Prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium by anatomical site in men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (8) ◽  
pp. 563-570
Author(s):  
Rosie L Latimer ◽  
Hannah S Shilling ◽  
Lenka A Vodstrcil ◽  
Dorothy A Machalek ◽  
Christopher K Fairley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mycoplasma Genitalium ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Hiv Positive ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Sex With Men

ObjectiveTo systematically review and appraise published data, to determine the prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) in men who have sex with men (MSM) tested at each anatomical site, that is, at the urethra, rectum and/or pharynx.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesOvid Medline, PubMed, Embase were searched for articles from 1st January 1981 (the year MG was first identified) to 1st June 2018.Review methodsStudies were eligible for inclusion if they reported MG prevalence in MSM tested at the urethra, rectum and/or pharynx, in at least 50 MSM, using nucleic acid amplification testing. Data were extracted by anatomical site, symptom and HIV status. Summary estimates (95% CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess heterogeneity between studies.ResultsForty-six studies met inclusion criteria, with 34 reporting estimates of MG prevalence at the urethra (13 753 samples), 25 at the rectum (8629 samples) and 7 at the pharynx (1871 samples). MG prevalence was 5.0% (95% CI 3.5 to 6.8; I2=94.0) at the urethra; 6.2% (95% CI 4.6 to 8.1; I2=88.1) at the rectum and 1.0% (95% CI 0.0 to 5.1; I2=96.0) at the pharynx. The prevalence of MG was significantly higher at urethral and rectal sites in symptomatic versus asymptomatic MSM (7.1% vs 2.2%, p<0.001; and 16.1% vs 7.5%, p=0.039, respectively). MG prevalence at the urethra was significantly higher in HIV-positive compared with HIV-negative MSM (7.0% vs 3.4%, p=0.006).ConclusionMG was common in MSM, particularly at urethral and rectal sites (5% to 6%). MG was more commonly detected in symptomatic men at both sites, and more common in HIV-positive men at the urethra. MG was uncommonly detected in the pharynx. Site-specific estimates are similar to those for chlamydia and will be helpful in informing testing practices in MSM.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058326.

scholarly journals Prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium in different population groups: systematic review andmeta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Baumann ◽  
Manuel Cina ◽  
Dianne Egli-Gany ◽  
Myrofora Goutaki ◽  
Florian S Halbeisen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Sex Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mycoplasma Genitalium ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Sex With Men

BackgroundMycoplasma genitalium is a common cause of non-gonococcal non-chlamydial urethritis and cervicitis. Testing of asymptomatic populations has been proposed, but prevalence in asymptomatic populations is not well established. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of M. genitalium in the general population, pregnant women, men who have sex with men (MSM), commercial sex workers (CSWs) and clinic-based samples,MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, IndMED, African Index Medicus and LILACS from 1 January 1991 to 12 July 2016 without language restrictions. We included studies with 500 participants or more. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies and extracted data. We examined forest plots and conducted random-effects meta-analysis to estimate prevalence, if appropriate. Between-study heterogeneity was examined using the I2 statistic and meta-regression.ResultsOf 3316 screened records, 63 were included. In randomly selected samples from the general population, the summary prevalence was 1.3% (95% CI 1.0% to 1.8%, I2 41.5%, three studies, 9091 people) in countries with higher levels of development and 3.9% (95% CI 2.2 to 6.7, I2 89.2%, three studies, 3809 people) in countries with lower levels. Prevalence was similar in women and men (P=0.47). In clinic based samples, prevalence estimates were higher, except in asymptomatic patients (0.8%, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4, I2 0.0%, three studies, 2889 people). Summary prevalence estimates were, in the following groups: pregnant women 0.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.4%, I2 0%, four studies, 3472 people), MSM in the community 3.2% (95% CI 2.1 to 5.1, I2 78.3%, five studies, 3012 people) and female CSWs in the community 15.9% (95% CI 13.5 to 18.9, I2 79.9%, four studies, 4006 people).DiscussionThis systematic review can inform testing guidelines for M. genitalium. The low estimated prevalence of M. genitalium in the general population, pregnant women and asymptomatic attenders at clinics does not support expansion of testing to these groups.Registration numbersPROSPERO: CRD42015020420

scholarly journals Prevalence ofMycoplasma genitaliumin different population groups: systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Baumann ◽  
Manuel Cina ◽  
Dianne Egli-Gany ◽  
Myrofora Goutaki ◽  
Florian Halbeisen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Sex Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mycoplasma Genitalium ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Sex With Men

