Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB (PTB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with PTB. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health, for cohort and case-control studies that reported risk factors for inhospital mortality in PTB. We pooled all factors that were assessed for an association, and presented relative associations as pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: We identified 2,969 records, of which we retrieved 51 in full text; 11 cohort studies that evaluated 5,468 patients proved eligible. Moderate quality evidence suggested an association with co-morbid malignancy and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01–3.40). Low quality evidence showed no association with positive sputum smear (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.40–2.48), or male sex (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.84–1.41), and very low quality evidence showed no association with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.31, 95% IC 0.38–4.46), and previous TB infection (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.48–14.87). Conclusion: Co-morbid malignancy was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death among pulmonary TB patients. There is insufficient evidence to confirm positive sputum smear, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and previous TB infection as predictors of in-hospital mortality in TB patients

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS) : introduction and methodology

Funding Information: The Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS) project was conducted by the Clinical Urology and Epidemiology (CLUE) Working Group and supported by the Academy of Finland (309387, 340957), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and Competitive Research Funding of the Helsinki University Hospital (TYH2019321; TYH2020248). The sponsors had no role in the analysis and interpretation of the data or the manuscript preparation, review, or approval. Funding Information: KMA received a research grant from Astra Zeneca, and is consultant for Gedeon Richter, and received reimbursement for attending a scientific meeting from GSK (Tesaro Bio). RMT received reimbursement for attending a scientific meeting from Olympus. LIL, GHG, YL, RC, ALL, VJS, IEJK, PJK, RJC, RLA, KA, KMA, IB-L, MHB, JLC, SC, PJG, HAG-P, FZG, HAG, LH, MLI-K, KMJ, PKK, NK, TPK, AJK, TK, HL, AKM, BTN, TPN, CN, SMO, SP, NP, CBBR, ARR, TS, RMT, RWMV, YW, YX, LY, JH, and KAOT have no financial conflicts of interest. GHG and RC were panel members of the European Association of Urology (EAU) ad hoc Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery. KAOT was chair of the European Association of Urology (EAU) ad hoc Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery and panel member of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Guideline Panel on Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Surgical Hospitalized Patients. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. Methods We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Discussion This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021234119Peer reviewe

Role of midazolam on cancer progression/survival - An updated systematic review

Background and Aims: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite advancements in cancer management, cancer progression remains a challenge, requiring the development of novel therapies. Midazolam is a commonly used adjunct to anaesthesia care for various surgeries, including cancer. Recently, there has been a growing interest in exploring the potential role of midazolam as an anticancer agent; however, the exact mechanism of this linkage is yet to be investigated thoroughly. Methods: Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, this systematic review presented aggregated evidence (till November 2022) of the effects of midazolam on cancer progression and survival. All primary research article types where midazolam was administered in vivo or in vitro on subjects with cancers were included. No restrictions were applied on routes of administration or the type of cancer under investigation. Narrative synthesis depicted qualitative findings, whereas frequencies and percentages presented numerical data. Results: Of 1720 citations, 19 studies were included in this review. All articles were preclinical studies conducted either in vitro (58%, 11/19) or both in vivo and in vitro (42%, 8/19). The most studied cancer was lung carcinoma (21%, 4/19). There are two main findings in this review. First, midazolam delays cancer progression (89%, 17/19). Second, midazolam reduces cancer cell survival (63%, 12/19). The two major mechanisms of these properties can be explained via inducing apoptosis (63%, 12/19) and inhibiting cancer cell proliferation (53%, 10/19). In addition, midazolam demonstrated antimetastatic properties via inhibition of cancer invasion (21%, 4/19), migration (26%, 5/19), or epithelial-mesenchymal transition (5%, 1/19). These anticancer properties of midazolam were demonstrated through different pathways when midazolam was used alone or in combination with traditional cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights that midazolam has the potential to impede cancer progression and decrease cancer cell survival. Extrapolation of these results into human cancer necessitates further investigation

The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications.

OBJECTIVE: Several specialized collections of COVID-19 literature have been developed during the global health emergency. These include the WHO COVID-19 Global Literature Database, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CAMARADES COVID-19 SOLES, Epistemonikos\u27 COVID-19 L-OVE, and LitCovid. Our objective was to evaluate the completeness of these collections and to measure the time from when COVID-19 articles are posted to when they appear in the collections. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We tested each selected collection for the presence of 440 included studies from 25 COVID-19 systematic reviews. We sampled 112 journals and prospectively monitored their websites until a new COVID-19 article appeared. We then monitored for 2 weeks to see when the new articles appeared in each collection. PubMed served as a comparator. RESULTS: Every collection provided at least one record not found in PubMed. Four records (1%) were not in any of the sources studied. Collections contained between 83% and 93% of the primary studies with the WHO database being the most complete. By 2 weeks, between 60% and 78% of tracked articles had appeared. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of the best performing COVID-19 collections by systematic reviews to replace paywalled databases

