Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 23.785
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e050519, 2021 07 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34253676

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on effectiveness of contact tracing apps (CTAs) for SARS-CoV-2 on epidemiological and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE (OVID), MEDLINE (PubMed), BioRxiv and MedRxiv were searched up to 28 October 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies, both empirical and model-based, assessing effect of CTAs for SARS-CoV-2 on reproduction number (R), total number of infections, hospitalisation rate, mortality rate, and other epidemiologically and clinically relevant outcomes, were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Empirical and model-based studies were critically appraised using separate checklists. Data on type of study (ie, empirical or model-based), sample size, (simulated) time horizon, study population, CTA type (and associated interventions), comparator and outcomes assessed, were extracted. The most important findings were extracted and narratively summarised. Specifically for model-based studies, characteristics and values of important model parameters were collected. RESULTS: 2140 studies were identified, of which 17 studies (2 empirical, 15 model-based studies) were eligible and included in this review. Both empirical studies were observational (non-randomised) studies and at high risk of bias, most importantly due to risk of confounding. Risk of bias of model-based studies was considered low for 12 out of 15 studies. Most studies demonstrated beneficial effects of CTAs on R, total number of infections and mortality rate. No studies assessed effect on hospitalisation. Effect size was dependent on model parameters values used, but in general, a beneficial effect was observed at CTA adoption rates of 20% or higher. CONCLUSIONS: CTAs have the potential to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 related epidemiological and clinical outcomes, though effect size depends on other model parameters (eg, proportion of asymptomatic individuals, or testing delays), and interventions after CTA notification. Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies on effectiveness of CTAs are required to confirm findings from model-based studies.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Busca de Comunicante , SARS-CoV-2 , Viés , Humanos
2.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 57(7)2021 Jun 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34202486

RESUMO

Blinding mitigates several sources of bias which, if left unchecked, can quantitively affect study outcomes. Blinding remains under-utilized, particularly in non-pharmaceutical clinical trials, but is often highly feasible through simple measures. Although blinding is generally viewed as an effective method by which to eliminate bias, blinding does also pose some inherent limitations, and it behooves clinicians and researchers to be aware of such caveats. This article will review general principles for blinding in clinical trials, including examples of useful blinding techniques for both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical trials, while also highlighting the limitations and potential consequences of blinding. Appropriate reporting on blinding in trial protocols and manuscripts, as well as future directions for blinding research, will also be discussed.


Assuntos
Método Simples-Cego , Viés , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e046064, 2021 05 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34059511

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Motor variability is an important feature when performing repetitive movement, and in asymptomatic people functional tasks are typically performed with variable motor patterns. However, in the presence of chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), people often present with different motor control strategies than those without pain. Movement variability has been assessed using a wide range of variables, including kinetic and kinematic components of motion. This has resulted in a wide range of findings reported in the literature and some contradicting results. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether the amount and structure of motor variability are altered in people with chronic non-specific LBP, during both repetitive non-functional and functional tasks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol for a systematic review is informed by Cochrane guidelines and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus will be searched from their inception to December 2020 along with a comprehensive search of grey literature and key journals. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data, assess risk of bias (using the Downs and Black Scale) for the included studies and assess overall quality of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed appropriate. Alternatively, a narrative synthesis will be conducted and evidence summarised as an increase, decrease or no change in the motor variability of people with LBP compared with healthy controls. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study raises no ethical issues. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020211580.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar , Viés , Fenômenos Biomecânicos , Humanos , Metanálise como Assunto , Movimento , Projetos de Pesquisa , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013623, 2021 05 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097764

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.


Assuntos
Roupas de Cama, Mesa e Banho , Leitos , Elasticidade , Lesão por Pressão/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Viés , Humanos , Incidência , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Lesão por Pressão/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Substâncias Viscoelásticas , Água
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013621, 2021 05 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097765

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.


