Effectiveness of Telemonitoring for Reducing Exacerbation Occurrence in COPD Patients With Past Exacerbation History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Although an increasing number of studies have reported that telemonitoring (TM) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be useful and efficacious for hospitalizations and quality of life, its actual utility in detecting and managing acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is less established. This meta-analysis aimed to identify the best available evidence on the effectiveness of TM targeting the early and optimized management of AECOPD in patients with a history of past AECOPD compared with a control group without TM intervention.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to May 2020. Primary endpoints included emergency room visits and exacerbation-related readmissions. P-values, risk ratios, odds ratios, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Results: Of 505 identified citations, 17 original articles with both TM intervention and a control group were selected for the final analysis (N = 3,001 participants). TM was found to reduce emergency room visits [mean difference (MD) −0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.36 to −0.03], exacerbation-related readmissions (risk ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60–0.92), exacerbation-related hospital days (MD −0.60, 95% CI −1.06 to −0.13), mortality (odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.93), and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (MD −3.72, 95% CI −7.18 to −0.26) but did not make a difference with respect to all-cause readmissions, the rate of exacerbation-related readmissions, all-cause hospital days, time to first hospital readmission, anxiety and depression, and exercise capacity. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis by observation period showed that longer TM (≥12 months) was more effective in reducing readmissions.Conclusions: TM can reduce emergency room visits and exacerbation-related readmissions, as well as acute exacerbation (AE)-related hospital days, mortality, and the SGRQ score. The implementation of TM intervention is thus a potential protective therapeutic strategy that could facilitate the long-term management of AECOPD.Systematic Review Registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and was registered at International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number: CRD42020181459).

Download Full-text

EXPRESS: Stroke risk following traumatic brain injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Stroke ◽

10.1177/17474930211004277 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 174749302110042

Author(s):

Grace Mary Turner ◽

Christel McMullan ◽

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽

Danai Bem ◽

Tom Marshall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Stroke Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Vitamin K Antagonists ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Hazard Ratios ◽

Increased Risk ◽

The Cochrane Library

Aims To investigate the association between TBI and stroke risk. Summary of review We undertook a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library from inception to 4th December 2020. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool hazard ratios (HR) for studies which reported stroke risk post-TBI compared to controls. Searches identified 10,501 records; 58 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 met the inclusion criteria. The review included a large sample size of 2,606,379 participants from four countries. Six studies included a non-TBI control group, all found TBI patients had significantly increased risk of stroke compared to controls (pooled HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.46-2.37). Findings suggest stroke risk may be highest in the first four months post-TBI, but remains significant up to five years post-TBI. TBI appears to be associated with increased stroke risk regardless of severity or subtype of TBI. There was some evidence to suggest an association between reduced stroke risk post-TBI and Vitamin K antagonists and statins, but increased stroke risk with certain classes of antidepressants. Conclusion TBI is an independent risk factor for stroke, regardless of TBI severity or type. Post-TBI review and management of risk factors for stroke may be warranted.

Download Full-text

Impact of interstitial lung disease on mortality in ANCA-associated vasculitis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Chronic Respiratory Disease ◽

10.1177/1479973121994562 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. 147997312199456

Author(s):

Peining Zhou ◽

Jing Ma ◽

Guangfa Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Interstitial Lung Disease ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Lung Disease ◽

Mortality Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Anca Associated Vasculitis ◽

Retrospective Cohort Studies

Several retrospectivee described the association of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). However, the relationship between the ILD and mortality in AAV patients have not been established so far. This study aims to estimate the relevance of AAV-associated-ILD (AAV-ILD) and mortality risk by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.A comprehensive systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). PubMed, Embase.com and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) were searched for original observational studies. Summary estimates were derived with a random-effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR), tested for publication bias and heterogeneity. Ten retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 526 AAV-ILD patients enrolled from 1974 to 2018. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled RR of 2.90 (95% confidence interval 1.77–4.74) for death among those with AAV-ILD compared to control group. UIP pattern was associated with an even poorer prognosis in comparison to non-UIP pattern (RR 4.36, 95% confidence interval 1.14–16.78). Sensitivity analysis suggested that the meta-RR result was not skewed by a single dominant study. ILD might be associated with a higher mortality risk in AAV patients.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation for patients hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043377 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e043377

Author(s):

