RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Various studies have examined the association between periodontitis and helicobacter pylori and reported conflicting results. The aimed of this systematic review and meta-analysis estimating the association between these two variables. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Web of Sciences and Medline (Elsevier) were searched using the relevant keywords. All observational studies comparing the association between periodontitis and helicobacter pylori were considered. The Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) checklist was used for assessing quality of included studies. All statistical analyses were completed using STATA (Version 16). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with 8,638 patients (15 case-control with 2,366 patients and 8 cross-sectional with 6,272 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. After combining the selected studies, the odds of presence the Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with the periodontal disease was 2.47 (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 2.01, 3.03; I2: 50.87%; P: 0.001). Also, the odds after combining case-control studies was 2.77 (OR: 2.77; % 95 CI: 2.11, 3.66; I2: 37.16%; P: 0.049) and after combining cross-sectional analytical ones, it was equal to 2.07 (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.62, 2.65; I2: 43.25%; P: 0.050). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, the association between Helicobacter pylori infection and the periodontal disease is evident.
Assuntos
Infecções por Helicobacter , Helicobacter pylori , Doenças Periodontais , Periodontite , Humanos , Infecções por Helicobacter/complicações , Estudos Transversais , Doenças Periodontais/complicações , Doenças Periodontais/epidemiologia , Periodontite/complicaçõesRESUMO
Background: Health systems must have functional and efficient preparedness and response plans to manage pandemics. Moreover, it is essential to adjust to changing circumstances and the dynamic character of pandemics. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP), emphasizing 144 measures across 10 pillars, helping governments prepare and respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to determine how the Iranian health system, based on the WHO-SPRP, addresses strategic preparedness and response plan in the COVID-19 pandemic at the national level. Methods: The WHO-SPRP was adopted and translated into Persian by 2 bilingual natives. The chief of the health office requested that authorized officers complete the SPRP. Then, a meeting was held by officers of related units involved in COVID-19 management to address the SPRP at regional and national levels. Results: Our findings suggest that up to August 2020, effective risk communication and community engagement were not fully established. Our response plan lacked evidence-based information and educational messaging to consistently shape public opinion and impression of a respiratory pandemic. Conclusion: The Iranian health care system and services were almost able to address the SPRP and perform the major indicators that the WHO had proposed. However, special attention should be paid to risk communication and community engagement to empower informed decision-making by individuals and communities.
RESUMO
Background: The evaluation of reinfection and the genetic structure of all human and virus genomes could help to develop programs and protocols for providing services and ultimately to prevent the disease by producing more effective vaccines. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the presence and occurrence of COVID-19 reinfection through a narrative review study. Methods: We searched the Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Ovid, and CINHAL databases. Inclusion criteria included all studies whose main purpose was to provide information about the occurrence or presence of reinfection in patients with COVID-19. An independent samples t test was used to compare the continuous outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: The mean duration of the first episode in the group with mild or moderate COVID-19 was 24.42±1.67 days, and it was 21.80±3.79 days in the group with severe COVID-19. The mean duration of the second episode (reinfection) in patients with mild or moderate form was 15.38 ± 5.57 days, and it was 19.20±2.98 days in patients with severe form. In both episodes, the duration of the disease did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (p=0.484 in the first episode; p=0.675 in the second episode), but the interval to the occurrence of reinfection in patients with the mild or moderate form was significantly longer than those with the severe form (p<0.001). In this instance, the time interval in patients with the mild or moderate form was 36.63±5.71 days while in those with the severe form of the disease it was 29.70±5.65 days. Besides, the genomes of the viruses isolated from the first and second episode were different. Conclusion: According to the results, all patients should be very careful about the severity of the second episode because of the more need for medical interventions for saving the patients. The interval between the first end and the second episode as well as the duration of each episode is highly important for better management of the disease.
RESUMO
In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating respiratory tract infections in adults and children. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. A total of 34 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. The evidence on ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, and other NSAIDs were rated for degree of uncertainty for each of the study outcomes and summarized using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our findings suggest that high-quality evidence supports the use of NSAIDs to reduce fever in both adults and children. However, the evidence was uncertain for the use of NSAIDs to reduce cough. Most studies showed that NSAIDs significantly relieved sore throat. The evidence for mortality and oxygenation is limited. Regarding the adverse events, gastrointestinal discomfort was more frequently reported in children. For adults, our overall certainty in effect estimates was low and the increase in gastrointestinal adverse events was not clinically significant. In conclusion, NSAIDs seem to be beneficial in the outpatient management of fever and sore throat in adults and children. Although the evidence does not support their use to decrease mortality nor improve oxygenation in inpatient settings, the use of NSAIDs did not increase the rate of death or the need for ventilation in patients with respiratory tract infections. Further studies with a robust methodology and larger sample sizes are recommended.