Features and evaluation of mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients from two referral hospitals in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to assess the features, clinical characteristics, and species diversity among patients admitted to referral Hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and mucormycosis in Tehran, Iran, and the relationship between seasonal and species diversity was considered. METHODS: Confirmed COVID-19 patients with a positive reverse-transcriptase real-time (rRT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV2 were primarily included based on clinically suspected mucormycosis infection and confirmed by histopathology and mycology examination of biopsy specimens. The PCR technique was performed by the amplification of the high-affinity iron permease 1 (FTR1) gene for identification and discrimination between Rhizopus arrhizus and non- Rhizopus arrhizus isolates. In contrast, species identification of non-Rhizopus arrhizus was performed by sequencing of ITS rDNA region. RESULTS: Rhino-sino-orbital mucormycosis was identified in the majority of cases (n = 33), with 66 % and 34 % of the cases involving male and female patients, respectively. Rhizopus arrhizus was found to be the most prevalent (84.6 %), followed by Mucor circinelloides (7.6 %). Rhizopus arrhizus was the most prevalent species and present in all the seasons; however, Mucor circinelloides was only present in the autumn. The overall mortality of the total population was 24.6 % (16/ 65); the mortality rates occurring in patients diagnosed with rhino-sino-orbital infection and rhino-sinusal form were 21.4 % and 25 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: CAM can be a serious complication of severe COVID-19, especially in patients with uncontrolled diabetes. It is important to monitor the epidemiology of mucormycosis to raise awareness of the disease and improve diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, particularly in the setting of pandemic.

Publication bias in otorhinolaryngology meta-analyses in 2021.

INTRODUCTION: One concern in meta-analyses is the presence of publication bias (PB) which leads to the dissemination of inflated results. In this study, we assessed how much the meta-analyses in the field of otorhinolaryngology in 2021 evaluated the presence of PB. METHODS: Six of the most influential journals in the field were selected. A search was conducted, and data were extracted from the included studies. In cases where PB was not assessed by the authors, we evaluated the risk of its presence by designing funnel plots and performing statistical tests. RESULTS: Seventy-five systematic reviews were included. Fifty-one percent of them used at least one method for assessing the risk of PB, with the visual inspection of a funnel plot being the most frequent method used. Twenty-nine percent of the studies reported a high risk of PB presence. We replicated the results of 11 meta-analyses that did not assess the risk of PB and found that 63.6% were at high risk. We also found that a considerable proportion of the systematic reviews that found a high risk of PB did not take it into consideration when making conclusions and discussing their results. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that systematic reviews published in some of the most influential journals in the field do not implement enough measures in their search strategies to reduce the risk of PB, nor do they assess the risk of its presence or take the risk of its presence into consideration when inferring their results.