The Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence among Adolescent Female Athletes: A Systematic Review

This review aimed to synthesize the most up-to-date evidence regarding the prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) among adolescent female athletes. We conducted a systematic review of studies regarding UI in female athletes less than 19 years of age. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRIMSA). The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) were searched between October and November 2020. After blinded peer evaluation, a total of 215 studies were identified and nine were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. This review identified a prevalence of UI in adolescent female athletes between 18% to 80% with an average of 48.58%. The most prevalent sports were trampolining followed by rope skipping. The prevalence of UI among adolescent female athletes practicing impact sports was significantly prevalent. There is a need for further research, education, and targeted interventions for adolescent female athletes with UI.

Download Full-text

Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.11.20062109 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽

Ariel Izcovich ◽

Martín Ragusa ◽

Gabriel Rada

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Download Full-text

Impact of Tumor–Stroma Ratio on the Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Frontiers in Oncology ◽

10.3389/fonc.2021.738080 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

Author(s):

Jinlai Gao ◽

Zhangguo Shen ◽

Zaixing Deng ◽

Lina Mei

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Tumor Stroma ◽

Stage Ii ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Treatment Optimization ◽

Central Register ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundIt is critical to develop a reliable and cost-effective prognostic tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) stratification and treatment optimization. Tumor–stroma ratio (TSR) may be a promising indicator of poor prognosis in CRC patients. As a result, we conducted a systematic review on the predictive value of TSR in CRC.MethodsThis study was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline. An electronic search was completed using commonly used databases PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google scholar till the last search up to May 30, 2021. STATA version 13 was used to analyze the data.ResultsA total of 13 studies [(12 for disease-free survival (DFS) and nine studies for overall survival (OS)] involving 4,857 patients met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review in the present study. In individuals with stage II CRC, stage III CRC, or mixed stage CRC, we observed a significantly higher pooled hazard ratio (HR) in those with a low TSR/greater stromal content (HR, 1.54; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.88), (HR, 1.90; 95% CI: 1.35 to 2.45), and (HR, 1.70; 95% CI: 1.45 to 1.95), respectively, for predicting DFS. We found that a low TSR ratio had a statistically significant predictive relevance for stage II (HR, 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.77) and mixed stages of CRC (HR, 1.65; 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.0) for outcome OS.ConclusionIn patients with CRC, low TSR was found to be a prognostic factor for a worse prognosis (DFS and OS).

Download Full-text

Maternal and Fetal Outcomes after Prior Mid-Trimester Uterine Rupture: A Systematic Review with Our Experience

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina57121294 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 57 (12) ◽

pp. 1294

Author(s):

Shinya Matsuzaki ◽

Tsuyoshi Takiuchi ◽

Takeshi Kanagawa ◽

Satoko Matsuzaki ◽

Misooja Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Uterine Rupture ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Fetal Outcomes ◽

Maternal Deaths ◽

Spontaneous Uterine Rupture ◽

Central Register ◽

Gestational Age At Delivery ◽

Placenta Accreta Spectrum ◽

Meta Analyses

Background and Objectives: Since spontaneous uterine rupture in the mid-trimester is rare, maternal and fetal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the maternal and fetal outcomes of subsequent pregnancies after prior mid-trimester uterine rupture. Materials and Methods: A systematic review using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus until 30 September 2021, was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The studies that clarified the maternal and fetal outcomes after prior mid-trimester uterine rupture and our case (n = 1) were included in the analysis. Results: Among the eligible cases, there were five women with eight subsequent pregnancies after prior mid-trimester uterine rupture. The timing of prior mid-trimester uterine rupture ranged from 15 to 26 weeks of gestation. The gestational age at delivery in subsequent pregnancies was 23–38 gestational weeks. Among the included cases (n = 8), those involving prior mid-trimester uterine rupture appeared to be associated with an increased prevalence of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) (n = 3, 37.5%) compared with those involving term uterine rupture published in the literature; moreover, one case exhibited recurrent uterine rupture at 23 weeks of gestation (12.5%). No maternal deaths have been reported in subsequent pregnancies following prior mid-trimester uterine rupture. Fetal outcomes were feasible, except for one pregnancy with recurrent mid-trimester uterine rupture at 23 weeks of gestation, whose fetus was alive complicated by cerebral palsy. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that clinicians should be aware of the possibility of PAS and possible uterine rupture in pregnancies after prior mid-trimester uterine rupture. Further case studies are warranted to assess maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnancies following prior mid-trimester prior uterine rupture.

Download Full-text

Fatigue symptoms associated with COVID-19 in convalescent or recovered COVID-19 patients; a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.31234/osf.io/c4w7p ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sanjay Rao ◽

Tarek Benzouak ◽

Sasha Gunpat ◽

Rachel Burns ◽

Tayyeb A. Tahir ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Female Gender ◽

