Impact of Depression on Postoperative Medical and Surgical Outcomes in Spine Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: The relationship between psychiatric disorders, including depression, and invasive interventions has been a topic of debate in recent literature. While these conditions can impact the quality of life and subjective perceptions of surgical outcomes, the literature lacks consensus regarding the association between depression and objective perioperative medical and surgical complications, especially in the neurosurgical domain. Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were queried in a comprehensive manner from inception until 10 November 2023, with no language restrictions, for citations investigating the association between depression and length of hospitalization, medical and surgical complications, and objective postoperative outcomes including readmission, reoperation, and non-routine discharge in patients undergoing spine surgery. Results: A total of 26 articles were considered in this systematic review. Upon pooled analysis of the primary outcome, statistically significantly higher rates were observed for several complications, including delirium (OR:1.92), deep vein thrombosis (OR:3.72), fever (OR:6.34), hematoma formation (OR:4.7), hypotension (OR:4.32), pulmonary embolism (OR:3.79), neurological injury (OR:6.02), surgical site infection (OR:1.36), urinary retention (OR:4.63), and urinary tract infection (OR:1.72). While readmission (OR:1.35) and reoperation (OR:2.22) rates, as well as non-routine discharge (OR:1.72) rates, were significantly higher in depressed patients, hospitalization length was comparable to non-depressed controls. Conclusions: The results of this review emphasize the significant increase in complications and suboptimal outcomes noted in patients with depression undergoing spinal surgery. Although a direct causal relationship may not be established, addressing psychiatric aspects in patient care is crucial for providing comprehensive medical attention.

The global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder among patients coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post COVID-19 syndrome, also known as "Long COVID," is a complex and multifaceted condition that affects individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder in individuals coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome. METHODS: A rigorous search of electronic databases was conducted to identify original studies until 24 January 2023. The inclusion criteria comprised studies employing previously validated assessment tools for depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, reporting prevalence rates, and encompassing patients of all age groups and geographical regions for subgroup analysis Random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was done. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety among patients coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome was estimated to be 23% (95% CI: 20%-26%; I2 = 99.9%) based on data from 143 studies with 7,782,124 participants and 132 studies with 9,320,687 participants, respectively. The pooled prevalence of sleep disorder among these patients, derived from 27 studies with 15,362 participants, was estimated to be 45% (95% CI: 37%-53%; I2 = 98.7%). Subgroup analyses based on geographical regions and assessment scales revealed significant variations in prevalence rates. Meta-regression analysis showed significant correlations between the prevalence and total sample size of studies, the age of participants, and the percentage of male participants. Publication bias was assessed using Doi plot visualization and the Peters test, revealing a potential source of publication bias for depression (p = 0.0085) and sleep disorder (p = 0.02). However, no evidence of publication bias was found for anxiety (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate a considerable burden of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, among individuals recovering from COVID-19. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive mental health support and tailored interventions for patients experiencing persistent symptoms after COVID-19 recovery.

The prevalence of depression and anxiety among Iranian people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is significant inconsistency regarding the prevalence rate of depression and anxiety among people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in Iran. We sought to conduct this comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of depression and anxiety in Iranian multiple sclerosis patients. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on 14 March 2023 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Iranian national databases. All studies assessing the prevalence of depression and anxiety among Iranian people with MS were included. We used the NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA tool for quality assessment. We pooled the prevalence of individual studies using the random effect model. RESULTS: Our systematic search showed 23 articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Most of the included studies were cross-sectional. The most used questionnaire to assess depression and anxiety were Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), respectively. The overall prevalence of depression and anxiety among Iranian people with MS was 47% (95%CI: 39%-55%%, I2 =94%) and 51% (95%CI: 36%-66%%, I2 =97%), respectively. The results of subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed assessment scale used and the province was significantly associated with the prevalence of the outcomes. Tehran had the most studies published on this topic. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was highest in Kermanshah province. The funnel plot and Egger's regression test did not show a significant source of funnel plot asymmetry for depression (p-value = 0.8138), and anxiety (p-value = 0.8259). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that a significant proportion of people with MS in Iran are affected by depression and anxiety.

Pain management following septorhinoplasty surgery: evidence from a systematic review.

