Global Prevalence of Zika and Chikungunya Coinfection:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zika virus (ZIKV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV) are arthropod-borne viruses with significant pathogenicity, posing a substantial health and economic burden on a global scale. Moreover, ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection imposes additional therapeutic challenges as there is no specific treatment for ZIKV or CHIKV infection. While a growing number of studies have documented the ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection, there is currently a lack of conclusive reports on this coinfection. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the true statistics of ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection in the global human population. Relevant studies were searched for in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar without limitation in terms of language or publication date. A total of 33 studies containing 41,460 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42020176409. The pooled prevalence and confidence intervals of ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection were computed using a random-effects model. The study estimated a combined global prevalence rate of 1.0% [95% CI: 0.7–1.2] for the occurrence of ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection. The region of North America (Mexico, Haiti, and Nicaragua) and the country of Haiti demonstrated maximum prevalence rates of 2.8% [95% CI: 1.5–4.1] and 3.5% [95% CI: 0.2–6.8], respectively. Moreover, the prevalence of coinfection was found to be higher in the paediatric group (2.1% [95% CI: 0.0–4.2]) in comparison with the adult group (0.7% [95% CI: 0.2–1.1]). These findings suggest that the occurrence of ZIKV-CHIKV coinfection varies geographically and by age group. The results of this meta-analysis will guide future investigations seeking to understand the underlying reasons for these variations and the causes of coinfection and to develop targeted prevention and control strategies

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

© 2024 The Authors. Published by MDPI. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12196311The assurance of safety and effectiveness is a significant focal point in all therapeutic approaches. Although mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been identified as a potential novel therapeutic strategy for multiple sclerosis (MS), existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of this strategy remains inconclusive. Thus, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of MSC therapy in individuals diagnosed with MS. A comprehensive search was conducted using appropriate keywords in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases to determine the eligible studies. The change in the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score from baseline to follow-up was used to assess MSC efficacy. The effectiveness of the therapy was assessed using a random-effects model, which calculated the combined prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for MS patients who experienced improvement, stability, or worsening of their condition. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209671). The findings indicate that 40.4% (95% CI: 30.6–50.2) of MS patients exhibited improvements following MSC therapy, 32.8% (95% CI: 25.5–40.1) remained stable, and 18.1% (95% CI: 12.0–24.2) experienced a worsening of their condition. Although no major complications were observed, headaches 57.6 [37.9–77.3] and fever 53.1 [20.7–85.4] were commonly reported as minor adverse events. All of the results reported in this meta-analysis are consistent and credible according to the sensitivity analyses. Regardless of different individual studies, our meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview showing the potential of MSC therapy as a possible effective treatment strategy for patients with MS.This research received no external funding.Published versio

Prevalence and characteristics of fever in adult and paediatric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19):a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17515 patients

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Fever has been observed as one of the most common clinical manifestations, although the prevalence and characteristics of fever in adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of fever and chills in addition to fever characteristics (low, medium, and high temperature) in both adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020176327). PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases were searched between 1st December 2019 and 3rd April 2020 without language restrictions. Both adult (≥18 years) and paediatric (ResultsWe identified 2055 studies, of which 197 studies (n = 24266) were included in the systematic review and 167 studies with 17142 adults and 373 paediatrics were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of fever in adult and paediatric COVID-19 patients were 79.43% [95% CI: 77.05-81.80, I2 = 95%] and 45.86% [95% CI: 35.24-56.48, I2 = 78%], respectively. Besides, 14.45% [95% CI: 10.59-18.32, I2 = 88%] of the adult COVID-19 patients were accompanied with chills. In adult COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of medium-grade fever (44.33%) was higher compared to low- (38.16%) and high-grade fever (14.71%). In addition, the risk of both low (RR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.69-3.22, pConclusionsThe prevalence of fever in adult COVID-19 patients was high, however, 54.14% of paediatric COVID-19 patients did not exhibit fever as an initial clinical feature. Prevalence and risk of low and medium-grade fevers were higher compared to high-grade fever

Prevalence of Antibiotic-Resistant <i>Shigella</i> spp. in Bangladesh:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 44,519 Samples

