scholarly journals Improved Dysphagia Outcomes in Anchored Spacers Versus Plate-Screw Systems in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1057-1065
Author(s):  
Mostafa A. Gabr ◽  
Elisabeth Touko ◽  
Amol P. Yadav ◽  
Isaac Karikari ◽  
C. Rory Goodwin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dysphagia Outcomes

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes between stand-alone anchored spacers and traditional cages with plate fixation for dysphagia and pseudoarthrosis using data from clinical trials. Methods: Our search protocol was added to PROSPERO register and systematic review using PRISMA method was performed. Then, we systematically searched for studies addressing stand-alone anchored spacers in patients who underwent ACDF. Mean Neck Disability Index (NDI), dysphagia incidence % (Dinc%), and Swallowing–Quality of Life (SQOL) scores during preoperative, immediate postoperative and last follow-up visits were extracted. Chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used for statistical comparisons ( P ≤ .05). Results: The initial search generated 506 articles in CENTRAL and 40 articles in MEDLINE. Finally, 14 articles were included. Total number of patients was 1173 (583 anchored stand-alone and 590 plate). Dinc% scores were statistically significantly lower in the stand-alone anchored spacer compared to the plate-screw construct ( P ≤ .05). ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in the comparisons of SQOL. On the other hand, NDI scores were statistically significantly lower in baseline of stand-alone anchored spacer and the plate-screw construct compared with both immediate postoperative and last follow-up visits ( P ≤ .05). Conclusions: Our study results revealed that the stand-alone anchored spacers were associated with less dysphagia in the immediate and last follow-up.

Abstract 13315: Long-term Risk of Cardiovascular Events Following Hospitalization for Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah B Kosyakovsky ◽  
Federico Angriman ◽  
Emma Katz ◽  
Neill Adhikari ◽  
Lucas C Godoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sepsis Survivors ◽  
Risk Ratios

Introduction: Sepsis results in dysregulated inflammation, coagulation, and metabolism, which may contribute to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between sepsis and subsequent long-term CVD events. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to May 2020 to identify observational studies of adult sepsis survivors (defined by diagnostic codes or consensus definitions) measuring long-term CV outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, CV death, and stroke. Random-effects models estimated the pooled cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios of CV events relative to hospital or population controls. Odds ratios were included as risk ratios assuming <10% incidence in non-septic controls, and risk ratios were taken as hazard ratios (HR) assuming no censoring. Outcomes were analyzed at maximum follow-up (primary analysis) and stratified by time (<1 year, 1-2 years, and >2 years) since sepsis. Results: Of 11,235 abstracts screened, 25 studies (22 cohort studies, 2 case-crossover studies, and 1 case-control) involving 1,949,793 sepsis survivors were included. The pooled cumulative incidence of CVD events was 9% (95% CI; 5-14%). Sepsis was associated with an increased risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.86) of CVD events at maximum follow-up ( Figure ); between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 =97.3%). There was no significant difference when comparing studies using population and hospital controls. Significantly elevated risk was observed up to 5 years following sepsis. Conclusions: Sepsis survivors experience an approximately 50% increased risk of CVD events, which may persist for years following the index episode. These results highlight a potential unmet need for early cardiac risk stratification and optimization in sepsis survivors.

scholarly journals THE EFFICACY OF THE DIFFERENT ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENTS VERSUS SHAM, PHARMACOLOGIC OR SURGICAL METHODS FOR CHRONIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Andrés CORONEL ◽  
Wanderley Marques BERNARDO ◽  
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de MOURA ◽  
Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de MOURA ◽  
Igor Braga RIBEIRO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Objective Outcomes

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

Significantly lower annual rates of neoplastic progression in short- compared to long-segment non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (07) ◽  
pp. 665-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar ◽  
Nour Hamade ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Tarun Rai ◽  
Venkata Subhash Gorrepati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Barrett’S Esophagus ◽  
Barrett's Esophagus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Neoplastic Progression ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Surveillance Endoscopy

