Optical coherence tomography angiography analysis methods:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is widely used for non-invasive retinal vascular imaging, but the OCTA methods used to assess retinal perfusion vary. We evaluated the different methods used to assess retinal perfusion between OCTA studies. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from 2014 to August 2021. We included prospective studies including ≥ 50 participants using OCTA to assess retinal perfusion in either global retinal or systemic disorders. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Heterogeneity of data was assessed by Q statistics, Chi-square test, and I2 index. Of the 5974 studies identified, 191 studies were included in this evaluation. The selected studies employed seven OCTA devices, six macula volume dimensions, four macula subregions, nine perfusion analyses, and five vessel layer definitions, totalling 197 distinct methods of assessing macula perfusion and over 7000 possible combinations. Meta-analysis was performed on 88 studies reporting vessel density and foveal avascular zone area, showing lower retinal perfusion in patients with diabetes mellitus than in healthy controls, but with high heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was lowest and reported vascular effects strongest in superficial capillary plexus assessments. Systematic review of OCTA studies revealed massive heterogeneity in the methods employed to assess retinal perfusion, supporting calls for standardisation of methodology

Effectiveness of Mechanisms and Models of Coordination between Organizations, Agencies and Bodies Providing or Financing Health Services in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Effective coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises is required to ensure efficiency of services, avoid duplication, and improve equity. The objective of this review was to assess how, during and after humanitarian crises, different mechanisms and models of coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services compare in terms of access to health services and health outcomes. METHODS: We registered a protocol for this review in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews under number PROSPERO2014:CRD42014009267. Eligible studies included randomized and nonrandomized designs, process evaluations and qualitative methods. We electronically searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the WHO Global Health Library and websites of relevant organizations. We followed standard systematic review methodology for the selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 14,309 identified citations from databases and organizations' websites, we identified four eligible studies. Two studies used mixed-methods, one used quantitative methods, and one used qualitative methods. The available evidence suggests that information coordination between bodies providing health services in humanitarian crises settings may be effective in improving health systems inputs. There is additional evidence suggesting that management/directive coordination such as the cluster model may improve health system inputs in addition to access to health services. None of the included studies assessed coordination through common representation and framework coordination. The evidence was judged to be of very low quality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides evidence of possible effectiveness of information coordination and management/directive coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises. Our findings can inform the research agenda and highlight the need for improving conduct and reporting of research in this field

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome