Impact of routine cryptococcal antigen screening and targeted pre-emptive fluconazole therapy in antiretroviral naive HIV-infected adults with less than 100 CD4 cells/μL: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening and targeted pre-emptive fluconazole in antiretroviral naive HIV-infected adults with less than 100 CD4 cells/μL seems promising to reduce the burden of cryptococcal meningitis (CM). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science and used random-effect meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of blood CrAg-positivity (31 studies; 35,644 participants) and asymptomatic CM in CrAg-positives, incidence of CM and all-cause mortality in screened participants. Pooled prevalence of blood CrAg-positivity was 6% (95%CI: 5 - 7) and asymptomatic CM in CrAg-positives was 33% (95%CI: 21 - 45). Incidence of CM without pre-emptive fluconazole was 21.4% (95%CI: 11.6 - 34.4) and 5.7% (95%CI: 3.0 - 9.7) with pre-emptive fluconazole initiated at 800 mg/day. In CrAg-positives, post-screening lumbar puncture prior to initiating pre-emptive fluconazole at 800 mg/day further reduced incidence of CM to null and showed some survival benefits. However, all-cause mortality remained significantly higher in CrAg-positives than CrAg-negatives: RR: 2.2 (95%CI: 1.7 - 2.9, p<0.001)

PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology

Cross-sectional study of prevalence and determinants of uncontrolled hypertension among South African adult residents of Mkhondo municipality

Achieving the blood pressure treatment target in individuals with hypertension is a serious global health challenge. Furthermore, the actual burden of uncontrolled hypertension is poorly understood, especially in the developing countries. Therefore, this study comprehensively examined the prevalence and factors associated with uncontrolled hypertension in individuals receiving care at the primary healthcare facilities in the rural areas of Mkhondo Municipality in the Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 329 individuals attending care for hypertension were recruited from January 2019 to June 2019 at three primary healthcare centres, namely, Piet Retief hospital, Mkhondo town clinic and Thandukukhanya community health centre

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions

Background Mobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized. Methods Seven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results Searches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case. Conclusions Findings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

BACKGROUND: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. METHOD: A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching. RESULTS: Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. CONCLUSIONS: Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated

Global burden of active smoking among people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although the high burden of both active smoking and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is clearly known, the relationship between them is still not well characterized. Therefore, we estimated the global prevalence of active smoking in people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and investigated the association between exposure to active smoking and risk for suboptimal adherence to ART. Main text: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify articles published until September 19, 2019. Eligible studies reported the prevalence of active smoking in PLHIV on ART or investigated the association between active smoking and ART adherence; or enough data to compute these estimates. We used a random-effects model to pool data and quantified heterogeneity (I2). The global prevalence of active smoking was 36.1% (95% CI: 33.7-37.2; 329 prevalence data; 462 104 participants) with substantial heterogeneity. The prevalence increased with level of country income; from 10.1% (95% CI: 6.8-14.1) in low-income to 45.2% (95% CI: 42.7-47.7) in high-income countries; P < 0.0001. With regards to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) regions, the prevalence was higher in West and Central Europe and North America 45.4% (42.7-48.1) and lowest in the two UNAIDS regions of sub-Saharan Africa: Eastern and Southern Africa 10.7% (95% CI: 7.8-14.0) and West and Central Africa 4.4% (2.9-6.3); P < 0.0001. Globally, we estimated that there were 4 110 669 PLHIV on ART who were active smokers, among which the highest number was from Eastern and Southern Africa (35.9%) followed by Asia and the Pacific (25.9%). Active smoking was significantly associated with suboptimal ART adherence: pooled odds ratio 1.57 (95% CI: 1.37-1.80; I2 = 56.8%; 19 studies; 48 450 participants); even after considering adjusted estimates: 1.67 (95% CI: 1.39-2.01; I2 = 53.0%; 14 studies). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a high prevalence of active smoking in PLHIV on ART and an association between active smoking and ART suboptimal adherence. As such, healthcare providers and policy makers should focus on adopting and implementing tobacco harm reduction strategies in HIV care, especially in sub-Saharan Africa known as epicenter of HIV pandemic with highest number of active tobacco smoking among PLHIV on ART