Global prevalence of nosocomial infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are significant problems as public health issues which need attention. Such infections are significant problems for society and healthcare organizations. This study aimed to carry out a systematic review and a meta-analysis to analyze the prevalence of HAIs globally. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases including EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science between 2000 and June 2021. We found 7031 articles. After removing the duplicates, 5430 studies were screened based on the titles/ abstracts. Then, we systematically evaluated the full texts of the 1909 remaining studies and selected 400 records with 29,159,630 participants for meta-analysis. Random-effects model was used for the analysis, and heterogeneity analysis and publication bias test were conducted. RESULTS: The rate of universal HAIs was 0.14 percent. The rate of HAIs is increasing by 0.06 percent annually. The highest rate of HAIs was in the AFR, while the lowest prevalence were in AMR and WPR. Besides, AFR prevalence in central Africa is higher than in other parts of the world by 0.27 (95% CI, 0.22-0.34). Besides, E. coli infected patients more than other micro-organisms such as Coagulase-negative staphylococci, Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In hospital wards, Transplant, and Neonatal wards and ICU had the highest rates. The prevalence of HAIs was higher in men than in women. CONCLUSION: We identified several essential details about the rate of HAIs in various parts of the world. The HAIs rate and the most common micro-organism were different in various contexts. However, several essential gaps were also identified. The study findings can help hospital managers and health policy makers identify the reason for HAIs and apply effective control programs to implement different plans to reduce the HAIs rate and the financial costs of such infections and save resources.

Global quality of life in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among women worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to cover the existing research gap and contribute to existing knowledge to provide both researchers and clinicians with a better profile on the topic and consequently help improve the quality of life (QoL) of patients with BC. METHODS: A comprehensive review of original articles published in English from January 2000 to October 2021 from databases including Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Based on the meta-regression which examined a total of 9012 patients with BC, the QoL score calculated by EORTC QLQ-C30 was 64.72 (95% CI 59.24 to 70.20), while the score obtained from FACT-B was 84.39 (95% CI 64.24 to 104.54) and the scores from QLQ-BR23 and SF-36 were 66.33 (95% CI 62.76 to 69.90) and 57.23 (95% CI 47.65 to 66.82), respectively. A meta-analysis affirmed a significant direct relationship between the QoL score of patients with BC and their age (p=0.03). The results also revealed that the QoL scores of patients who had completed treatment were higher than those who were currently under treatment. CONCLUSION: The present systematic review identified several factors that affect the QoL of women with BC worldwide and provided several implications for developing policy interventions to effectively improve the QoL of women with BC. In this way, clinicians can sufficiently give advice to their patients with the purpose of improving their QoL.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022309791.

Artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis of current evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fully vaccinated people are still being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar up to January 2022. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened to find more citations. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. RESULTS: Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-1.07; p = 0.09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.80; p = 0.03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed in favor of using imatinib for COVID-19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID-19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.

Efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.