Feto-Maternal Outcomes of Breastfeeding during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is beneficial to both mother and infant. However, overlap of lactation with pregnancy and short recuperative intervals may impact mothers nutritionally. We aimed to investigate the possible effects of pregnancy during breastfeeding. METHODS: In October 2018, we searched systematically in nine electronic databases to investigate any association of breastfeeding during pregnancy with fetal and/or maternal outcomes. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD41017056490). A meta-analysis was done to detect maternal and fetal outcomes and complications during pregnancy. Quality assessment was performed using the Australian Cancer Council bias tool for included studies. RESULTS: With 1992 studies initially identified, eight were eligible for qualitative analysis and 12 for quantitative analysis. Our results showed no significant difference in different abortion subtypes between lactating and non-lactating ones. In delivery, no difference between two groups regarding the time of delivery in full-term healthy, preterm delivery and preterm labor. No significant difference was detected in rates of antepartum, postpartum hemorrhage and prolonged labor between two groups. The women with short reproductive intervals may have higher supplemental intake and greater reduction fat store. The present studies showed that breastfeeding during pregnancy does not lead to adverse outcomes in the mother and her fetus in normal low-risk pregnancy, although it may lead to the nutritional burden on the mother. CONCLUSION: The present studies showed that breastfeeding during pregnancy did not lead to the adverse outcomes in the mother and her fetus.

Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey. METHODS: We conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included. RESULTS: From 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (P = 0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Many authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.

Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: An updated, large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare three different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches: culprit-only (COR) and complete (CR) revascularization - categorizing into immediate (ICR) or staged (SCR). METHODS: We searched 13 databases for randomized controlled trials. Articles were included if they compared at least two strategies. To have more studies in each analysis, an adjusted analysis was performed using person-years to incorporate follow-up durations and obtain pooled rate ratios (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included with a population of 2830 patients. COR significantly increased major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.27-2.19) and repeat revascularization (2.12, 1.67-2.69), which was driven by repeat PCI, without any difference in all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to CR. When categorizing CR into SCR and ICR, the trend repeated with COR increased MACE (1.99, 1.53-2.6 for ICR), cardiovascular mortality (2.06, 1.07-3.96 for ICR), MI for ICR (1.72, 1.04-2.86), repeat revascularization and repeat PCI for both ICR and SCR. Non-cardiovascular mortality, stroke, nephropathy, re-hospitalization, stent thrombosis and bleeding were similar among all approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In MVD-STEMI patients, CR is better than COR in terms of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, repeat revascularization with no difference in safety outcomes. There was a trend towards to a reduction of cardiovascular mortality and MI in ICR compared to SCR when each matched with COR; even though there is no statistically significant difference between ICR and SCR when compared together.