scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation between cough variant asthma and mycoplasma pneumonia in children

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luyan Jiao ◽  
Guoqing Zhang ◽  
Yi Yuan ◽  
Ling Cao
Keyword(s):  
Eosinophil Count ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cough Variant Asthma ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Mycoplasma Pneumonia ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Review Manager

IntroductionThe present study was to explore the correlation between cough variant asthma (CVA) and repeated episodes of mycoplasma pneumonia in children.Material and methodsMultiple databases were searched for relevant studies, and the articles that eventually satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. All the meta-analyses were conducted with the Review Manager 5.2. To estimate the quality of each article, the risk of bias table was performed. Totally 1223 patients with CVA and 1437 patients with simple cough (SC) were included.ResultsFinally, 9 studies including 2660 patients were included, who eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria. The results of heterogeneity test suggested that the serum level of IgE (MD = 80.69, 95%CI [77.75, 83.62], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity <0.001, I2 = 95%), eosinophil count (MD= 2.93, 95%CI [2.72, 3.13], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity < 0.001, I2 = 71%) and the number of children with positive IgM (OR = 4.44, 95%CI [3.73, 5.29], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity = 0.63, I2 = 0%) were significantly different. The value of IgE in CVA was higher than that in SC, eosinophil count in CVA was higher than that in SC and the number of IgM positive children in the CVA group was higher than that in the SC group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated a correlation between cough variant asthma and mycoplasma pneumonia.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Preeclampsia Results after Use of Metformin in Gestation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 713-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iramar Nascimento ◽  
Guilherme Dienstmann ◽  
Matheus de Souza ◽  
Raquel Fleig ◽  
Carla Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Time Segment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Lower Correlation

Objective Does the use of metformin have an influence on the outcomes of preeclampsia (PE)? Sources of Data The descriptors pregnancy, metformin, treatment, and preeclampsia associated with the Boolean operators AND and OR were found in the MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane databases. A flowchart with exclusion criteria and inclusion strategy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and eligibility criteria was used. Data were extracted regarding the type of study, the applied dosage, treatment time, segment, bias risks, and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) strategy to identify the quality of the study. Selection of Studies Total number of journals in the initial search (n = 824); exclusions from repeated articles on different search engines (n = 253); exclusions after reading the titles, when the title had no correlations with the proposed theme (n = 164); exclusions due to incompatibility with the criteria established in the methodological analysis (n = 185), exclusion of articles with lower correlation with the objective of the present study (n = 187); and final bibliographic selection (n = 35). Data Collection At first, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Subsequently, from the main selection, randomized and non-randomized trials with metformin that presented their results in absolute and relative numbers of PE outcomes were selected. The variables were treated statistically in the meta-analysis with the Review Manager software (RevMan), version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Denmark in the Hovedistaden region. Synthesis of Data The study showed that metmorfin presented greater preventive effects for pregnancy-induced hypertension and was less effective for PE. Conclusion Metformin may gain place in preventive treatments for PE, once the dosages, the gestational age, and treatment time are particularly evaluated. A methodological strategy with an improved perspective of innovative and/or carefully progressive dosages during pregnancy to avoid side effects and the possibility of maternal-fetal risks is suggested.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between periodontitis and oral high-risk human papillomavirus infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Ali ◽  
Zohra S Lassi ◽  
Kostas Kapellas ◽  
Lisa Jamieson ◽  
Alice R Rumbold
Keyword(s):  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Hpv Infection ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Oral Hpv ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is increasing globally. Common oral conditions such as periodontitis may contribute. We undertook a meta-analysis to quantify the association between periodontitis, oral HPV and OPSCCs. Methods Multiple electronic databases were searched until 12 February 2020. Studies conducted in males and/or females aged ≥ 18 years that examined periodontitis, periodontal procedures, oral HPV infection, and where possible, oral cancers, were eligible. Meta-analyses were conducted and the GRADE approach was used to examine the quality of evidence. Results Of 2709 studies identified, 13 met the eligibility criteria. Five studies could be included in the meta-analyses. There was no significant increase in the odds of high-risk oral HPV infection among individuals with confirmed periodontitis (odds ratio 4.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57–38.97). Individuals with periodontitis had a 3.65 times higher odds of having any type of oral HPV infection compared with those without periodontitis (95% confidence interval 1.67–8.01). The overall body of evidence was rated as low to very-low certainty. Conclusion Meta-analysis confirms there is a positive association between periodontitis and oral HPV infection, although the overall quality of this evidence is low. Evidence for an association between periodontitis and high-risk oral HPV infection is inconclusive.

scholarly journals Comparative clinical trials in psychotherapy: Have large effects been replicated?