Kai Zhu ◽

Jagdeep Gill ◽

Ashley Kirkham ◽

Joel Chen ◽

Amy Ellis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Acute Exacerbation ◽

Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Safety And Efficacy

IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) reduces the risk of hospital admissions, and improves physical function and health-related quality of life. However, the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR during the most acute phase of an AECOPD is not well established. This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient acute care PR during the hospitalisation phase.Methods and analysisMedical literature databases and registries MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CENTRAL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, WHO trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for articles from inception to June 2021 using a prespecified search strategy. We will identify randomised controlled trials that have a comparison of in-hospital PR with usual care. PR programmes had to commence during the hospitalisation and include a minimum of two sessions. Title and abstract followed by full-text screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient homogeneity across selected studies or groups of studies. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework will be used to standardise the data collection process. The quality of the cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.Ethics and disseminationAECOPD results in physical limitations which are amenable to PR. This review will assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR for AECOPD. The results will be presented in a peer-reviewed publication and at research conferences. Ethical review is not required for this study.

Download Full-text

Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9080939 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. 939

Author(s):

Jiaxin Chen ◽

Yuangui Cai ◽

Yicong Chen ◽

Anthony P. Williams ◽

Yifang Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Download Full-text

Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

10.1101/2021.05.28.21257980 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yuki Seidler ◽

Erika Mosor ◽

Margaret R Andrews ◽

Carolina Watson ◽

Nick Bott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Outcome Measurement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Screening Process ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Suprascapular Nerve Block in the Treatment of Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Neurology ◽

10.3389/fneur.2021.723664 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Yajing Hou ◽

Yong Wang ◽

Xiaojing Sun ◽

Yake Lou ◽

Ying Yu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Shoulder Pain ◽

Nerve Block ◽

External Rotation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Suprascapular Nerve ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Suprascapular Nerve Block ◽

Secondary Endpoints

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) in patients with hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP).Background: SSNB is widely used in various shoulder pains, but whether it is effective in HSP remains unknown.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify potential citations. Randomized controlled trials meeting the eligible criteria were included in our analysis. The primary endpoint was Visual Analog Scale (VAS) with a maximum value of 100 and a minimum value of 0. Secondary endpoints were passive range of motion (PROM) that pain starts, and the PROM mainly included abduction, flexion, and external rotation. In addition, the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) was also included in our secondary endpoints.Results: Eight studies with 281 patients were included in our analysis. For VAS, there was no obvious difference between SSNB group and control group regardless of the follow-up period (<4 weeks or ≥4 weeks), which were −6.62 (−15.76, 2.53; p = 0.16) and 1.78 (−16.18, 19.74; p = 0.85). For shoulder function, the PROM of abduction, flexion, and external rotation was similar between groups. However, motor function indicator FMA is lower in SSNB control than that in control group, with a mean difference (and 95% CI) of −2.59 (−4.52, −0.66; p = 0.008).Conclusion: SSNB is an effective way for HSP patients.Systematic Review Registration: Registration ID: CRD42021252429.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy to Promote Motor Recovery in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1169559/v1 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Shehong Zhang ◽

Hongyu Xie ◽

Chuanjie Wang ◽

Fengfeng Wu ◽

Xin Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Motor Function ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evaluation System ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Primary Data ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Systematic Review Protocol ◽

Qualitative Synthesis ◽

Review Protocol

Abstract Introduction: Motor function is essential in our daily lives, one of the most common impairments caused by stroke is loss of functional movement. Over 70% of stroke survivors have motor or other neurological functional disabilities. However, rehabilitation of motor function suffered from a stroke can be rather difficult due to the complexity of organs and systems related to motor function, as well as the neural system that supported motor function. In particularly, previous evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy, a commonly prescribed intervention method for people with stroke, that recover motor function in people following a stroke is varied and limited in the chronic rehabilitation phase and therefore has never been reviewed systematically. With the progress of study in neurology and the development of novel tools for rehabilitation, results from more and more clinical trials are now available, thus here justifying conducting a systematic review. Methods and analysis: This systematic review protocol is developed in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, as well as the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Relevant studies will be identified by searching the databases. We will perform searches for relevant studies in databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library databases. The reference lists of included articles and reviews will be searched manually. The date range parameters used in searching all databases will be restricted between January 2001 and January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published will be included. The language used in the articles included was restricted to English. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) approach will be used to systematically appraise the quality of methodology. We will assess the risk of bias of the RCTs included using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and provide a qualitative synthesis. After that, we will consider conducting a meta-analysis if the final data across outcomes shows sufficient homogeneity. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is needed as the proposed study does not involve the collection of primary data, and the results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number: CRD42021267069.

