Incorporating social determinants of health into transmission modeling of COVID-19 vaccine in the US: a scoping review.

During COVID-19 in the US, social determinants of health (SDH) have driven health disparities. However, the use of SDH in COVID-19 vaccine modeling is unclear. This review aimed to summarize the current landscape of incorporating SDH into COVID-19 vaccine transmission modeling in the US. Medline and Embase were searched up to October 2022. We included studies that used transmission modeling to assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccine strategies in the US. Studies' characteristics, factors incorporated into models, and approaches to incorporate these factors were extracted. Ninety-two studies were included. Of these, 11 studies incorporated SDH factors (alone or combined with demographic factors). Various sets of SDH factors were integrated, with occupation being the most common (8 studies), followed by geographical location (5 studies). The results show that few studies incorporate SDHs into their models, highlighting the need for research on SDH impact and approaches to incorporating SDH into modeling. Funding: This research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Medication errors in emergency departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and severity.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors significantly compromise patient safety in emergency departments. Although previous studies have investigated the prevalence of these errors in this setting, results have varied widely. AIM: The aim was to report pooled data on the prevalence and severity of medication errors in emergency departments, as well as the proportion of patients affected by these errors. METHOD: Systematic searches were conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from database inception until June 2023. Studies provided numerical data on medication errors within emergency departments were eligible for inclusion. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed to pool the prevalence of medication errors, the proportion of patients experiencing these errors, and the error severity levels. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis gave a pooled prevalence of medication errors in emergency departments of 22.6% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 19.2-25.9%, I2 = 99.9%, p < 0.001). The estimated proportion of patients experiencing medication errors was 36.3% (95% CI 28.3-44.3%, I2 = 99.8%, p < 0.001). Of these errors, 42.6% (95% CI 5.0-80.1%) were potentially harmful but not life-threatening, while no-harm errors accounted for 57.3% (95% CI 14.1-100.0%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of medication errors, particularly those potentially harmful, underscores potential safety issues in emergency departments. It is imperative to develop and implement effective interventions aimed at reducing medication errors and enhancing patient safety in this setting.

Disparities in COVID-19 related outcomes in the United States by race and ethnicity pre-vaccination era: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.

Background: Meta-analyses have investigated associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes. However, there is uncertainty about these associations' existence, magnitude, and level of evidence. We, therefore, aimed to synthesize, quantify, and grade the strength of evidence of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in the US. Methods: In this umbrella review, we searched four databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos) from database inception to April 2022. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2). The strength of evidence of the associations between race and ethnicity with outcomes was ranked according to established criteria as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022336805. Results: Of 880 records screened, we selected seven meta-analyses for evidence synthesis, with 42 associations examined. Overall, 10 of 42 associations were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). Two associations were highly suggestive, two were suggestive, and two were weak, whereas the remaining 32 associations were non-significant. The risk of COVID-19 infection was higher in Black individuals compared to White individuals (risk ratio, 2.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.60-2.71), which was supported by highly suggestive evidence; with the conservative estimates from the sensitivity analyses, this association remained suggestive. Among those infected with COVID-19, Hispanic individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization than non-Hispanic White individuals (odds ratio, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.60-2.70) with highly suggestive evidence which remained after sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Individuals of Black and Hispanic groups had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization compared to their White counterparts. These associations of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes existed more obviously in the pre-hospitalization stage. More consideration should be given in this stage for addressing health inequity.

Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients in low-and-middle-income countries in Asia: a systematic review.

Introduction: Breast cancer remains one of the major cancers worldwide. In Asia, breast cancer is leading both incidence and mortality rates. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) studies play an important role in clinical treatment. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence of HRQoL and associated factors among patients with breast cancer in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia. Method: Performed according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic review, the studies were searched from three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus) up to November 2020. The studies which met the predefined eligibility criteria were selected, extracted, and assessed the quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Results and Discussion: A total of 2,620 studies were searched on the three databases, of which 28 met the selection criteria, then, were included in the systematic review. The Global Health Status (GHS) score of breast cancer patients based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire ranged from 56.32 ± 25.42 to 72.48 ± 15.68. The overall HRQoL scores using the FACT-G and FACT-B instruments ranged from 60.78 ± 13.27 to 82.23 ± 12.55 and from 70.29 ± 13.33 to 108.48 ± 19.82, respectively. Factors affecting HRQoL of patients with breast cancer included age, education level, income, marital status, lifestyle, tumor stage, method, and treatment duration. Patient's income showed a consistent effect on HRQoL while the remaining factors reported inconsistent findings across the studies. In conclusion, the HRQoL of breast cancer patients in LMICs in Asia was low and affected by several sociodemographic factors which should be studied more in future research.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Aim: Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are used as diagnostic tests for diagnosing diabetes mellitus, but it is unclear which test has the best diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and the combination of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl (HbA1c| FPG), compared with Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) ≥ 200 mg/dl for diagnosis diabetes. Materials and methods: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to September 24th, 2021. Inclusion criteria were any study design comparing HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl with OGTT ≥ 200 mg/dl as the reference test. Data were independently extracted, risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was done using a bivariate regression model using the Bayesian framework. The relative ranking of all tests was also assessed. Results: Out of 5,026 studies, 73 were included. The sensitivities of HbA1c, FPG, and HbA1c| FPG were 0.51 [95% Credible Interval (CrI): 0.43, 0.58], 0.49 (95% CrI: 0.43, 0.55), and 0.64 (95% CrI: 0.51, 0.75), while the specificities were 0.96 (95% CrI: 0.94, 0.97), 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.97, 0.98), and 0.95 (95% CrI: 0.88, 0.98), respectively. The corresponding positive likelihood ratios (LR) were 13.36 (95% CrI: 8.91, 20.72), 21.94 (95% CrI: 15.04, 31.88), and 11.78 (95% CrI: 5.48, 26.56). HbA1c| FPG is superior based on sensitivity, whereas FPG is ranked best based on specificity and positive LR. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that FPG ≥ 126 mg/dl should be recommended as the best diagnostic test for diabetes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021282856.