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickolas D. Frost ◽  
Thomas W. Baskin ◽  
Bruce E. Wampold
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Average Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Aims The purpose of this review is to examine the replication attempts of psychotherapy clinical trials for depression and anxiety. We focus specifically on replications of trials that exhibit large differences between psychotherapies. The replicability of these trials is especially important for meta-analysis, where the inclusion of false-positive trials can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy. Methods Standard replication criteria were developed to distinguish direct from conceptual replication methodologies. Next, an exhaustive literature search was conducted for published meta-analyses of psychotherapy comparisons. Trials that exhibited large effects (d > 0.8) were culled from these meta-analyses. For each trial, a cited replication was conducted to determine if the trial had been subsequently replicated by either ‘direct’ or ‘conceptual’ methods. Finally, a broader search was conducted to examine the extent of replication efforts in the psychotherapy literature overall. Results In the meta-analytic search, a total of N = 10 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. From these meta-analyses, N = 12 distinct trials exhibited large effect sizes. The meta-analyses containing more than two large effect trials reported evidence for treatment superiority. A cited replication search yielded no direct replication attempts (N = 0) for the trials with large effects, and N = 4 conceptual replication attempts of average or above average quality. However, of these four attempts, only two partially corroborated the results from their original trial. Conclusion Meta-analytic reviews are influenced by trials with large effects, and it is not uncommon for these reviews to contain several such trials. Since we find no evidence that trials with such large effects are directly replicable, treatment superiority conclusions from these reviews are highly questionable. To enhance the quality of clinical science, the development of authoritative replication criteria for clinical trials is needed. Moreover, quality benchmarks should be considered before trials are included in a meta-analysis, or replications are attempted.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Pre-, Pro-, and Synbiotics: Do They Have a Role in Reducing Uremic Toxins? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Rossi ◽  
Kerenaftali Klein ◽  
David W. Johnson ◽  
Katrina L. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Uremic Toxins ◽  
Population Estimates ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Grade Approach

Objective. This paper assessed the effectiveness of pre-, pro-, and synbiotics on reducing two protein-bound uremic toxins, p-cresyl sulphate (PCS) and indoxyl sulphate (IS).Methods. English language studies reporting serum, urinary, or fecal PCS and/or IS (or their precursors) following pre-, pro-, or synbiotic interventions (>1 day) in human adults were included. Population estimates of differences in the outcomes between the pre- and the postintervention were estimated for subgroups of studies using four meta-analyses. Quality was determined using the GRADE approach.Results. 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, 14 in healthy adults and five in haemodialysis patients. Eight studies investigated prebiotics, six probiotics, one synbiotics, one both pre- and probiotics, and three studies trialled all three interventions. The quality of the studies ranged frommoderatetovery low. 12 studies were included in the meta-analyses with all four meta-analyses reporting statistically significant reductions in IS and PCS with pre- and probiotic therapy.Conclusion. There is a limited but supportive evidence for the effectiveness of pre- and probiotics on reducing PCS and IS in the chronic kidney disease population. Further studies are needed to provide more definitive findings before routine clinical use can be recommended.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Moxibustion Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-150
Author(s):  
Jang Mi Park ◽  
Cham Kyul Lee ◽  
Kyung Ho Kim ◽  
Eun Jung Kim ◽  
Chan Yung Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evaluation Index ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Manager

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence supporting the effectiveness of moxibustion treatment for osteoarthritis. There were 9 databases used to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used moxibustion as treatment for osteoarthritis. The quality of methodology for the RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3 Windows, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark]. The inclusion criteria for this review was met by 27 RCTs. All studies were conducted in China. A 4-week moxibustion treatment period was the most common. EX-LE4 and SP10 and GB34 acupoints were most frequently selected in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The most commonly used evaluation index was the visual analog scale (VAS). All studies, including a meta-analysis showed that moxibustion treatments were statistically significantly effective at treating knee osteoarthritis. However, welldesigned randomized RCTs without a high risk of bias should be designed in the future.

scholarly journals Special Education Math Interventions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Quality

The purpose of document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses focused on participants with or at-risk of disabilities. The author drafted this coding protocol based on the meta-analysis quality indicators recommended by Talbott et al. (2018, pp. 248–249); specifically, the author considered the variables presented in Table 1 of Talbott et al. and supplemented the information so that the variables and definitions were specific to the purpose of this systematic review. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 variables across eight categories, including: Quality of Clear Research Questions, Quality of Eligibility Criteria, Quality of Search Procedures, Quality of Screening Criteria, Quality of Coding Procedures, Quality of Research Participants and Contexts, Quality of Data Analysis Plan, and Quality of Reporting Results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this protocol was 87.8% (range across categories = 74% –100%).

