The effectiveness of early intervention on malocclusion and its impact on craniofacial growth: A systematic review

This review aims to assess the available evidence related to the effectiveness of early interventions on malocclusion and its impact on the craniofacial structure among children under six years of age. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the correlation between nutritive sucking behavior mechanisms on the oral facial components. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the LILACS from inception to December 10, 2020, to identify published randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that investigated the broad spectrum of early interventions for the treatment of malocclusions among pediatric patients under six years old. We have also included studies that evaluated the impact or the relationship between feeding alternatives, malocclusion, and craniofacial growth. Reviewers working in pairs investigators independently performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using ROBINS-I tool, and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Seven studies were included (783 patients), with an overall risk of bias classified as critical. Early treatment was shown to improve facial asymmetry, particularly in the lower part of the face, along with an increase of palatal volume and palatal surface. Early treatment showed important reduction of mandibular protrusion and length, leading to favorable sagittal growth of the maxilla. Furthermore, the early intervention significantly enhanced the average bite force magnitude (from 318.20 N to 382.79 N) and increased the general thickness of facial muscles. Our findings suggest that the benefits generated by early orthodontic interventions are related to the improvement of craniofacial symmetry/bone structure, and refinement of masticatory ability and performance. Notwithstanding, there is still a need for further studies appraising patientimportant outcomes, such as quality of life and nutritional features

The Current Status of Telemedicine Technology Use Across the World Health Organization European Region: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

BackgroundSeveral systematic reviews evaluating the use of telemedicine by clinicians, patients, and health authorities to improve the delivery of care in the 53 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region have been conducted in recent years. However, a study summarizing the findings of these reviews has not been conducted. ObjectiveThis overview of systematic reviews aimed to summarize findings regarding the use of telemedicine across the 53 member states and identify the medical fields and levels of care in and at which the effectiveness, feasibility, and applicability of telemedicine have been demonstrated. The barriers to and facilitators of telemedicine use were also evaluated and collated to help with the design and implementation of telemedicine interventions. MethodsThrough a comprehensive systematic evaluation of the published and unpublished literature, we extracted clinical, epidemiological, and technology-related data from each review included in the study. We focused on evaluating the barriers to and facilitators of the use of telemedicine apps across the 53 member states considered. We rated the methodological quality of each of the included reviews based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review 2 approach and judged the overall certainty of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. The entire process was performed by 2 independent authors. ResultsThis overview drew on data from >2239 primary studies, with >20,000 enrolled patients in total, within the WHO European Region. On the basis of data from randomized trials, observational studies, and economic evaluations from several countries, the results show a clear benefit of telemedicine technologies in the screening, diagnosis, management, treatment, and long-term follow-up of a series of chronic diseases. However, we were unable to pool the results into a reliable numeric parameter because of the high heterogeneity of intervention methodologies, scheduling, primary study design discrepancies, settings, and geographical locations. In addition to the clinical outcomes of the interventions, the social and economic outcomes are highlighted. ConclusionsThe application of telemedicine is well established across countries in the WHO European Region; however, some countries could still benefit from the many uses of these digital solutions. Barriers related to users, technology, and infrastructure were the largest. Conversely, the provision of health services using technological devices was found to significantly enhance patients’ clinical outcomes, improve the long-term follow-up of patients by medical professionals, and offer logistical benefits for both patients and health workers. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42022309375; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=30937

Infodemics and health misinformation : a systematic review of reviews

Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy

Interventions to minimize blood loss in very preterm infants-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Blood loss in the first days of life has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. In this systematic review we included randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of interventions to preserve blood volume in the infant from birth, reduce the need for sampling, or limit the blood sampled. Mortality and major neurodevelopmental disabilities were the primary outcomes. Included studies underwent risk of bias-assessment and data extraction by two review authors independently. We used risk ratio or mean difference to evaluate the treatment effect and meta-analysis for pooled results. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 31 trials enrolling 3,759 infants. Twenty-five trials were pooled in the comparison delayed cord clamping or cord milking vs. immediate cord clamping or no milking. Increasing placental transfusion resulted in lower mortality during the neonatal period (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00; participants = 595; trials = 5; I2 = 0%, moderate certainty of evidence) and during first hospitalization (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.96; 10 RCTs, participants = 2,476, low certainty of evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low for the other primary outcomes of this review. The six remaining trials compared devices to monitor glucose levels (three trials), blood sampling from the umbilical cord or from the placenta vs. blood sampling from the infant (2 trials), and devices to reintroduce the blood after analysis vs. conventional blood sampling (1 trial); the certainty of evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes in these comparisons. Increasing placental transfusion at birth may reduce mortality in very preterm infants; However, extremely limited evidence is available to assess the effects of other interventions to reduce blood loss after birth. In future trials, infants could be randomized following placental transfusion to different blood saving approaches. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020159882

Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals

Abstract Digital technologies change the healthcare environment, with several studies suggesting barriers and facilitators to using digital interventions by healthcare professionals (HPs). We consolidated the evidence from existing systematic reviews mentioning barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health technologies by HP. Electronic searches were performed in five databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase®, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE®, and Scopus) from inception to March 2023. We included reviews that reported barriers or facilitators factors to use technology solutions among HP. We performed data abstraction, methodological assessment, and certainty of the evidence appraisal by at least two authors. Overall, we included 108 reviews involving physicians, pharmacists, and nurses were included. High-quality evidence suggested that infrastructure and technical barriers (Relative Frequency Occurrence [RFO] 6.4% [95% CI 2.9–14.1]), psychological and personal issues (RFO 5.3% [95% CI 2.2–12.7]), and concerns of increasing working hours or workload (RFO 3.9% [95% CI 1.5–10.1]) were common concerns reported by HPs. Likewise, high-quality evidence supports that training/educational programs, multisector incentives, and the perception of technology effectiveness facilitate the adoption of digital technologies by HPs (RFO 3.8% [95% CI 1.8–7.9]). Our findings showed that infrastructure and technical issues, psychological barriers, and workload-related concerns are relevant barriers to comprehensively and holistically adopting digital health technologies by HPs. Conversely, deploying training, evaluating HP’s perception of usefulness and willingness to use, and multi-stakeholders incentives are vital enablers to enhance the HP adoption of digital interventions

Clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics and outcomes of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in humans: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623

ABC₂-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients

Objectives: The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March–July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August–September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Results: Median (25–75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48–72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829–0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833–0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870–0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). Conclusions: An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.</p