Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Saliva for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Context: There is an unmet clinical need to develop simple, easy, rapid, and accessible testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Recent reports suggested that saliva may be a host for the virus. The existence of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva can be associated with oral manifestations in infected patients. A systematic review was conducted as well as a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and investigate the association between positive saliva test and oral manifestations of COVID-19. Evidence acquisition: A literature search in MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane was done in June 2020 and updated in February 2021 using relevant keywords. We screened studies for eligibility. The extracted data were analyzed using Meta-Disc software. Results: Eighteen studies were included. Pooled data from eligible studies showed that the sensitivity of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83–0.89), and the specificity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96–0.98). COVID-19 was associated with oral diseases as amblygeustia, dry mouth, dryness, inflammation of the mouth, and enlargement of lymph nodes in the submandibular regions. Conclusions: Our results showed that the saliva has a high accuracy in the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundSurveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value ResultsForty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = ConclusionMonetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys

Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials

Background: Surveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value \u3c 0.05. Results: Forty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = \u3c 0.00001) compared to voucher (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08,1.31; P = \u3c 0.0005) and lottery (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03,1.22; P = \u3c 0.009). Conclusion: Monetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys

Abstract Number ‐ 153: Mobile stroke units in acute ischemic stroke: A comprehensive meta‐analysis of nineteen controlled trials

Introduction In certain circumstances, mobile stroke units (MSU) with on‐site treatment teams and a computed tomography scanner may offer faster therapy with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for stroke patients who need immediate treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare clinical outcomes in MSU patients to those in conventional care. Methods We searched key electronic databases from inception till September 2021. The primary outcomes were mortality at 7 days and 90 days. The secondary outcomes included modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days, alarm to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) or intra‐arterial recanalization, and time from symptom onset or last known well (LKW) to thrombolysis. Results We included nineteen controlled trials and cohort studies to conduct our final analysis. Our comparison revealed that 90‐day mortality rate significantly declined in MSU group as compared to conventional care group (OR = 0.81, 95%CI [0.69,0.95]), while there was no significant difference at 7 days (OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.68,1.15]). As regard achieving functional independence at 90 days (mRS = 0–2), MSU showed better results (OR = 1.24, 95%CI [1.03,1.49]). MSU was associated with shorter time from symptoms onset or LKW to thrombolysis (MD = ‐36.79, 95%CI [‐47.48, ‐26.10]) and alarm to IV thrombolysis or intra‐arterial recanalization (MD = ‐29.69, 95%CI [‐34.46, ‐24.92]). Conclusions Stroke patients treated in MSU had a lower incidence of the 90‐day mortality. They also had better functional independence at 90 days and time from symptom onset or LKW to thrombolysis than those treated with conventional care

Mobile Stroke Units in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5 T Letter Domains

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) may be administered to stroke patients requiring immediate treatment more quickly than emergency medical services if certain conditions are met. These conditions include the presence of mobile stroke units (MSUs) with on-site treatment teams and a computed tomography scanner. We compared clinical outcomes of MSU conventional therapy by emergency medical services through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases from inception till September 2021. The primary outcomes were mortality at 7 and 90 days. The secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days, alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization, and time from symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis. We included 19 controlled trials and cohort studies to conduct our final analysis. Our comparison revealed that 90-day mortality significantly decreased in the MSU group compared with the conventional care group [risk ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.95], while there was no significant difference at 7 days (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). MSU achieved greater functional independence (modified Rankin Scale = 0-2) at 90 days (risk ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16). MSU was associated with shorter alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization time (mean difference = -29.69; 95% CI, -34.46 to -24.92), treating patients in an earlier time window, as shown through symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis (mean difference = -36.79; 95% CI, -47.48 to -26.10). MSU-treated patients had a lower rate of 90-day mortality and better 90-day functional outcomes by earlier initiation of IVT compared with conventional care