CHARMS and PROBAST at your fingertips:a template for data extraction and risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews of predictive models

Background: Systematic reviews of studies of clinical prediction models are becoming increasingly abundant in the literature. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment are critical steps in any systematic review. CHARMS and PROBAST are the standard tools used for these steps in these reviews of clinical prediction models. Results: We developed an Excel template for data extraction and risk of bias assessment of clinical prediction models including both recommended tools. The template makes it easier for reviewers to extract data, to assess the risk of bias and applicability, and to produce results tables and figures ready for publication. Conclusion: We hope this template will simplify and standardize the process of conducting a systematic review of prediction models, and promote a better and more comprehensive reporting of these systematic reviews

Factors associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia: a post hoc analysis from two prospective cohorts

Background: Almost one third of the patients with candidemia develop septic shock. The understanding why some patients do and others do not develop septic shock is very limited. The objective of this study was to identify variables associated with septic shock development in a large population of patients with candidemia. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed on two prospective, multicenter cohort of patients with candidemia from 12 hospitals in Spain and Italy. All episodes occurring from September 2016 to February 2018 were analyzed to assess variables associated with septic shock development defined according to The Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Results: Of 317 candidemic patients, 99 (31.2%) presented septic shock attributable to candidemia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identifies the following factors associated with septic shock development: age > 50 years (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.03–6.41, p = 0.04), abdominal source of the infection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.04–4.55, p = 0.04), and admission to a general ward at the time of candidemia onset (OR 0.21, 95% CI, 0.12–0.44, p = 0.001). Septic shock development was independently associated with a greater risk of 30-day mortality (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.08–4.24, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Age and abdominal source of the infection are the most important factors significantly associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia. Our findings suggest that host factors and source of the infection may be more important for development of septic shock than intrinsic virulence factors of organisms

Higher COVID-19 pneumonia risk associated with anti-IFN-α than with anti-IFN-ω auto-Abs in children

We found that 19 (10.4%) of 183 unvaccinated children hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia had autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs (IFN-alpha 2 in 10 patients: IFN-alpha 2 only in three, IFN-alpha 2 plus IFN-omega in five, and IFN-alpha 2, IFN-omega plus IFN-beta in two; IFN-omega only in nine patients). Seven children (3.8%) had Abs neutralizing at least 10 ng/ml of one IFN, whereas the other 12 (6.6%) had Abs neutralizing only 100 pg/ml. The auto-Abs neutralized both unglycosylated and glycosylated IFNs. We also detected auto-Abs neutralizing 100 pg/ml IFN-alpha 2 in 4 of 2,267 uninfected children (0.2%) and auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-omega in 45 children (2%). The odds ratios (ORs) for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia were, therefore, higher for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-alpha 2 only (OR [95% CI] = 67.6 [5.7-9,196.6]) than for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-. only (OR [95% CI] = 2.6 [1.2-5.3]). ORs were also higher for auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 12.9 [4.6-35.9]) than for those neutralizing low concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 5.5 [3.1-9.6]) of IFN-omega and/or IFN-alpha 2

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis

<div><p>Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal’s impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087–1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018–1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.</p></div

Contribution of quantitative and qualitative variables to principal components.

<p>This panel of six plots display the percentage of contribution to components PC1 (a-d), PC2 (b-e), and PC3 (c-f) by quantitative (a-c) and qualitative (d-f) variables.</p