scholarly journals COVID-19–associated rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 499
Author(s):  
Bikash Medhi ◽  
Anusuya Bhattacharyya ◽  
Phulen Sarma ◽  
Hardeep Kaur ◽  
Subodh Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

Perioperative mortality in older patients: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis and meta-analysis of observational studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 110160
Author(s):  
Karen S. Braghiroli ◽  
Sharon Einav ◽  
Michael A. Heesen ◽  
Paulo J.F. Villas Boas ◽  
Jose R.C. Braz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Perioperative Mortality ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

scholarly journals Long-term manifestations and modifiers of prevalence estimates of the post-COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel De-la-Rosa-Martínez ◽  
Marco Antonio Delaye-Martínez ◽  
Omar Yaxmehen Bello-Chavolla ◽  
Alejandro Sicilia-Andrade ◽  
Isaac David Juárez-Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Published Data ◽  
System Disease ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

Background: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is a multi-system disease comprising persistent symptomatology after the acute phase of infection. Long-term PACS effects significantly impact patient outcomes, but their incidence remains uncharacterized due to high heterogeneity between studies. Therefore, we aimed to summarize published data on PACS, characterizing the clinical presentation, prevalence, and modifiers of prevalence estimates. Method: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we research MEDLINE for original studies published from January 1st, 2020, to January 31st, 2021, that reported proportions of PACS manifestations. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed COVID-19 by RT-PCR or antigen testing and a minimum follow-up of 21 days. The prevalence of individual manifestations across studies was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. For evaluating determinants of heterogeneity, meta-regression analysis was performed. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019125025). Results: After screening 1,235 studies, we included 29 reports for analysis. Twenty-seven meta-analyses were performed, and 61 long-term manifestations were described. The pooled prevalence of PACS was 56% (95%CI 45-66%), with the most common manifestations being diminished health status, fatigue, asthenia, dyspnea, myalgias, hyposmia and dysgeusia. Most of the included studies presented high heterogeneity. After conducting the meta-regression analysis, we identified that age, gender, number of comorbidities, and reported symptoms significantly modify the prevalence estimation of PACS long-term manifestations. Conclusion: PACS is inconsistently reported between studies, and population characteristics influence the prevalence estimates due to high heterogeneity. A systematized approach for the study of PACS is needed to characterize its impact adequately.

scholarly journals The Association Between ABO Blood Group and Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Li ◽  
Yixiao Wang ◽  
Lan Wu ◽  
Zhonghui Ling ◽  
Chanjuan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Blood Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Groups ◽  
Abo Blood Group ◽  
Linear Regression Equation ◽  
Funnel Plot ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

Objective: This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluated the association between ABO blood group and the risk of preeclampsia (PE).Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases from their inception to September 23, 2020.Methods: Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained through random-effects and fixed-effects models according to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was applied to explore the source of heterogeneity. We conducted a subgroup analysis by the publication year, study design, state, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. In addition, we calculated the rate of each ABO blood group in PE by total pooled effects.Results: A total of 12 articles with 714,153 patients were included in our analysis. Compared with people without PE (control group), the O blood group presented a lower risk of PE (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93–0.97). The AB (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12–1.91) blood group presented a higher risk. However, the total pooled OR and 95% CI for the A (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90–1.16) and B (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98–1.05) blood groups were not significant. The funnel plot and linear regression equation showed that there was no publication bias for the O, A, or B blood groups (all P > 0.05). However, the funnel plot and linear regression equation for the AB blood group were obviously asymmetric (P < 0.05), and the publication bias persisted even after the trim-and-fill method was applied (P < 0.05). Multivariable meta-regression analysis did not find a specific source of heterogeneity. The A blood group showed an association with early-onset PE (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.83), and the other blood groups showed no significant differences. In PE, the rates of the O, A, B, and AB blood groups decreased gradually (0.39, 0.33, 0.19, 0.07).Conclusion: These findings suggest that pregnant women with AB blood group are more likely to develop PE, and more attention should be paid to AB blood group whose blood pressure is high but not sufficient to diagnose PE.Systematic Review Registration: Prospero CRD42021227930.

scholarly journals Benefits and Harms of Low-Dose Rivaroxaban in Asian Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Qian ◽  
Yi-Dan Yan ◽  
Sheng-Yan Yang ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Wen-Yan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis ◽  
Reduced Risk

Background: Low-dose prescription of rivaroxaban was common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Asia. However, the benefits and harms of rivaroxaban at a low dosage in Asian patients with AF remains unclear. Accordingly, we aimed to collect and summarize all available evidence to fill this important knowledge gap.Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies from inception until February 23, 2021. Eligible retrospective nationwide or health insurance database studies or prospective registration studies that reported efficacy (stroke/systemic embolism), safety (major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding), or other outcomes (myocardial infarction, death) of low-dose rivaroxaban in comparison with warfarin in AF patients were enrolled. Data extraction and study quality assessment were conducted by two authors independently. Low dosing of rivaroxaban (15/10 mg) was defined as the received dose lower than the recommended dose (20 mg) approved in most districts. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was pooled using a random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different dose regimens. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by sequential elimination of each study from the pool. Since potential effect modifiers (patient demographics, differences of each study, and others) may lead to bias in primacy outcomes, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the influence of these factors on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes.Results: Totally, 12 studies involving 292,815 Asian patients with AF were included. All studies were detected as low to moderate risk bias. Low-dose rivaroxaban treatment in Asian AF patients was associated with a reduced risk of stroke/systemic embolism (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70–0.84, I2: 57.8%), major bleeding (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62–0.84, I2: 81.5%), and all-cause death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58–0.73, I2: 81.7%) when compared with warfarin. Furthermore, consistent results were observed among different dose regimens (10/15/20 mg) in all the clinical outcomes (Pinteraction > 0.05 for each outcome). Meta-regression analysis failed to detect any potential confounding to impact the primacy outcomes.Conclusion: Insights from the present meta-analysis, we found that low-dose rivaroxaban, even at a dosage of 10 mg daily, was associated with a reduced risk of stroke/SE and bleeding than warfarin in Asian AF patients. However, owing to considerable heterogeneity among included studies, further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Relationship Between Smoking and Pressure Injury Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (9) ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
Bing-Bing Wu ◽  
Dong-Zhou Gu ◽  
Jia-Ning Yu ◽  
Li-Peng Feng ◽  
Rong Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a risk factor for many diseases. PURPOSE: This study explored the relationship between current or past smoking and pressure injury (PI) risk through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for the years between 2001 and 2020. Quality of evidence was estimated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The random effects model was applied to assess the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); pooled adjusted OR and 95% CI, subgroup analysis, publication bias, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Fifteen (15) studies (12 retrospective and 3 prospective) comprising data on 11 304 patients were eligible for inclusion in the review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that smoking increased the risk of PI (OR = 1.498; 95% CI, 1.058-2.122), and the pooled adjusted OR (1.969) and 95% CI (1.406-2.757) confirmed this finding. Publication bias was not detected by funnel plot, Begg’s test (P = .322), or Egger’s test (P = .666). Subgroup analyses yielded the same observations in both retrospective (OR = 1.607; 95% CI, 1.043-2.475) and prospective (OR = 1.218; 95% CI, 0.735-2.017) studies. The results were consistent across sensitivity analyses (OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.043-2.475). Relevant heterogeneity moderators were not identified by meta-regression analysis with PI incidence (P = .466), years of patient data included (P = .637), mean patient age (P = .650), and diabetes mellitus diagnosis (P = .509). CONCLUSION: This study found that individuals who are current or formers smokers have an almost 1.5 times higher risk of PI development than do those who do not smoke.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document