Effects of nutritional supplements on the re-infection rate of soil-transmitted helminths in school-age children : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The effect of nutritional supplements on the re-infection rate of species-specific soil-transmitted helminth infections in school-aged children remains complex and available evidence on the subject matter has not been synthesized. Methods The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs investigating food supplements on school-aged children between the age of 4–17 years. A search for RCTs was conducted on eight databases from inception to 12th June 2019. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in all included studies. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were conducted to describe and analyze the results of the review. Outcomes were summarized using the mean difference or standardized mean difference where appropriate. Results The search produced 1,816 records. Six studies met the inclusion criteria (five individually RCTs and one cluster RCT). Four studies reported data on all three STH species, while one study only reported data on Ascaris lumbricoides infections and the last study reported data on only hookworm infections. Overall, the risk of bias in four individual studies was low across most domains. Nutritional supplementation failed to statistically reduce the re-infection rates of the three STH species. The effect of nutritional supplements on measures of physical wellbeing in school-aged children could not be determined. Conclusions The findings from this systematic review suggest that nutritional supplements for treatment of STH in children should not be encouraged unless better evidence emerges. Conclusion of earlier reviews on general populations may not necessarily apply to children since children possibly have a higher re-infection rate

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening?

__Background:__ Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. __Methods:__ We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. __Discussion:__ This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. _Systematic review registration:_ PROSPERO CRD42016050764and CRD42016050765

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews

Abstract Background Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. Methods We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. Discussion This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD4201605076

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews

Abstract Background Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. Methods We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. Discussion This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD4201605076

The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator: development and validation of a tool for identifying African surgical patients at risk of severe postoperative complications

Background: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) showed that surgical patients in Africa have a mortality twice the global average. Existing risk assessment tools are not valid for use in this population because the pattern of risk for poor outcomes differs from high-income countries. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a simple, preoperative risk stratification tool to identify African surgical patients at risk for in-hospital postoperative mortality and severe complications. Methods: ASOS was a 7-day prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery in Africa. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator was constructed with a multivariable logistic regression model for the outcome of in-hospital mortality and severe postoperative complications. The following preoperative risk factors were entered into the model; age, sex, smoking status, ASA physical status, preoperative chronic comorbid conditions, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. Results: The model was derived from 8799 patients from 168 African hospitals. The composite outcome of severe postoperative complications and death occurred in 423/8799 (4.8%) patients. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator includes the following risk factors: age, ASA physical status, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. The model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.805 and good calibration with c-statistic corrected for optimism of 0.784. Conclusions: This simple preoperative risk calculator could be used to identify high-risk surgical patients in African hospitals and facilitate increased postoperative surveillance. © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Medical Research Council of South Africa gran