RESUMEN
Background: Burns are a serious public health problem worldwide, causing high morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare two forms of treatment for partial skin burns and to determine whether one is superior to the other in terms of efficacy and benefits through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. This article highlights the efficacy of tilapia skin in the treatment of burns. We performed a meta-analysis of 199 patients and highlighted the promising results that indicate the clinical relevance of this resource when we compared the cost of dressings with the daily need for dressing changes, healing potential, and reduction in pain level according to the VAS scale and reduced frequency of dressing changes. Methods: A search of PubMed, Cochrane Central, and LILACS was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing tilapia skin and silver-based dressings for treating burns. Studies involving overlapping populations and animals were excluded. The outcomes of interest were complete re-epithelialization, decreased pain level, and dressing change. Results: Summarize the article's main findings. Conclusions: Four randomized trials were included with a total of 199 patients with partial-thickness burns between the ages of 2 and 70 years. A total of 99 (49.74%) patients were treated with tilapia skin, and conventional treatment was used on 100 (50.25%) of the patients. Differences were found between the tilapia and silver-based treatments concerning re-epithelialization (MD -0.48; CI 95% -0.71 to -0.24; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), decreased pain level (MD -0.79; CI 95% -1.10 to -0.47; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), and dressing change outcome (MD -3.54; 95% CI -5.81 to -1.26; p = 0.02; I2 = 97%).
RESUMEN
The Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is an increasingly prevalent condition globally. Latino populations in the USA have shown an alarming increase in factors associated with MetS in recent years. The objective of the present systematic review was to determine the prevalence of MetS and its risk factors in immigrant Latinos in the USA and perform a meta-analysis of those prevalence. The review included cross-sectional, cohort, or case−control studies involving adult immigrant Latinos in the USA, published during the period 1980−2020 in any language. Studies involving individuals who were pregnant, aged <18 years, immigrant non-Latinos, published outside the 1980−2020 period, or with other design types were excluded. The Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, Scielo, and Google Scholar databases were searched. The risk of bias was assessed using the checklists of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review included 60 studies, and the meta-analysis encompassed 52 studies. The pooled prevalence found for hypertension, diabetes, general obesity, and abdominal obesity were 28% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 23−33%), 17% (95% CI: 14−20%), 37% (95% CI: 33−40%), and 54% (95% CI: 48−59%), respectively. The quality of the evidence of the primary studies was classified as low or very low. Few studies including immigrants from South America were identified. Further studies of those immigrants are needed due to the cultural, dietary, and language disparities among Latin American countries. The research protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF).