The Impact of Age, Gender, Temporality, and Geographical Region on the Prevalence of Obesity and Overweight in Saudi Arabia: Scope of Evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review are to estimate the prevalence of obesity and overweight in the Saudi community and in different age groups, genders, and geographical location, in addition to the change in prevalence over time. METHODS: This scoping review of evidence was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The population of this review was categorized into four age groups: young adults (18-25 years), adults (26-45), (mid-life adults) (46-60) and old people (60+). Each group was then categorized by gender into males and females. We included studies of adults aged 18 years and above. The pooled prevalence of obesity and overweight of the population, based on BMI, was estimated after stratification based on the age, gender, and geographical area. In addition, the change in the prevalence of obesity/overweight over time from 2011 to 2021 was investigated from the pooled data. The Metaprop program in Stata was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies with 640,952 participants were included in this review. The pooled prevalence of obesity and overweight in the age group of ≤25 years old, including both genders, was 30%. However, it was higher in young males (40%) compared to young females (25%). The prevalence of obesity and overweight among young adults has dropped by over 40% between 2012 and 2021. The overall pooled prevalence rate of obesity and overweight in the age groups >25 years old (adults, mid-life, and old people), including both genders, was 66%, with similar prevalence among males (68%) and females (71%). In addition, a similar prevalence was observed among both adult and old people (62% and 65%, respectively), but was higher in the mid-life group (76%). Furthermore, mid-life women had the highest prevalence among all groups (87%), compared to 77% among males in the same age group. The same difference in prevalence between the gender persisted in older females compared to older males (79% vs. 65%, respectively). There is a noticeable drop in the pooled prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults > 25 years old of over 28% between 2011 and 2021. There was no difference in the prevalence of obesity/overweight by geographical region. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the noticeable drop in the prevalence of obesity in the Saudi community, the prevalence of high BMI is high in Saudi Arabia irrespective of age, gender, or geographical location. Mid-life women have the highest prevalence of high BMI, which makes them the focus of a tailored strategy for intervention. Further research is needed to investigate which are the most effective interventions to address obesity in the country.

Waning rate of immunity and duration of protective immunity against diphtheria toxoid as a function of age and number of doses: Systematic review and quantitative data analysis.

Although the burden of diphtheria has declined greatly since the introduction of vaccines, sporadic outbreaks continue to be reported. WHO recommends booster doses after a primary series, but questions remain about the optimal interval between these doses. We conducted a systematic review and quantitative data analysis to quantify the duration of protective immunity after different numbers of doses. Fifteen cross-sectional seroprevalence studies provided data on geometric mean concentration (GMC). Single-year age-stratified GMCs were analyzed using a mixed-effect linear regression model with a random intercept incorporating the between-country variability. GMC was estimated to decline to 0.1 IU/ml in 2.5 years (95% CI: 0.9-4.0), 10.3 years (95% CI: 7.1-13.6), and 25.1 years (95% CI: 7.6-42.6) after receiving three, four and five doses, respectively. The results drawn from cross-sectional data collected in countries with different epidemiologies, vaccines, and schedules had several limitations. However, these analyses contribute to the discussion of optimal timing between booster doses of diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccine.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of pre-pregnancy care for women with diabetes for improving maternal and perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Pre-gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-conception care (PCC) in improving maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Databases from MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, and Cochrane Library were searched, including the CENTRAL register of controlled trials, and CINHAL up until March 2019, without any language restrictions, for any pre-pregnancy care aiming at health promotion, glycemic control, and screening and treatment of diabetes complications in women with type I or type II pre-gestational diabetes. Trials and observational studies were included in the review. Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane collaboration methodology for data synthesis and analysis were used, along with the GRADE tool to evaluate the body of evidence. RESULTS: The search identified 8500 potentially relevant citations of which 40 reports of 36 studies were included. The meta-analysis results show that PCC reduced congenital malformations risk by 71%, (Risk ratio (RR) 0.29; 95% CI: 0.21-0.40, 25 studies; 5903 women; high-certainty evidence). The results also show that PCC may lower HbA1c in the first trimester of pregnancy by an average of 1.27% (Mean difference (MD) 1.27; 95% CI: 1.33-1.22; 4927 women; 24 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the results suggest that PCC may lead to a slight reduction in the risk of preterm delivery of 15%, (RR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.99; nine studies, 2414 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Moreover, PCC may result in risk reduction of perinatal mortality by 54%, (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; ten studies; 3071 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There is uncertainty about the effects of PCC on the early booking for antenatal care (MD 1.31; 95% CI: 1.40-1.23; five studies, 1081 women; very low-certainty evidence) and maternal hypoglycemia in the first trimester, (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.07-1.79; three studies; 686 women; very low- certainty evidence). In addition, results of the meta-analysis indicate that PCC may lead to 48% reduction in the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; six studies, 2261 women; moderate-certainty evidence). PCC may reduce the risk of neonatal admission to intensive care unit (NICU) by 25% (RR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.67-0.84; four studies; 1322 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, PCC may have little or no effect in reducing the cesarean section rate (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07; 14 studies; 3641 women; low-certainty evidence); miscarriage rate (RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.70-1.06; 11 studies; 2698 women; low-certainty evidence); macrosomia rate (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.97-1.15; nine studies; 2787 women, low-certainty evidence); neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; five studies; 880 women; low-certainty evidence); respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.47-1.29; four studies; 466 women; very low-certainty evidence); or shoulder dystocia (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.12; 2 studies; 530 women; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: PCC for women with pre-gestational type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus is effective in improving rates of congenital malformations. In addition, it may improve the risk of preterm delivery and admission to NICU. PCC probably reduces maternal HbA1C in the first trimester of pregnancy, perinatal mortality and SGA. There is uncertainty regarding the effects of PCC on early booking for antenatal care or maternal hypoglycemia during the first trimester of pregnancy. PCC has little or no effect on other maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Medical Doctors' Offline Computer-Assisted Digital Education: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The widening gap between innovations in the medical field and the dissemination of such information to doctors may affect the quality of care. Offline computer-based digital education (OCDE) may be a potential solution to overcoming the geographical, financial, and temporal obstacles faced by doctors. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the effectiveness of OCDE compared with face-to-face learning, no intervention, or other types of digital learning for improving medical doctors' knowledge, cognitive skills, and patient-related outcomes. Secondary objectives were to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of OCDE and any adverse effects. METHODS: We searched major bibliographic databases from 1990 to August 2017 to identify relevant articles and followed the Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 cluster RCT (cRCT), and 1 quasi-RCT were included in this review. The total number of participants was 1690 in addition to the cRCT, which included 24 practices. Due to the heterogeneity of the participants, interventions, and outcomes, meta-analysis was not feasible, and the results were presented as narrative summary. Compared with face-to-face learning, the effect of OCDE on knowledge gain is uncertain (ratio of the means [RM] range 0.95-1.17; 8 studies, 495 participants; very low grade of evidence). From the same comparison, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skill gain is uncertain (RM range 0.1-0.9; 8 studies, 375 participants; very low grade of evidence). OCDE may have little or no effect on patients' outcome compared with face-to-face education (2 studies, 62 participants; low grade of evidence). Compared with no intervention, OCDE may improve knowledge gain (RM range 1.36-0.98; 4 studies, 401 participants; low grade of evidence). From the same comparison, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skill gain is uncertain (RM range 1.1-1.15; 4 trials, 495 participants; very low grade of evidence). One cRCT, involving 24 practices, investigated patients' outcome in this comparison and showed no difference between the 2 groups with low-grade evidence. Compared with text-based learning, the effect of OCDE on cognitive skills gain is uncertain (RM range 0.91-1.46; 3 trials with 4 interventions; 68 participants; very low-grade evidence). No study in this comparison investigated knowledge gain or patients' outcomes. One study assessed the CE and showed that OCDE was cost-effective when compared with face-to-face learning if the cost is less than or equal to Can $200. No trial evaluated the adverse effect of OCDE. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of OCDE compared with other methods of education on medical doctors' knowledge and cognitive skill gain is uncertain. OCDE may improve doctors' knowledge compared with no intervention but its effect on doctors' cognitive skills is uncertain. OCDE may have little or no effect in improving patients' outcome.

Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage is a common complication encountered during pregnancy. It is defined as spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks' gestation. Progesterone's physiological role is to prepare the uterus for the implantation of the embryo, enhance uterine quiescence and suppress uterine contractions, hence, it may play a role in preventing rejection of the embryo. Inadequate secretion of progesterone in early pregnancy has been linked to the aetiology of miscarriage and progesterone supplementation has been used as a treatment for threatened miscarriage to prevent spontaneous pregnancy loss. This update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007, and previously updated in 2011, investigates the evidence base for this practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials, that compared progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment for the treatment of threatened miscarriage in women carrying singleton pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data and graded the body of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (involving 696 participants) in this update of the review. The included trials were conducted in different countries, covering the full spectrum of the World Bank's economic classification, which enhances the applicability of evidence drawn from this review. Two trials were conducted in Germany and Italy which are high-income countries, while four trials were conducted in upper-middle income countries; two in Iran, one in Malaysia and the fourth in Turkey, and the seventh trial was conducted in Jordan, which is a lower-middle income country. In six trials all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the seventh study, we included in the meta-analysis only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE tool and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Downgrading of evidence was based on the high risk of bias in six of the seven included trials and a small number of events and wide confidence intervals for some outcomes.Treatment of miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment probably reduces the risk of miscarriage; (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.87; 7 trials; 696 women; moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with oral progestogen compared to no treatment also probably reduces the miscarriage rate (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; 3 trials; 408 women; moderate-quality evidence). However treatment with vaginal progesterone compared to placebo, probably has little or no effect in reducing the miscarriage rate (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21; 4 trials; 288 women; moderate-quality evidence). The subgroup interaction test indicated no difference according to route of administration between the oral and vaginal subgroups of progesterone.Treatment of preterm birth with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment may have little or no effect in reducing the rate of preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44; 5 trials; 588 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if treatment of threatened miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment has any effect on the rate of congenital abnormalities because the quality of the evidence is very low (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82; 2 trials; 337 infants; very-low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane Review suggest that progestogens are probably effective in the treatment of threatened miscarriage but may have little or no effect in the rate of preterm birth. The evidence on congenital abnormalities is uncertain, because the quality of the evidence for this outcome was based on only two small trials with very few events and was found to be of very low quality.

Nosocomial transmission of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a well-infant nursery of a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Infection due to community-acquired strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) has been reported with increasing frequency. Herein is described the nosocomial transmission of CA-MRSA involving 13 neonates and two mothers in a well-infant nursery in a teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: From October to November 2009, temporally related cases of CA-MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection occurred in newborns shortly after discharge from a well-infant nursery. An outbreak investigation including case identification, review of medical records, staff screening, environmental cultures, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and a case-control study were conducted. Controls were selected from among asymptomatic neonates admitted to the same nursery and matched for the day of admission. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects were found to be CA-MRSA positive: 13 neonates and two mothers. The crude attack rate among neonates was 5.5% during the outbreak period. All 13 neonates presented with skin and soft-tissue infection; one of the mothers had mastitis and a breast abscess. The source of the outbreak was not evident. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis showed that all of the tested isolates from one strain except one, all contained the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) type IV. CONCLUSION: MRSA strains that initially emerged in the community are now causing disease in health-care settings. Adherence to standard infection control practices, including consistent hand hygiene, in newborn nurseries is important to prevent transmission in such settings.