AbstractBackgroundMycoplasma genitaliumis a common cause of non-gonococcal non-chlamydial urethritis and cervicitis. Testing of asymptomatic populations has been proposed, but prevalence rates in asymptomatic populations are not well established. We aimed to estimate the prevalence ofM. genitaliumin adults in the general population, in clinic-based samples, pregnant women, men who have sex with men (MSM) and female sex workers (FSW).MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, IndMED, AIM and LILACS from 1 January 1991 to 12 July 2016 without language restrictions. We included studies with 500 participants or more. We screened and selected studies and extracted data in duplicate. We examined eligible studies in forest plots and conducted random effects meta-analysis to estimate prevalence, if appropriate. Between study heterogeneity was examined using the I2statistic and meta-regression.ResultsOf 3,316 screened records, 63 were included. In randomly selected samples from the general population, the summary prevalence estimate was 1.3% (95% confidence intervals, CI 1.0 to 1.8%, I241.5%, 3 studies) in countries with higher levels of development and 3.9% (95% CI 2.2 to 6.7, I289.2%, 3 studies) in countries with lower levels. Prevalence estimates were similar in women and men (p=0.47). In clinic-based samples prevalence estimates were higher, except in asymptomatic patients (0.8%, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4, I20.0%, 3 studies). Summary prevalence estimates were: pregnant women 0.9% (95% CI 0.6 to 1.4%, I20%, 4 studies); MSM in the community 3.2% (95% CI 2.1 to 5.1, I278.3%, 5 studies); FSW in the community 15.9% (95% CI 13.5 to 18.9, I2=79.9%, 4 studies).DiscussionThis systematic review can inform testing guidelines forM. genitaliuminfection. The low estimated prevalence ofM. genitaliumin the general population, pregnant women and asymptomatic attenders at clinics does not support expansion of testing to asymptomatic people in these groups.Registration NumbersPROSPERO: CRD42015020420

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 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 Effectiveness, Uses and Safety of Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor biosimilars: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi-kadibia Theophilus Ukoma ◽  
Emmanuel Okechukwu Nna ◽  
Helen Chioma Okoye ◽  
Augustine Nwakuche Duru ◽  
Samuel Osobuchi Ngene ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Neutropenia ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Background Granulocyte Colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) biosimilars are recombinant biologics that are similar to a reference product, neupogen, a 175 amino acid recombinant human G-CSF. Characteristically, biosimilars are produced from living cells as high molecular weight, heterogenous compounds that are highly immunogenic. They are primarily used to treat febrile and severe neutropenia in oncology patients as well as mobilize peripheral stem cells in transplant donors. However, as biosimilars are produced by biological processes rather than chemical synthesis, their comparable effectiveness and safety are very paramount to clinical uses. We aimed to produce a protocol for consistent and accurate systematic review and meta-analysis of G-CSF biosimilars.Methods We developed a search strategy using MeSH terms, key words and entry terms to search 9 databases: PubMed, AJOL, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science and ResearchGate. Only randomized controlled trials retreivable in the English language will be included in this study. The primary measurable outcomes in this study are uses, effectiveness and safety of G-CSF biosimilars. Identified primary studies will be screened, deduplicated and selected based on study design, inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcome measures using DistillerSR software. Studies will be assessed for methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Extractable data items for effectiveness measure are: i) proportion of patients with 50% increase in absolute neutrophil count within 3–7 days; ii) resolution of fever within 3–7 days, iii) resolution of intra-oral mucosa ulcers within 7–10 days and iv) resoluton of difficulty in swallowing within 7–10 days. Measures of safety are i) proportion of patients with immunologic reactions, ii) any other documented adverse events. Quality scores and risk of bias for individual studies will be reported. Funnel Plots will be used for assessing publication bias in selected studies. Effect size, variance, SE and % CI and heterogeneity tests will be reported on forest plots using the CMA software version 3. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression will also be included using secondary outcomes as moderators and explanatory variables. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported according to PRISMA 2015 Statement.Discussion Ethical approval will not be required since this study will be based on published data. G-CSF biosimilars will be compared with the reference product, neupogen (filgrastin). The uses, effectiveness and safety of the biosimilars will be discussed. The study will also examine short and long acting biosimilars and compare their overall effectiveness. The strength of evidence from this study will be assessed using the NIH Quality assessment for systematic review and meta-analysis.Trial Registration Number The study is registered with PROSPERO, with registration number CRD42021232375

scholarly journals P525 Prevalence ofMycoplasma genitaliumby anatomical site in men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosie Latimer ◽  
Hannah Shilling ◽  
Lenka Vodstrcil ◽  
Dorothy Machalek ◽  
Christopher Fairley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Sex With Men

scholarly journals Correlations of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among pharyngeal, rectal and urethral sites among Thai men who have sex with men: multicentre community-led test and treat cohort in Thailand