Assuntos
Roupas de Cama, Mesa e Banho , Leitos , Lesão por Pressão/prevenção & controle , Substâncias Viscoelásticas , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Ar , Viés , Feminino , Géis , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Lesão por Pressão/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013540, 2021 05 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097766

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the 'anticholinergic burden' because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for development of cognitive decline or dementia. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 24 March 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies with a minimum of one year' follow-up that examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and GRADE assessment. We extracted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and linear data on the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive decline or dementia. We intended to pool each metric separately; however, only OR-based data were suitable for pooling via a random-effects meta-analysis. We initially established adjusted and unadjusted pooled rates for each available anticholinergic scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales. We examined variability based on severity of anticholinergic burden. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria (968,428 older adults). Twenty studies were conducted in the community care setting, two in primary care clinics, and three in secondary care settings. Eight studies (320,906 participants) provided suitable data for meta-analysis. The Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale (ACB scale) was the only scale with sufficient data for 'scale-based' meta-analysis. Unadjusted ORs suggested an increased risk for cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with an anticholinergic burden (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96) and adjusted ORs similarly suggested an increased risk for anticholinergic burden, defined according to the ACB scale (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.29). Exploratory analysis combining adjusted ORs across available scales supported these results (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.38), and there was evidence of variability in risk based on severity of anticholinergic burden (ACB scale 1: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29; ACB scale 2: OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.56; ACB scale 3: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.61); however, overall GRADE evaluation of certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults without cognitive impairment who take medications with anticholinergic effects may be at increased risk of cognitive decline or dementia.


Assuntos
Antagonistas Colinérgicos/efeitos adversos , Disfunção Cognitiva/induzido quimicamente , Demência/induzido quimicamente , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Análise de Variância , Viés , Antagonistas Colinérgicos/farmacologia , Intervalos de Confiança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Razão de Chances , Prognóstico , Síndrome , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013029, 2021 05 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097768

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the leading causes of blindness in high-income countries. The majority of cases of AMD are of the non-exudative type. Experts have proposed photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy as a non-invasive procedure to restore mitochondrial function, upregulate cytoprotective factors and prevent apoptotic cell death in retinal tissue affected by AMD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of PBM compared to standard care, no treatment or sham treatment for people with non-exudative AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 5, 2020), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to 11 May 2020 with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on participants receiving any type of PBM therapy for non-exudative AMD compared to standard care, sham treatment or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We considered the following outcome measures at 12 months: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ; contrast sensitivity; near vision; low luminance density score; reading speed; vision-related quality of life score; and adverse events such as progression of AMD and conversion to exudative AMD. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two published RCTs from single centres in the UK and Canada, which recruited 60 participants (60 eyes) and 30 participants (46 eyes) respectively. Participants in these trials were people with non-exudative AMD with Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) categories 2 to 4. One study compared single wavelength PBM with no treatment. This study was at risk of performance bias because the study was not masked, and there was attrition bias. One study compared multi-wavelength PBM with sham treatment and conflicts of interest were reported by study investigators. We also identified three eligible ongoing RCTs from searching the clinical trials database. When comparing PBM with sham treatment or no treatment for non-exudative AMD, there was no evidence of any meaningful clinical difference in BCVA at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.05; 2 RCTs, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence). One study comparing multi-wavelength PBM with sham treatment showed an improvement in contrast sensitivity at Level E (18 cycles/degree) at 12 months (MD 0.29 LogCS, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.35; 1 RCT, 46 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Visual function and health-related quality of life scores were comparable between single wavelength PBM and no treatment groups at 12 months (VFQ-48 score MD 0.43, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.03; P = 0.16; 1 RCT, 47 eyes; low-certainty evidence). When comparing PBM with sham treatment or no treatment for non-exudative AMD, there was no evidence of any meaningful clinical difference in conversion to exudative AMD (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.44; 2 RCTs, 96 eyes; very low-certainty evidence) at 12 months. There was inconclusive evidence that single wavelength PBM prevents the progression of AMD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.53; P = 0.48; 1 RCT, 50 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Disease progression was defined as the development of advanced AMD or significant increase in drusen volume. No included study reported near vision, low luminance vision or reading speed outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there remains uncertainty whether PBM treatment is beneficial in slowing progression of non-exudative macular degeneration. There is a need for further well-designed controlled trials assessing dosimetry, powered for both effectiveness and safety outcomes. Consideration should be given to the adoption of agreed clinical outcome measures and patient-based outcome measures for AMD.


