can lead to futile or harmful procedures. Knowing the probability of identifying a potentially clinically significant lesion in patients with isolated headache could facilitate decision-making and reduce health costs. This review aims to determine the prevalence of incidental findings and normal anatomic variants (NAV) on neuroimaging studies performed in patients presenting with headache and normal neurological examination.Method and analysisStudies reporting neuroimaging findings in patients with headache and normal neurological examination and published before the 30 September 2017 will be identified by searching PubMed, Medline and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database). Relevant unpublished papers and conference proceedings will also be checked. Full texts of eligible studies will then be accessed and data extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. Studies will be assessed for quality and risk of bias. Heterogeneity of studies will be evaluated by the χ2test on Cochrane’s Q statistic. The prevalence of NAV and IF across studies and in relevant subgroups will be estimated by pooling the study-specific estimates using a random-effects meta-analysis. Visual analysis of funnel plot and Egger’s test will be used to detect publication bias. The report of this systematic review will be compliant with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe current study is based on published data; ethical approval is, therefore, not required. The final report of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, findings will be presented at conferences and submitted to relevant health authorities.Trial registration numberCRD42017079714.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document