Pediatric Chronic Critical Illness: Protocol for a Scoping Review

BackgroundImprovements in the delivery of intensive care have increased survival among even the most critically ill children, thereby leading to a growing number of children with chronic complex medical conditions in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Some of these children are at a significant risk of recurrent and prolonged critical illness, with higher morbidity and mortality, making them a unique population described as having chronic critical illness (CCI). To date, pediatric CCI has been understudied and lacks an accepted consensus case definition. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the protocol and methodology used to perform a scoping review that will describe how pediatric CCI has been defined in the literature, including the concept of prolonged PICU admission and the methodologies used to develop any existing definitions. It also aims to describe patient characteristics and outcomes evaluated in the included studies. MethodsWe will search four electronic databases for studies that evaluated children admitted to any PICU identified with CCI. We will also search for studies describing prolonged PICU admission, as this concept is related to pediatric CCI. Furthermore, we will develop a hybrid crowdsourcing and machine learning (ML) methodology to complete citation screening. Screening and data abstraction will be performed by 2 reviewers independently and in duplicate. Data abstraction will include the details of population definitions, demographic and clinical characteristics of children with CCI, and evaluated outcomes. ResultsThe database search, crowd reviewer recruitment, and ML algorithm development began in March 2021. Citation screening and data abstraction were completed in April 2021. Final data verification is ongoing, with analysis and results anticipated to be completed by fall 2021. ConclusionsThis scoping review will describe the existing or suggested definitions of pediatric CCI and important demographic and clinical characteristics of patients to whom these definitions have been applied. This review’s results will help inform the development of a consensus case definition for pediatric CCI and set a priority agenda for future research. We will use and demonstrate the validity of crowdsourcing and ML methodologies for improving the efficiency of large scoping reviews. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/3058

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB (PTB). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with PTB. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health, for cohort and case-control studies that reported risk factors for inhospital mortality in PTB. We pooled all factors that were assessed for an association, and presented relative associations as pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results: We identified 2,969 records, of which we retrieved 51 in full text; 11 cohort studies that evaluated 5,468 patients proved eligible. Moderate quality evidence suggested an association with co-morbid malignancy and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01–3.40). Low quality evidence showed no association with positive sputum smear (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.40–2.48), or male sex (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.84–1.41), and very low quality evidence showed no association with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.31, 95% IC 0.38–4.46), and previous TB infection (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.48–14.87). Conclusion: Co-morbid malignancy was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death among pulmonary TB patients. There is insufficient evidence to confirm positive sputum smear, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and previous TB infection as predictors of in-hospital mortality in TB patients

Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: A systematic survey

Background: The reporting quality of abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) is inadequate despite the publication of consolidated standards of reporting trials extension for abstracts (CONSORT-A). We compared the reporting quality of abstracts in pain journals before and after the publication of CONSORT-A. Methods: We searched MEDLINE in April-2016 for RCTs published in five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, European Journal of Pain, Clinical Journal of Pain and Pain Practice for pre- and post-CONSORT-A period (2005–2007 and 2013–2015). Data were extracted in duplicate from 250 abstracts for compliance with CONSORT-A, and for items known to affect reporting quality: journal endorsement of CONSORT, number of trial centers, sample-size, type of intervention, industry-sponsorship and significance of results. The primary outcome was mean number of items reported and the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item. We used logistic regression and Poisson regression for analyses. Results: Most trials were single centric (76%), had sample size <100 (63%), involved pharmacological intervention (59%) and were non-industry funded (70%). The mean number of items reported was better for 2013–2015 (mean difference 0.94; 95% confidence-interval [CI]: 0.50–1.38, p < 0.001). Post-CONSORT-A, trials were more likely to report as randomized in the title (odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% CI 1.61–4.49), describe eligibility criteria and settings (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.35–4.54), provide effect size and precision for primary outcome (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.19–5.16), inform harms (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.05–3.07) and report trial registration (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.44–18.32). Post-CONSORT-A period (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.15; 95% CI 1.07–1.24), endorsement of CONSORT statement by the journal (IRR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02–1.14), multi-centric studies (IRR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.20), and studies with pharmacological interventions (IRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02–1.13) were significantly associated with reporting of more items. Conclusions: Abstract reporting for trials in pain literature was better in the post-CONSORT-A period, but there is room for improvement. Keywords: Reporting quality, Abstract, Clinical trial, Pain, Journa