PURPOSE: We investigated recent evidence on the analgesics available for postoperative pain management among patients undergoing septoplasty or rhinoplasty surgery. METHODS: Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, and Embase up to 3 August 2022. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies including 3717 patients were included. There were 45 randomized clinical trials and 2 observational cohort studies. Most of the studies were recently published and conducted in Turkey (n = 27). The majority of the studies performed the intervention preoperatively (n = 26), 11 studies postoperatively, 6 studies intraoperative, 2 studies preoperative plus intraoperative, and 2 studies performed the intervention with preoperative plus postoperative timing. The most evaluated medication was lidocaine (n = 10), followed by levobupivacaine (n = 4), and gabapentin (n = 4). Regarding post-operative pain assessment, the most used scale was the visual analog scale (VAS) (n = 36). Compared to controls, almost all interventions showed a significant benefit in managing post-operative pain. Although it should be mentioned regarding the comparison between opioids and NSAIDs consumption after surgery for pain management, most studies did not show a significant difference between the groups. No major side effects except nausea and vomiting were observed among the reviewed studies. CONCLUSION: This study summarized the most recent options that are available to manage pain following septorhinoplasty surgery. Recent investigations showed local interventions vs pre/post-operative analgesic medications are highly suggested to be replaced with opioids and NSAIDs as they have shown prominent efficacy with no significant adverse events. Future research is advised to determine the best dosage and administration techniques.

Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil) effects on esophageal motility: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal motility disorders are a group of disorders associated with dysfunctional swallowing resulting from impaired neuromuscular coordination. Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors induce smooth relaxation and are proposed as a treatment option for esophageal motility disorders such as achalasia. METHODS: This study is conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We systematically searched MEDLINE/ PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for esophageal outcomes of individuals treated with PDE5 inhibitors. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included. They were conducted in different countries, with Korea and Italy having the highest number of articles. The main drug assessed was sildenafil. PDE-5 inhibitors resulted in a significant reduction in lower esophageal sphincter pressure (SMD - 1.69, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.99) and the amplitude of contractions (SMD - 2.04, 95% CI: -2.97 to -1.11). Residual pressure was not significantly different between the placebo and sildenafil groups (SMD - 0.24, 95% CI: -1.20 to 0.72). Furthermore, a recent study reported contractile integral, stating that ingestion of sildenafil leads to a significant reduction in distal contractile integral and a significant increase in proximal contractile integral. CONCLUSION: PDE-5 inhibitors significantly reduce LES resting pressure and esophageal peristaltic vigor, decreasing esophageal body contractility and contraction reserve. Therefore, using these drugs in patients affected by esophageal motility disorders may potentially improve their condition regarding symptom relief and prevention of further associated complications. Future reports investigating larger sample size is necessary in order to establish definite evidence regarding the efficacy of these drugs.

Reactivation of herpesviruses during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the cumulative incidence (incidence proportion) of human herpesvirus (HHV) reactivation among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to 25 September 2022, with no language restrictions. All interventional and observational studies enrolling patients with confirmed COVID-19 and providing data regarding HHV reactivation were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. We included information from 32 studies. HHV reactivation was considered a positive polymerase chain reaction result taken at the time of COVID-19 infection. Most of the included patients were severe COVID-19 cases. The pooled cumulative incidence estimate was 38% (95% Confidence Intervals [CI], 28%-50%, I2  = 86%) for herpes simplex virus (HSV), 19% (95% CI, 13%-28%, I2  = 87%) for cytomegalovirus (CMV), 45% (95% CI, 28%-63%, I2  = 96%) for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), 18% (95% CI, 8%-35%) for human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), 44% (95% CI, 32%-56%) for human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-26%) for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry based on visual inspection and Egger's regression test for the results of HSV (p = 0.84), CMV (p = 0.82), and EBV (p = 0.27) reactivation. In conclusion, the identification of HHV reactivation in severe COVID-19 patients is helpful in the management of patients as well as the prevention of complications. Further research is required to elucidate the interaction between HHVs and COVID-19. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022321973.

A twisting tale of misinformation: should ivermectin be approved as a treatment for COVID-19 disease?

This editorial examines what has caused the evidence around ivermectin to be so controversial, provides a brief analysis of recently published evidence, and highlights why it is important to learn lessons from ivermectin for future re-purposed drugs.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births.

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current evidence available to investigate clinical outcomes between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess the quality. Data were pooled by the Restricted-maximum-likelihood random-effects approach. RESULTS: Total 11 studies comprising 7690415 individuals were included in this study. The log OR for the pooled data for all-cause mortality rate was -0.71 (95% CI: -1.38 to -0.03). Based on the pooled results, type 1 diabetic COVID-19 patients may have a better prognosis for mortality. There were no significant differences between groups in term of ICU-admission log OR -0.22 (95% CI: -0.81 to 0.37), and hospitalization log OR -0.48 (95% CI: -1.23 to 0.27). Based on our descriptives analyses after adjusting for age and comorbidities, the high-risk group in three studies was type 2 diabetes, and in five studies was type 1. Two studies reported no significant difference between these groups in relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in disease severity between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Based on the unadjusted data available, the mortality rate for people with type 1 diabetes was shown to be lower than that for people with type 2. As data on these subjects is scarce, and the results obtained from studies are heterogeneous, further research with adequate sample sizes is needed to precisely compare the outcomes of COVID-19 between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria. RESULTS: 19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.