scholarly journals Prevalence and Factors Affecting the Labor Experience: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Nur Hidayatin ◽  
Esti Yunitasari ◽  
Iqlima Dwi Kurnia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Problems ◽  
Caregiver Support ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Childbirth Experience ◽  
Emergency Cesarean ◽  
Women's Lives ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Prolonged Labor ◽  
Husband Support

Introduction: Labor experiences have potential short and long term physical and psychological effects on women’s lives. Many factors influenced role in a mother’s experience of childbirth, both positively and negatively. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and factors that influence the delivery experience.Methods: This study searched for articles in the databases, namely Pub Med, Scopus, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Sage. The keyword used is labor experience. A total of 3654 articles were found, after selecting studies using PRISMA found 18 corresponding articles.Results: In this study, 18 studies were included in this systematic review, eight studies examined the prevalence of labor experiences. The prevalence of labor experience was 6.8-44%. Factors related to childbirth experiences included: individuals, such as age, parity, fear, self-efficacy, participation, control, expectations, preparation, and interpersonal, such as husband support, caregiver support, unwanted medical problems, such as prolonged labor, stimulation, and induction, forceps delivery, emergency cesarean section, and use of analgesics in mothers, low APGAR scores and transfer to the NICU.Conclusion: This review showed the various factors associated with the childbirth experience. This finding suggests conducting further research into the reason these factors influence the experience of labor.

scholarly journals Clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunny Singhal ◽  
Pramod Kumar ◽  
Sumitabh Singh ◽  
Srishti Saha ◽  
Aparajit Ballav Dey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

Abstract Background Few studies have focused on exploring the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in older patients. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to have a better understanding of the clinical characteristics of older COVID-19 patients. Methods A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was performed from December 2019 to May 3rd, 2020. Observational studies including older adults (age ≥ 60 years) with COVID-19 infection and reporting clinical characteristics or outcome were included. Primary outcome was assessing weighted pooled prevalence (WPP) of severity and outcomes. Secondary outcomes were clinical features including comorbidities and need of respiratory support. Result Forty-six studies with 13,624 older patients were included. Severe infection was seen in 51% (95% CI– 36-65%, I2–95%) patients while 22% (95% CI– 16-28%, I2–88%) were critically ill. Overall, 11% (95% CI– 5-21%, I2–98%) patients died. The common comorbidities were hypertension (48, 95% CI– 36-60% I2–92%), diabetes mellitus (22, 95% CI– 13-32%, I2–86%) and cardiovascular disease (19, 95% CI – 11-28%, I2–85%). Common symptoms were fever (83, 95% CI– 66-97%, I2–91%), cough (60, 95% CI– 50-70%, I2–71%) and dyspnoea (42, 95% CI– 19-67%, I2–94%). Overall, 84% (95% CI– 60-100%, I2–81%) required oxygen support and 21% (95% CI– 0-49%, I2–91%) required mechanical ventilation. Majority of studies had medium to high risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was low for all outcomes. Conclusion Approximately half of older patients with COVID-19 have severe infection, one in five are critically ill and one in ten die. More high-quality evidence is needed to study outcomes in this vulnerable patient population and factors affecting these outcomes.

scholarly journals Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic fractures following primary and revision hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Bissias ◽  
Angelos Kaspiris ◽  
Athanasios Kalogeropoulos ◽  
Konstantinos Papoutsis ◽  
Nikolaos Natsioulas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Periprosthetic Fractures ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Potential Risk Factors ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Objectives The increasing number of hip arthroplasties (HA), due to the growing elderly population, is associated with the risk of femoral periprosthetic fractures (FPFs). The purpose of this study was to identify potential risk factors for the development of FPFs after HA. Methods A systematic review was conducted in five data bases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl, ICTRP) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines up to May 2019, using the key words “risk factor,” “periprosthetic fracture,” and “hip replacement or arthroplasty.” Meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of HA and subgroup analysis based on the factors that were implicated in FPFs was performed. Results Sixteen studies were included (sample size: 599,551 HA patients, 4253 FPFs, incidence 0.71%). Risk factors statistically associated with increased incidence of FPFs were female gender (+ 40%), previous revision arthroplasty surgery (× 3 times), and the presence of rheumatoid arthritis (× 2.1 times), while osteoarthritis (− 57%), cement application (− 59%), and insertion of Biomet (− 68%) or Thompson’s prosthesis (− 75%) were correlated with low prevalence of FPFs. Obesity, cardiac diseases, advanced age, bad general health (ASA grade ≥ 3), and use of Exeter or Lubinus prosthesis were not linked to the appearance of FPFs. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggested that female gender, rheumatoid arthritis, and revision arthroplasty are major risk factors for the development of FPFs after a HA. In those patients, frequent follow-ups should be planned. Further prospective studies are necessary to clarify all the risk factors contributing to the appearance of FPFs after HA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document