scholarly journals Ventricular Function in Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rameshwar Prasad ◽  
Bijan Saha ◽  
Amit Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia ◽  
Ventricular Function ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Diaphragmatic Hernia ◽  
Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular

Abstract There is emerging evidence supporting ventricular function as a prognostic factor in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the predictive value of early ventricular function for survival and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requirement in newborns with CDH. PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register, Clinical Trial Registry, and Opengrey were accessed. Studies evaluating associations between echocardiographic ventricular function measured ≤ 48 h after birth and survival or ECMO requirement were included. Two independent authors extracted the following data: study and participant characteristics, prognostic factors, and outcome-related data. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported on survival, two on ECMO, and four on both outcomes. A moderate risk of bias was found in most of the studies, mainly because of selection, prognostic factors, and confounding biases. For survival (899 participants), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77–92%) and 44% (95% CI, 25–65%), respectively, in normal left ventricular function. For ECMO need (815 participants), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 39.8% (95% CI, 27–52%) and 88% (95% CI, 80–96%), respectively, in left ventricular dysfunction. Overall certainty of the evidence was graded very low for survival and low for ECMO. Inconsistent reporting of echocardiographic measurements and lack of adjustment for confounding factors were major limitations. Conclusions: Early ventricular dysfunction is a potential prognostic factor in CDH. Standardized echocardiographic measurement reporting and high-quality studies are needed to further elucidate its prognostic significance.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for chronic post-surgical pain after lung or pleural surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051554
Author(s):  
Pascal Richard David Clephas ◽  
Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks ◽  
Marialena Trivella ◽  
Christian S Guay ◽  
Preet Mohinder Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Surgical Pain ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Chronic Post Surgical Pain

IntroductionChronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after lung or pleural surgery is a common complication and associated with a decrease in quality of life, long-term use of pain medication and substantial economic costs. An abundant number of primary prognostic factor studies are published each year, but findings are often inconsistent, methods heterogeneous and the methodological quality questionable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed to summarise the evidence.Methods and analysisThe reporting of this protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include retrospective and prospective studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting patient-related factors and surgery-related factors for any adult population. Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report on prognostic factors for CPSP after lung or pleural surgery. We will exclude case series, case reports, literature reviews, studies that do not report results for lung or pleural surgery separately and studies that modified the treatment or prognostic factor based on pain during the observation period. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar and relevant literature reviews will be searched. Independent pairs of two reviewers will assess studies in two stages based on the PICOTS criteria. We will use the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool for the quality assessment and the CHARMS-PF checklist for the data extraction of the included studies. The analyses will all be conducted separately for each identified prognostic factor. We will analyse adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures separately. When possible, evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis and otherwise narratively. We will quantify heterogeneity by calculating the Q and I2 statistics. The heterogeneity will be further explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on clinical knowledge. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline 28.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be necessary, as all data are already in the public domain. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021227888.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e028226
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Kamiya ◽  
Ogee Mer Panlaqui
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Grade Method

IntroductionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic fibrosing interstitial pneumonia with unknown disease aetiology. Acute exacerbation (AE) of IPF is an accelerated disease progression beyond its expected course. A 30-day mortality of AE of IPF is 40%. While death may occur, there is much variation in the clinical progression of this condition. Previous attempts have been made to investigate various possible prognostic factors for AE of IPF; however, they have yet to be confirmed. The aim of this systematic review is to clarify these prognostic factors.Methods and analysisIn this review, AE of IPF is the condition of interest, which has been defined according to previously established diagnostic criteria. The primary outcomes of interest include short-term all-cause mortality and pulmonary-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes of interest include long-term mortality and hospital separation for the disease. Primary studies investigating prognostic factors for AE of IPF are eligible for inclusion in this review. All study types are permitted except case reports. Two reviewers will search electronic databases, such as Medline and EMBASE, from 2002 to the 1 April 2019 and extract data independently. Risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Meta-analysis will be conducted for univariate data if at least three studies report the effect of a specific prognostic factor using similar statistical methods. Multivariate results will be reported qualitatively. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be considered with the aim of generalising findings to the clinical settings and drawing more robust conclusions. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method will be applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for each prognostic factor.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required. Results will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106172

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document