© 2023 The Authors. Published by MDPI. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050817Shigella is the leading global etiological agent of shigellosis, especially in poor and underdeveloped or developing nations with insufficient sanitation such as Bangladesh. Antibiotics are the only treatment option for the shigellosis caused by Shigella spp. as no effective vaccine exists. However, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a serious global public health concern. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the overall drug resistance pattern against Shigella spp. in Bangladesh. The databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies. This investigation comprised 28 studies with 44,519 samples. Forest and funnel plots showed any-drug, mono-drug, and multi-drug resistance. Any fluoroquinolone had a resistance rate of 61.9% (95% CI: 45.7–83.8%), any trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole—60.8% (95% CI: 52.4–70.5%), any azithromycin—38.8% (95% CI: 19.6–76.9%), any nalidixic acid—36.2% (95% CI: 14.2–92.4%), any ampicillin—34.5% (95% CI: 25.0–47.8%), and any ciprofloxacin—31.1% (95% CI: 11.9–81.3%). Multi-drug-resistant Shigella spp. exhibited a prevalence of 33.4% (95% CI: 17.3–64.5%), compared to 2.6% to 3.8% for mono-drug-resistant strains. Since resistance to commonly used antibiotics and multidrug resistance were higher, a judicious use of antibiotics, the promotion of infection control measures, and the implementation of antimicrobial surveillance and monitoring programs are required to tackle the therapeutic challenges of shigellosis.Published versio

Prevalence of Anemia among Children and Adolescents of Bangladesh:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

© 2023 The Authors. Published by MDPI. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031786The prevalence of anemia is high among children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries because of undernutrition resulting from their poor socioeconomic status and lack of knowledge on proper nutrition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of anemia among children and adolescents aged between 6 months and 19 years in Bangladesh. Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the studies that reported the prevalence of anemia among children and adolescents. A total of 24 studies, including the data of 14,062 cases, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis of the time period between 1997 and 2019. The random-effects model was used to calculate the summary estimates. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021246960). The pooled prevalence of anemia, iron deficiency anemia (IDA), and non-severe and severe anemia were 46.8% [95% CI: 36.0–57.6], 13.6% [95% CI: 8.0–19.2], 56.4% [95% CI: 39.6–73.1] and 0.7% [95% CI: 0.1–1.4], respectively. Prevalence of anemia exhibited the highest among the children aged ≤2 years. Briefly, 91.67% of the studies were of high quality. No significant publication bias was found; however, two outlier studies were detected. The prevalence of anemia among children and adolescents was estimated as high in Bangladesh.Published versio

Vitamin D Status in Patients with Primary Antiphospholipid Syndrome (PAPS):A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder, characterised by consistently high levels of antiphospholipid antibodies, thrombosis, and/or pregnancy morbidity. Due to various suspected causes, deficient or insufficient levels of vitamin D in the serum have been reported in patients with PAPS; however, the reports have been sporadic and inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in patients with PAPS compared to controls. A protocol was registered in PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42019132128) and a systematic literature search was conducted through Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases without restricting language and year. Pooled prevalence, mean difference (MD), and odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined by using a random effects model. Study quality was assessed by the Joana Brigg’s Institute (JBI) protocol and publication bias was evaluated by a trim and fill funnel plot, Begg’s, and Egger’s tests. The pooled prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency was found to be 32.2% [95% CI: 16.3–48.2] and 61.5% [95% CI: 40.2–82.8], respectively. Serum levels of vitamin D were considerably lower in the PAPS patients compared to controls (MD: −5.75, 95% CI: −9.73 to −1.77; p = 0.005). Multiple sensitivity analyses showed that the results remained statistically significant, demonstrating the robustness of this meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was detected in determining the MD of serum vitamin D levels in PAPS and controls. In conclusion, PAPS patients had greater rates of vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency, higher frequency of thrombosis, and lower serum vitamin D levels than healthy individuals

Prevalence of Headache in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,275 Patients

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Headache has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 2019 and March 2020. Adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 patients were considered eligible. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182529).Results: We identified 2,055 studies, of which 86 studies (n = 14,275, 49.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients was 10.1% [95% CI: 8.76–11.49]. There was no significant difference of headache prevalence in severe or critical vs. non-severe (RR: 1.05, p = 0.78), survived (recovered or discharged) vs. non-survived (RR: 1.36, p = 0.23), and ICU vs. non-ICU (RR: 1.06, p = 0.87) COVID-19 patients. We detected 64.0, 34.9, and 1.1% of the included studies as high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.Conclusions: From the first 4-month data of the outbreak, headache was detected in 10.1% of the adult COVID-19 patients.</jats:p

Prevalence of Headache in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,275 Patients

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Frontiers Media. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.562634Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Headache has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 2019 and March 2020. Adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 patients were considered eligible. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182529). Results: We identified 2,055 studies, of which 86 studies (n = 14,275, 49.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients was 10.1% [95% CI: 8.76–11.49]. There was no significant difference of headache prevalence in severe or critical vs. non-severe (RR: 1.05, p = 0.78), survived (recovered or discharged) vs. non-survived (RR: 1.36, p = 0.23), and ICU vs. non-ICU (RR: 1.06, p = 0.87) COVID-19 patients. We detected 64.0, 34.9, and 1.1% of the included studies as high, moderate, and low quality, respectively. Conclusions: From the first 4-month data of the outbreak, headache was detected in 10.1% of the adult COVID-19 patients.Published versio