Abstract Background Although shorter lengths of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) have been associated with a lower risk of neoplastic progression, precise estimates have varied, especially for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) only. Therefore, current US guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on surveillance intervals based on BE length. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to examine neoplastic progression rates of NDBE based on BE length. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase were comprehensively searched. Studies reporting progression rates in patients with NDBE and > 1 year of follow-up were included. The number of patients progressing to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC in individual studies and the mean follow-up were recorded to derive person-years of follow-up. Pooled rates of progression to EAC and HGD/EAC based on BE length (< 3 cm vs. ≥ 3 cm) were calculated. Results Of the 486 initial studies identified, 10 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These included a total of 4097 NDBE patients; 1979 with short-segment BE (SSBE; 10 773 person-years of follow-up) and 2118 with long-segment BE (LSBE; 12 868 person-years). The annual rates of progression to EAC were significantly lower for SSBE compared with LSBE: 0.06 % (95 % confidence interval 0.01 % – 0.10 %) vs. 0.31 % (0.21 % – 0.40 %), respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0.25 (0.11 – 0.56); P < 0.001, as were the rates for the combined endpoint (HGD/EAC): 0.24 % (0.09 % – 0.32 %) vs. 0.76 % (0.43 % – 0.89 %), respectively; OR 0.35 (0.21 – 0.58); P < 0.001. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion The results demonstrate significantly lower rates of neoplastic progression in NDBE patients with SSBE compared with LSBE. BE length can easily be used for risk stratification purposes for NDBE patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy and consideration should be given to tailoring surveillance intervals based on BE length in future US guidelines.

Mortality After Paclitaxel-Coated Device Use in Dialysis Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 600-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystal Dinh ◽  
Alexandra M. Limmer ◽  
Sharath C. V. Paravastu ◽  
Shannon D. Thomas ◽  
Michael H. Bennett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Transluminal Angioplasty ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Dialysis Access ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Device Use

Purpose: To report the risk of all-cause mortality in patients who underwent dialysis access treatment using paclitaxel-coated devices compared with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with an uncoated balloon. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed to investigate the mortality outcomes associated with paclitaxel-coated devices in the treatment of patients with a failing dialysis access (last search date February 28, 2019). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. This analysis included 8 studies comparing paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty (n=327) and PTA (n=331) in the treatment of failing dialysis access. None investigated paclitaxel-coated stents. Mortality data were pooled using a random effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with a chi-square test and the I2 statistic. Summary statistics are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: At the pooled mean follow-up of 13.5 months (median 12, range 6–24) all-cause mortality was similar in the PCB group (13.8%) compared with PTA (11.2%; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.89, p=0.25; I2=0%). Subgroup analysis, stratified according to length of follow-up, confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences in mortality at short- and midterm follow-up [6-month (8 studies): 5.2% vs 4.8%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.47, p=0.55; 12-month (6 studies): 6.3% vs 6.0%, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.63, p=0.90; and 24-month (3 studies): 19.0% vs 13.5%, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.12, p=0.14). Conclusion: The analysis found no difference in short- to midterm mortality among patients treated with a drug-coated balloon compared with PTA. With proven benefit and no evidence of harm, the authors recommend ongoing use of PCB for the failing dialysis access.

Comparative clinical efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of early-stage colon cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 498-498
Author(s):  
J. Cassidy ◽  
H. Schmoll ◽  
E. Chu ◽  
N. Hawkins ◽  
I. Tatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Early Stage Colon Cancer

