Correlates and outcomes of posttransplant smoking in solid organ transplant recipients : a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Despite smoking being an absolute or relative contraindication for transplantation, about 11% to 40% of all patients continue or resume smoking posttransplant. This systematic review with meta-analysis investigated the correlates and outcomes associated with smoking after solid organ transplantation.; We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception until January 2016, using state-of-the art methodology. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for correlates/outcomes investigated 5 times or more.; Seventy-three studies (43 in kidney, 17 in heart, 12 in liver, 1 in lung transplantation) investigated 95 correlates and 24 outcomes, of which 6 correlates and 4 outcomes could be included in the meta-analysis. The odds of smoking posttransplant were 1.33 times higher in men (95% CI, 1.12-1.57). Older individuals were significantly less likely to smoke (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62), as were patients with a higher body mass index (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). Hypertension (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.77-1.75), diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.15-1.78), and having a history of cardiovascular disease (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09) were not significant correlates. Posttransplant smokers had higher odds of newly developed posttransplant cardiovascular disease (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.02-1.95), nonskin malignancies (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.26-5.29), a shorter patient survival time (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79), and higher odds of mortality (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.21-2.48).; Posttransplant smoking is associated with poor outcomes. Our results might help clinicians to understand which patients are more likely to smoke posttransplant, guide interventional approaches, and provide recommendations for future research

The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study

The research conducted a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library and information services on patient care

HIV infection and sexual risk among men who have sex with men and women (MSMW): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To estimate the number of men who have sex with men and women who are HIV-positive in the United States, and to compare HIV prevalence rates between men who have sex with men and women, men who have sex with men only, and men who have sex with women exclusively. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports referencing HIV prevalence and men who have sex with men and women. We searched PubMed and Ovid PsycINFO for peer-reviewed, U.S.-based articles reporting on HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men and women. We conducted event rate, effect size, moderation and sensitivity analyses. Results: We estimate that 1.0% of U.S. males are bisexually-behaving, and that 121,800 bisexually-behaving men are HIV-positive. Men who have sex with men and women are less than half as likely to be HIV-positive as men who have sex with men only (16.9% vs. 33.3%; OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.54), but more than five times as likely to be HIV-positive as men who have sex with women exclusively (18.3% vs. 3.5%; OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 3.47, 9.39). They are less likely to engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse than men who have sex with men only (15.9% vs. 35.0%; OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.46). Men who have sex with men and women in samples with high racial/ethnic minority proportions had significantly higher HIV prevalence than their counterparts in low racial/ethnic minority samples. Conclusions: This represents the first meta-analysis of HIV prevalence in the U.S. between men who have sex with men and women and men who have sex with men only. Data collection, research, and HIV prevention and care delivery specifically tailored to men who have sex with men and women are necessary to better quantify and ameliorate this population's HIV burden. © 2014 Friedman et al

Open Access Journals: the Pros and Cons

Presentation given at University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing Center for Research and Evaluation Research Methodology Series

Risk factors for falls in adult cancer survivors: An integrative review

Purpose The aim of the study was to identify risk factors for falls among cancer survivors. Design Integrative literature review. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PEDro for studies investigating fall risk in cancer. Reports of randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies (quantitative and qualitative), and theoretical papers meeting predetermined criteria were included. Quality ratings of included studies were done, and data were extracted and compiled by two independent reviewers. Findings Twenty-nine articles met inclusion criteria. Literature quality was moderate (median quality score: 1.67 out of 3 possible points). Heterogeneity of statistics and reporting methods precluded calculation of summary effect sizes, but physical function, cognitive function, balance/gait, and certain medication types appear to increase fall risk. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Modifiable risk factors, such as those identified in this review, represent tangible intervention targets for rehabilitation professionals for decreasing the risk of falls among cancer survivors

Risk Factors for Falls in Adult Cancer Survivors: An Integrative Review

Purpose The aim of the study was to identify risk factors for falls among cancer survivors. Design Integrative literature review. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PEDro for studies investigating fall risk in cancer. Reports of randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies (quantitative and qualitative), and theoretical papers meeting predetermined criteria were included. Quality ratings of included studies were done, and data were extracted and compiled by two independent reviewers. Findings Twenty-nine articles met inclusion criteria. Literature quality was moderate (median quality score: 1.67 out of 3 possible points). Heterogeneity of statistics and reporting methods precluded calculation of summary effect sizes, but physical function, cognitive function, balance/gait, and certain medication types appear to increase fall risk. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Modifiable risk factors, such as those identified in this review, represent tangible intervention targets for rehabilitation professionals for decreasing the risk of falls among cancer survivors

Second primary malignancies in patients with haematological cancers treated with lenalidomide: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Lenalidomide has been standard therapy for multiple myeloma and other haematological malignancies for more than a decade. Previous meta-analyses identified an association between lenalidomide and second primary malignancies (SPM) in patients with multiple myeloma. However, newer randomised controlled trials using lenalidomide for other indications have not reported an increased incidence of SPM. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of developing SPM with lenalidomide use in all disease settings. Methods We did a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that reported SPM in patients treated with lenalidomide. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Europe PubMed Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from Jan 1, 2004, to March 18, 2022. Randomised controlled trials with at least one lenalidomide group and one non-lenalidomide group were selected, regardless of the disease setting. Studies with a median follow-up of less than 12 months were excluded. Summary data were extracted by two reviewers (KS and KL) independently and verified by a third reviewer (JF). We then conducted a meta-analysis to assess the risk ratio (RR) of SPM with lenalidomide use across various disease subtypes using a random-effects model. We chose random effects for the primary analysis because of anticipated heterogeneity between different diseases, but we used fixed effects for stratified meta-analysis of multiple myeloma studies. Risk of bias was assessed with the PROTECT tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257508. Findings Our search yielded 9078 studies, and 38 trials that included 14 058 patients were eligible for meta-analysis after screening, 18 of which were in multiple myeloma. The RR across all malignancies was 1·16 (95% CI 0·96–1·39). However, there was heterogeneity across indications (p=0·020). The RR when lenalidomide was used for multiple myeloma was 1·42 (1·09–1·84). There was no increase in SPM in lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (0·90 [0·76–1·08]) and myelodysplastic syndrome (0·96 [0·23–3·97]) trials. In the setting of multiple myeloma, lenalidomide increased both solid and haematological SPM, both in the no-transplantation and post-transplantation settings. From the 38 trials, 21 (55%) had low risk of bias, 12 (32%) had unclear risk of bias, and five (13%) had high risk of bias. Interpretation Based on the current data, lenalidomide-induced SPM seem to occur exclusively in patients with multiple myeloma. Thus, lenalidomide can be used for other indications without the major concern of a therapy-related neoplasm. In the multiple myeloma setting, lenalidomide is an effective drug, but patients should be monitored both for haematological and solid tumour SPM. This monitoring includes patients that have not received autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Further investigations are needed to improve understanding on why lenalidomide only promotes SPM in patients with multiple myeloma

HIV prevalence among MSMW, compared to MSWE, U.S.

<p>HIV prevalence among MSMW, compared to MSWE, U.S.</p

STI and sexual risk behavior differences between MSMW, MSMO, and MSWE.

*<p>All studies included measured any STI rather than individual kinds of STI, except one <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0087139#pone.0087139-Levin1" target="_blank">[42]</a>: for this study, we used data only on human papillomavirus symptoms/diagnosis in these analyses.</p