Acute Stage ◽

Self Report ◽

Multiple Time ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Multiple Time Points ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundThe prevalence and prognosis of post-acute stage SARS-CoV-2 infection fatigue symptoms remain largely unknown.AimsWe performed a systematic review to evaluate the prevalence of fatigue in post-recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, trial registries, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar were searched for studies on fatigue in samples that recovered from PCR diagnosed COVID-19. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for each recruitment setting.ResultsWe identified 39 studies with 8825 patients that recovered from COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 patients self-report of fatigue was higher compared to healthy controls (RR = 3.688, 95%CI [2.502, 5.436], p < 0.001). Over 50% of patients discharged from inpatient care reported symptoms of fatigue during the first (ER = 0.517, 95%CI [0.278, 0.749]) and second month following recovery (ER = 0.527, 95%CI [0.337, 0.709]). 10% of the community patients reported fatigue in the first month post-recovery. Patient setting moderated the association between COVID-19 recovery and fatigue symptoms (R2 = 0.12, p < 0.001). Female gender was associated with greater self-report of fatigue (OR =1.782, 95%CI [1.531, 2.870]). Patients recruited through social media had fatigue above 90% across multiple time points. Fatigue was highest in studies from Europe.ConclusionFatigue is a symptom associated with functional challenges which could have economic and social impacts. Developing long-term planning for fatigue management amongst patients beyond acute stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential to optimizing patient care and public health outcomes.

Download Full-text

Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp18x698885 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 68 (675) ◽

pp. e694-e702 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Benjamin Speich ◽

Anja Thomer ◽

Soheila Aghlmandi ◽

Hannah Ewald ◽

Andreas Zeller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Combined Treatment ◽

Randomised Clinical Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Severity Scores ◽

Drug Treatments ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundSubacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3–8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these.AimTo provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs).Design and settingSystematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough.MethodThe authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses.ResultsSix eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments.ConclusionEvidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.

Download Full-text

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.03.20052530 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽

María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽

Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽

María Paz Acuña ◽

Luz Ángela Torres López ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Central Register ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Download Full-text

Fatigue symptoms associated with COVID-19 in convalescent or recovered COVID-19 patients; a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.04.23.21256006 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sanjay Rao ◽

Tarek Benzouak ◽

Sasha Gunpat ◽

Rachel J. Burns ◽

Tayyeb A. Tahir ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Female Gender ◽

Acute Stage ◽

Self Report ◽

Multiple Time ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Multiple Time Points ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) Visceral Leishmaniasis Library of Clinical Therapeutic Studies: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1159661/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

sauman Singh-Phulgenda ◽

Sumayyah Rashan ◽

Eli Harriss ◽

Prabin Dahal ◽

Caitlin Naylor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Visceral Leishmaniasis ◽

Drug Efficacy ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Medical Librarian ◽

Registration Number ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Vector Borne ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction: Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) is a vector-borne disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania. The disease is endemic in parts of South Asia, East Africa, South America and the Mediterranean region, with an estimated 50,000 to 90,000 cases occurring annually. A living systematic review of existing scientific literature is proposed to identify clinical drug efficacy studies against VL, conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods and analysis: The proposed living systematic review builds on a previous systematic review first carried out in 2016, and the current protocol is designed to capture any published or registered VL clinical study from Nov-2021 onwards. The following databases will be searched by a medical librarian: PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, as well as IMEMR, IMSEAR, and LILACS from the WHO Global Index Medicus. The systematic review will consider both randomised and non-randomised interventional studies, including single-armed studies. Ethics and dissemination: A database of eligible studies, including study characteristics, is openly available (https://www.iddo.org/tool/vl-surveyor) and will be continually updated every six months. All findings will be published in a peer reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021284622

Download Full-text

Enhanced Recovery After Colo-Rectal Surgeries (ERAS) V.S Conventional Care A systematic review and meta-analysis

QJM ◽

10.1093/qjmed/hcab097.055 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Hanna Habib Hanna ◽

Sherif Abdelhalim ◽

Aboelatta Khairy ◽

Rihaj Mohammed Abdulfattah Al-Abbasi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Web Of Science ◽

Enhanced Recovery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Conventional Care ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Central Register ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background ERAS programs are not only used in abdominal surgeries, they are also used in cardiothoracic, gynecology, urology, orthopedic, and neurosurgery. Many authors and surgeons worldwide have been adapting this program, also trying to modify it due to its promising outcomes and it’s low damage toit’s continence. Objective To present an updated assessment of perioperative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Patients and Methods We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement. PRISMA and MOOSE are reporting checklists for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers of Meta-analyses of interventional and observational studies. According to International committee of medical journal association (ICJME), reviewers must report their findings according to each of the items listed in those checklists. An electronic search was conducted from the inception till March 2019 in the following bibliographic databases: Medline via PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles. We used different combinations of the following queries: ("Colorectal Surgery"[Mesh]) AND ("Enhanced recovery" OR "conventional care"). The search have been done with no limit regarding the year publication or language. Results In the present study, we searched Medline via PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar from their inception till March 2019. The search retrieved 2861 unique records. We then retained 41 potentially eligible records for full-texts screening. Finally, 28 reports of 25 RCTs were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis Conclusion ERAS was proven to be feasible, minimally invasive, cheap, relatively easy, which is safe and effective at the same time. This program can be ideal for patients undergoing elective colo-rectal surgery, yet more studies should be conducted in Egypt to compare results regarding different approaches of this program with longer follow up and randomization of patients.

Download Full-text

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ariel Izcovich ◽

Martín Ragusa ◽

Verónica Sanguine ◽

Fernando Tortosa ◽

Federico Espinosa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Traditional Media ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that can potentially be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence covered and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will continue until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and inform the relation between potential prognostic factors and death or disease severity. Two groups of two reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Download Full-text