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akarin Hiransuthikul ◽  
Thanthip Sungsing ◽  
Jureeporn Jantarapakde ◽  
Deondara Trachunthong ◽  
Stephen Mills ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Pharyngeal Swab ◽  
Test And Treat ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveRoutine screening forChlamydia trachomatis(CT) andNeisseria gonorrhoeae(NG) infections in sexually exposed anatomical sites may be challenging in resource-limited settings. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of missed CT/NG diagnoses if a single anatomical site screening was performed among men who have sex with men (MSM) by examining the pattern of anatomical sites of CT/NG infections.MethodsThai MSM were enrolled to the community-led test and treat cohort. Screening for CT/NG infections was performed from pharyngeal swab, rectal swab and urine using nucleic acid amplification testing. The correlations of CT/NG among the three anatomical sites were analysed.ResultsAmong 1610 MSM included in the analysis, 21.7% had CT and 15.5% had NG infection at any anatomical site. Among those tested negative for CT or NG infection at either pharyngeal, rectal or urethral site, 8%–19% had CT infection and 7%–12% had NG infection at the remaining two sites. Of the total 349 CT infections, 85.9%, 30.6% and 67.8% would have been missed if only pharyngeal, rectal or urethral screening was performed, respectively. Of the total 249 NG infection, 55.7%, 39.6% and 77.4% would have been missed if only pharyngeal, rectal or urethral screening was performed, respectively. The majority of each anatomical site of CT/NG infection was isolated to their respective site, with rectal site having the highest proportion of isolation: 78.9% of rectal CT and 62.7% of rectal NG infection.ConclusionsA high proportion of CT/NG infections would be missed if single anatomical site screening was performed among MSM. All-site screening is highly recommended, but if not feasible, rectal screening provides the highest yield of CT/NG diagnoses. Effort in lowering the cost of the CT/NG screening test or developing affordable molecular technologies for CT/NG detection is needed for MSM in resource-limited settings.Trial Registration NumberNCT03580512; Results.

scholarly journals Prior surgical uterine evacuation of pregnancy and infertility: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e034837
Author(s):  
Pengcheng Tu ◽  
Kaiyan Pei
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Inverse Variance ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Classification Tool ◽  
Dissemination Of Results

IntroductionPrior surgical uterine evacuation is associated with an increased risk of infertility. However, findings are inconsistent, highlighting the need for a clear consensus on the effect of prior surgical uterine evacuation on the risk of infertility. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarise the available evidence examining the association between prior surgical uterine evacuation and the risk of infertility.Methods and analysisA systematic search of electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and ScienceDirect) will be conducted since their inception until October 2019 with no limit for language using a detailed prespecified search strategy. Both the authors will independently screen titles and abstracts and select full-text articles, perform data extraction and appraise the quality of included studies using a bias classification tool. Meta-analyses will be performed to calculate the overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this is a protocol based on published data, there is no requirement for ethics approval. It is anticipated that the dissemination of results will be reported according to the PRISMA statement. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019117266.

scholarly journals Outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa: systematic review study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040921
Author(s):  
Ezekiel Musa ◽  
Tawanda Chivese ◽  
Mahmoud Werfalli ◽  
Mushi Matjila ◽  
Shane A Norris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Metabolic Complication ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
In Pregnancy

IntroductionThe prevalence of diabetes mellitus globally has increased considerably over the past decades with a resultant increase in the incidence of diabetes-complicated pregnancies. Hyperglycaemia in pregnancy is the most common metabolic complication encountered during pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. This systematic review aims to examine maternal, fetal, neonatal, childhood and long-term maternal outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa.Methods and analysisA systematic review of all studies that investigated hyperglycaemia in pregnancy outcomes, carried out in Africa from 1998 to 2019. A comprehensive search of all published articles indexed in PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase and Web of Science databases will be performed. Studies will be screened for eligibility by title, abstract and full text in duplicate by two independent reviewers. For data where meta-analysis is not possible, narrative analysis will be carried out using themes from data. For data where meta-analysis is possible, random effects meta-analysis will be conducted. This systematic review will be reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study considering this is a systematic review protocol that uses only published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184573.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document