498 Background: A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early-stage colon cancer and a network meta-analysis performed to compare efficacy of oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine regimens. Methods: A systematic review identified RCTs recruiting adult patients with early-stage (adjuvant) stage II/III colon cancer. Outcome measures included hazard ratios for DFS and OS. Only publications in English were considered. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration “risk of bias” assessment tool. A single reviewer screened abstracts/titles using predefined selection criteria, with critical appraisal and data extraction conducted independently by two reviewers. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate comparative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy across RCTs. Results: 56 articles describing 40 trials were selected, of which six reported data on regimens accepted as current standard of care (capecitabine/X-ACT, XELOX/NO16968, FOLFOX/MOSAIC, FLOX/C-07) or common comparators: bolus 5FU/LV and LV5FU2 (C-96-1, PETACC-2). Statistical assessment of heterogeneity was not possible due to the limited study network. Baseline characteristics were similar across trials with the exception of three trials recruiting only stage III patients; sub-group analysis on these trials was not possible due to lack of common comparators. There was no significant difference in DFS at a median follow-up of 3-years (or closest reported analysis) for XELOX vs. FLOX (HR=0.99, 95% CI 0.80–1.22) or FOLFOX (HR=1.00, 95% CI 0.72–1.41). There was also no significant difference in OS at a median follow-up of at least 5 years. Taken as a class, oxaliplatin-containing regimens (XELOX, FOLFOX, FLOX) improved DFS vs. non-oxaliplatin-containing regimens (HR=0.80, 95% CI 0.73–0.87). This result was confirmed for OS. Conclusions: Despite the limited number of available trials, the results of these analyses demonstrate a clear benefit of incorporating oxaliplatin into combination regimens for early-stage colon cancer. XELOX, FOLFOX and FLOX appear to be equivalent in terms of efficacy in this setting. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Sitagliptin and Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Hyder Osman Mirghani ◽  
Salem Ahmed S. Shaman S. Shaman ◽  
Ibrahim Mahmoud Hussain Aljwah
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Peptidase Inhibitor ◽  
Relationship Of

Background and Objectives: Sitagliptin is a dipepidyl peptidase inhibitor (DPP-4i) with gentle antidiabetic effects with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. The association with acute pancreatitis is controversial. The current meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship of sitagliptin and acute pancreatitis. Methods: The literature in PubMed and Google Scholar was searched for relevant articles published in the last ten years up to September 2021. The keywords sitagliptins, DPP-4i, acute pancreatitis were used with the protean AND or OR. Among the 204 articles retrieved, 24 full-texts were assessed for eligibility and only five studies (Three from the USA, one from Asia, and one from Canada) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The author name, year of publication, country, type of study, number of patients, and the duration of the study were reported. Results: There were five studies. The total number of patients were 729808 with 6459 events. The studies showed no increased rate of acute pancreatitis following sitagliptin use, odd ratio, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.29-2.15, a significant heterogeneity was observer, I2 for heterogeneity=98%, P-value, <001, the P-value for overall effect was 0.65 and the chi-square, 160.15. Interpretation and Conclusion: Sitagliptin use is not associated with acute pancreatitis.

scholarly journals Association of Body Mass Index with Mortality in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed-Foad Ahmadi ◽  
Golara Zahmatkesh ◽  
Elani Streja ◽  
Rajnish Mehrotra ◽  
Connie M. Rhee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Although higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with better outcomes in hemodialysis patients, the relationship in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients is less clear. We aimed to synthesize the results from all large and high-quality studies to examine whether underweight, overweight, or obesity is associated with any significantly different risk of death in peritoneal dialysis patients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, and screened 7,123 retrieved studies for inclusion. Two investigators independently selected the studies using predefined criteria and assessed each study's quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We meta-analyzed the results of the largest studies with no overlap in their data sources. Results We included 9 studies ( n = 156,562) in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analyses. When examined without stratifying studies by follow-up duration, the results of the studies were inconsistent. Hence, we pooled the study results stratified based upon their follow-up durations, as suggested by a large study, and observed that being underweight was associated with higher 1-year mortality but had no significant association with 2- and 3- to 5-year mortalities. In contrast, being overweight or obese was associated with lower 1-year mortality but it had no significant association with 2-, and 3- to 5-year mortalities. Conclusion Over the short-term, being underweight was associated with higher mortality and being overweight or obese was associated with lower mortality. The associations of body mass with mortality were not significant over the long-term.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of mobile phone text message reminder interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among adolescents living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254890
Author(s):  
Nishant Mehra ◽  
Abayneh Tunje ◽  
Inger Kristensson Hallström ◽  
Degu Jerene
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Text Message ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Art Adherence ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Text Message Reminder ◽  
Living With Hiv