Download Full-text

Effects of Low Back Pain on Motor Performance in Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-24838/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Le Ge ◽

Chuhuai Wang ◽

Haohan Zhou ◽

Qiuhua Yu ◽

Xin Li

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Elderly People ◽

Motor Performance ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Low Back ◽

Centre Of Pressure

Abstract Background: Research suggests that individuals with low back pain (LBP) may have poorer motor control compared to their healthy counterparts; however, the sample population of almost 90% of related articles are young and middle-aged people. There is still a lack of a systematic review about the motor performance of elderly people with low back pain. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effects of LBP on motor performance in eldly people.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for full-text articles published before January 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the relevant articles, and disagreements were resolved by athird reviewer.Results: Thirteen case-control studies comparing motor performance parameters between LBP and healthy subjects and four randomised controlled studies on physical therapy to improve the motor performance of elderly people with LBP were included. The experimental group (LBP group) was associated with significantly larger area of centre of pressure movement (P < 0.001),higher velocity of centre of pressure sway in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions (P= 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), longer path length in the anteroposterior direction (P < 0.001), slower walking speed (P = 0.05), and longer timed up and go test time (P = 0.004) thanthe control group.Conclusion: The results show that motor performance is impaired in elderly people with LBP. We should pay more attention to the balance control of elderly people with LBP.

Download Full-text

The Impact of a Stabilization Exercise on Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A Central European Neurosurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0039-3400953 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 81 (04) ◽

pp. 342-347

Author(s):

Binbin Wu ◽

Hongyan Yuan ◽

Deyu Geng ◽

Liang Zhang ◽

Cheng Zhang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Neck Disability Index ◽

Depression Scale ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Stabilization Exercise ◽

Pain Scores ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction The efficacy of a stabilization exercise for the relief of neck pain remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of a stabilization exercise on neck pain. Methods We searched Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO Information Services, and the Cochrane Library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of a stabilization exercise on neck pain. This meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. Results Six RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group of patients with neck pain, a stabilization exercise can significantly reduce pain scores at 4 to 6 weeks (mean difference [MD]: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.46 to −0.35; p = 0.02), Neck Disability Index [NDI] at 10 to 12 weeks (MD:− 6.75; 95% CI, −11.71 to −1.79; p = 0.008), and depression scale at 4 to 6 weeks (MD: −4.65; 95% CI, −7.00 to −2.31; p = 0.02), but it has no obvious impact on pain scores at 10 to 12 weeks (MD: −1.07; 95% CI, −3.42 to 1.28; p = 0.37) or at 6 months (MD: −1.02; 95% CI, −3.43 to 1.39; p = 0.41). Conclusions A stabilization exercise can provide some benefits to control neck pain.

Download Full-text

Clinical, laboratory and imaging predictors for critical illness and mortality in patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039813 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e039813

Author(s):

Xinxing Lai ◽

Jian Liu ◽

Tianyi Zhang ◽

Luda Feng ◽

Ping Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Critical Illness ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Clinical Laboratory ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Early Management ◽

Modifiable Factors

IntroductionWith the threat of a worldwide pandemic of COVID-19, it is important to identify the prognostic factors for critical conditions among patients with non-critical COVID-19. Prognostic factors and models may assist front-line clinicians in rapid identification of high-risk patients, early management of modifiable factors, appropriate triaging and optimising the use of limited healthcare resources. We aim to systematically assess the clinical, laboratory and imaging predictors as well as prediction models for severe or critical illness and mortality in patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisAll peer-reviewed and preprint primary articles with a longitudinal design that focused on prognostic factors or models for critical illness and mortality related to COVID-19 will be eligible for inclusion. A systematic search of 11 databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, SinoMed, bioRxiv, Arxiv and MedRxiv will be conducted. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data extraction will be performed using the modified version of the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist and quality will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. The association between prognostic factors and outcomes of interest will be synthesised and a meta-analysis will be conducted with three or more studies reporting a particular factor in a consistent manner.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for this systematic review. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD 42020178798.

Download Full-text