A systematic review of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery between 2000 and 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (10) ◽  
pp. 1270-1274 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Manta ◽  
E. Opingari ◽  
A. H. Saleh ◽  
N. Simunovic ◽  
A. Duong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aims The aims of this systematic review were to describe the quantity and methodological quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery published during the last 17 years. Materials and Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016, were searched for meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery dealing with at least one surgical intervention. Meta-analyses were included if the interventions involved a human muscle, ligament, bone or joint. Results A total of 392 meta-analyses met eligibility criteria, for which the mean AMSTAR quality score was 7.1/11. There was a positive correlation between the year of publication and the quality of the meta-analysis (r = 0.238, p < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2011, the mean AMSTAR score corresponded to that of a medium quality review. However, between 2012 and 2016, the mean scores have been consistently equivalent to those of a high-quality review. The number of meta-analyses published increased 10-fold between 2005 and 2014. Conclusion The quantity and quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery which have been published has increased, reaching a plateau in 2012. Methodological flaws remain to be addressed in future meta-analyses in order to continue increasing the quality of the orthopaedic literature. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1270–4.

scholarly journals Risk factors for postanesthetic emergence delirium in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miao He ◽  
◽  
Zhaoqiong Zhu ◽  
Min Jiang ◽  
Xingxing Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multivariate Regression ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Emergence Delirium ◽  
Review Question

Review question / Objective: Patientor population: patients with emergence delirium; Exposure: anaesthesia and surgery; Control: patients with no emergence delirium; Outcome: risk factors; Study design: meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: To ensure the quality of this meta-analysis, inclusion criteria was decided before we carried out the search. These criteria were: (a) Original researches that carried out in observational studies. (b)Adult patients who were extubated and recovered at PACU, operation room, or intensive care unit (ICU) after surgeries and anesthesia (including general and neuraxial anesthesia, peripheral nerve blocks and sedation). (c) Risk factors for delirium must be assessed with odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Researches must present the results of multivariate regression to be considered eligible for inclusion, since multivariate analysis results shall be used to identify variables eligible for meta-analysis. (d) Full-text available literatures.

scholarly journals Factors underpinning discrepant findings from reviews on the same topic: A systematic analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Hacke ◽  
David Nunan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
List Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveTo explore factors underpinning discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question.Study Design and SettingWe observed discrepant pooled effects in 23 out of 24 pairs of meta-analyses from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question. Here we present the results of a systematic assessment of methodological quality and factors that explain the observed quantitative discrepancies. Methodological quality of each review was assessed using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Matched pairs were contrasted at the macro- (review methodology), meso- (application of methodology) and micro- (data extraction) level and reasons for differences were derived.ResultsAll Cochrane reviews had high methodological quality (AMSTAR 8-11), whereas the majority (87.5%) of non-Cochrane reviews were classified as moderate (AMSTAR 4-7). Only one pair included exactly the same studies for their respective meta-analyses but there was still a discrepancy in the pooled estimate due to differences in data extraction. One pair did not include any study of its match and for one pair the same effect estimates were reported despite inclusion of different studies. The remaining pairs included at least one study in their match. Due to insufficient reporting (predominantly affecting non-Cochrane reviews) we were only able to completely ascertain the reasons for discrepancies in all included studies for 9/24 (37.5%) pairs. Across all pairs, differences in pre-defined methods (macro-level) including search strategy, eligibility criteria and performance of dual screening could possibly explain mismatches in included studies. Study selection procedures (meso-level) including disagreements in the interpretation of pre-defined eligibility criteria (14 matches) were identified as reasons underpinning discrepant review findings. Comparison of data extraction from primary studies (micro-level) was not possible in 13/24 pairs as a result of the non-Cochrane review providing insufficient details of the studies included in their meta-analyses. Two out of 24 pairs completely agreed on the numerical data presented for the same studies in their respective meta-analysis. Both review types provided sufficient information to check the accuracy of data extraction for 8 pairs (45 studies) where there were discrepancies. An assessment of 50% (22 studies) of these showed that reasons for differences in extracted data could be identified in 15 studies. We found examples for both types of review where data presented were discrepant from that given in the source study without a plausible explanation.ConclusionMethodological and author judgements and performance are key aspects underpinning poor overlap of included studies and discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates between topic-matched reviews. Though caution must be taken when extrapolating, our findings raise the question as to what extent the entire meta-analysis evidence-base accurately reflects the available primary research both in terms of volume and data. Reinforcing awareness of the application of guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses may help mitigate some of the key issues identified in our analysis.What is new?Key findings Non-Cochrane reviews were of a lower overall methodological quality compared with Cochrane reviews. Discrepant results of meta-analyses on the same topic can be attributed to differences in included studies based on review author decision, judgements and performance at different stages of the review process.What this adds to what was known?This study provides the most robust analysis to date of the potential methodological factors underpinning discrepant review findings between matched meta-analyses answering the same question. Assessing differences between reviews at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels is a useful method to identify reasons for discrepant meta-analyses at key stages of the review process.What is the implication and what should change now?There is a need for a standardised approach to performing matched-pair analysis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews answering the same question. Our paper provides a base for this that can be refined by replication and expert consensus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document