Background Poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy in adolescents living with HIV is a global challenge. One of the key strategies to improve adherence is believed to be the use of digital adherence tools. However, evidence is limited in this area. Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness of mobile phone text message reminders in improving ART adherence for adolescents. Methods The preferred reporting item for systematic review and meta-analysis guideline was followed. A literature search was done in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane) in August 2020. Additional searches for studies and grey literature were performed manually. We included studies with quantitative design exploring the effectiveness of text message reminders, targeting adolescents aged 10–19 years. Studies were excluded if the intervention involved phone calls, phone-based applications, or other complex tech services. Mean differences between intervention and standard of care were computed using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity between one-way and two-way text messages. Results Of 2517 study titles screened, seven eligible studies were included in the systematic review. The total number of participants in the included studies was 987, and the study sample varied from 14 to 332. Five studies showed a positive impact of text messaging in improving adherence, while no significant difference was found between the intervention and the control (standard of care) group in the remaining two studies. The pooled mean difference between the intervention and the control group was 0.05 (95% CI: –0.08 to 0.17). There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 78%). Conclusion and recommendation The meta-analysis of text message reminder interventions did not show a statistically significant difference in the improvement of ART adherence among adolescents living with HIV. The included studies were heterogeneous in the reported clinical outcomes, where the effectiveness of the intervention was identified in small studies which had a short follow-up period. Studies with bigger sample size and a longer follow-up period are needed.

scholarly journals Effect of Drug-Coated Balloon in Side Branch Protection for de novo Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yawei Zheng ◽  
Jie Li ◽  
Lingzhun Wang ◽  
Peng Yu ◽  
Haibo Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Side Branch ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Background: At present, there are a variety of treatment strategies for percutaneous coronary intervention. The role of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of side branch for de novo coronary bifurcated lesions (CBL) is unclear.Objective: To examine the effect of DCB in side branch protection for de novo CBL.Methods: Electronic databases, including Pubmed, Embase, the Web of science, Cochrance library, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP were searched for studies that compared DCB with non-drug-coated balloon (NDCB) in side branch protection for de novo CBL from inception through July 7th, 2021. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD). The angiographic outcomes included side branch late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) and binary restenosis (BR). The target lesion failure (TLF) was also analyzed.Results: A total of 10 studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 5 non-randomized observational studies, with 934 patients were included. Meta-analysis results of angiographic outcomes suggested that DCB group had the less LLL, DS and BR and the higher MLD compared with NDCB group at follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). Meta-analysis results of clinical outcomes suggested that the significant difference in the TLR, MI and CD between DCB group and NDCB group has not been found yet (P &gt; 0.05). However, the MACE of DCB group was significantly less than that of NDCB group at 9-month follow-up [OR = 0.21, 95%CI (0.05, 0.84), P = 0.03] and 12-month follow-up [OR = 0.45, 95%CI (0.22, 0.90), P = 0.02]. In addition, there was no significant difference in TLF between DCB group and NDCB group (P &gt; 0.05).Conclusions: DCB had great effect in side branch protection for de novo CBL at short and medium-term follow-up with no reduction in the procedural success rate.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=267426, PROSPERO [Identifier: CRD42021267426].

scholarly journals Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keum Hwa Lee ◽  
Sojung Yoon ◽  
Gwang Hun Jeong ◽  
Jong Yeob Kim ◽  
Young Joo Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Coronavirus Infections

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631–2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221–0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670–5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document