Assuntos
Terapia com Luz de Baixa Intensidade/métodos , Degeneração Macular/radioterapia , Viés , Intervalos de Confiança , Sensibilidades de Contraste , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , Terapia com Luz de Baixa Intensidade/efeitos adversos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Placebos , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Acuidade Visual
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013235, 2021 05 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097767

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests are expected to reduce the time to clinically important results of a blood culture. This might enable clinicians to better target therapy to a person's needs, and thereby, improve health outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay), and reduce unnecessary prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics; thereby reducing antimicrobial resistance rates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rapid susceptibility testing versus standard susceptibility testing for bloodstream infections (BSIs). SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies with selected outcomes, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, and two trials registries, between 1987 and October 2020. We used 'bloodstream infection' and 'antimicrobial susceptibility tests' as search terms. We had no language or publication status limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (with a time-to-result of ≤ 8 hours) versus conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in people with a BSI caused by any bacteria, as identified by a positive blood culture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. For mortality, a dichotomous outcome, we extracted the number of events in each arm, and presented a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare rapid susceptibility testing to conventional methods. We used Review Manager 5.4 to meta-analyse the data. For other outcomes, which are time-to-event outcomes (time-to-discharge from hospital, time-to-first appropriate antibiotic change), we conducted qualitative narrative synthesis, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, with 1638 participants. For rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.46; 6 RCTs, 1638 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, for rapid genotypic or molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.49; 4 RCTs, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence). For phenotypic rapid susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups  (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.35; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid susceptibility testing may make little or no difference in time-to-discharge (4 RCTs, 1165 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid genotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may make little or no difference in time-to-appropriate antibiotic (3 RCTs, 929 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may improve time-to-appropriate antibiotic (RR -17.29, CI -45.05 to 10.47; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical benefits of rapid susceptibility testing have not been demonstrated to directly improve mortality, time-to-discharge, or time-to-appropriate antibiotic in these randomized studies. Future large prospective studies should be designed to focus on the most clinically meaningful outcomes, and aim to optimize blood culture pathways.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana/métodos , Sepse/tratamento farmacológico , Viés , Humanos , Razão de Chances , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Sepse/microbiologia , Sepse/mortalidade , Tempo para o Tratamento
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD012972, 2021 05 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34097769

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Xpert MTB/RIF in place of smear microscopy to diagnose tuberculosis (TB), and many countries have adopted it into their diagnostic algorithms. However, it is not clear whether the greater accuracy of the test translates into improved health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes in people being investigated for tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases, without language restriction, from 2007 to 24 July 2020: Cochrane Infectious Disease Group (CIDG) Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL EBSCO; LILACS BIREME; Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences citation index (Web of Science), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual- and cluster-randomized trials, and before-after studies, in participants being investigated for tuberculosis. We analysed the randomized and non-randomized studies separately.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each study, two review authors independently extracted data, using a piloted data extraction tool. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) tools. We used random effects meta-analysis to allow for heterogeneity between studies in setting and design.  The certainty of the  evidence in the randomized trials was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies: eight were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and four were before-and-after studies. Most included RCTs had a low risk of bias in most domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. There was inconclusive evidence of an effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on all-cause mortality, both overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.05; 5 RCTs, 9932 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and restricted to studies with six-month follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 3 RCTs, 8143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in mortality in participants known to be infected with HIV (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; 5 RCTs, 5855 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether Xpert MTB/RIF has no or a modest effect on the proportion of participants starting tuberculosis treatment who had a successful treatment outcome (OR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26; 3RCTs, 4802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also inconclusive evidence of an effect on the  proportion of participants who were treated for tuberculosis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.23; 5 RCTs, 8793 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants treated for tuberculosis who had bacteriological confirmation was probably higher in the Xpert MTB/RIF group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.61; 6 RCTs, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with bacteriological confirmation who were lost to follow-up pre-treatment was probably reduced (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 3 RCTs, 1217 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to confidently rule in or rule out the effect on all-cause mortality of using Xpert MTB/RIF rather than smear microscopy. Xpert MTB/RIF probably reduces mortality among participants known to be infected with HIV. We are uncertain whether Xpert MTB/RIF has a modest effect or not on the proportion treated or, among those treated, on the proportion with a successful outcome. It probably does not have a substantial effect on these outcomes. Xpert MTB/RIF probably increases both the proportion of treated participants who had bacteriological confirmation, and the proportion with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis who were treated. These findings may inform decisions about uptake alongside evidence on cost-effectiveness and implementation.


Assuntos
Antibióticos Antituberculose/farmacologia , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/efeitos dos fármacos , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/isolamento & purificação , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase em Tempo Real/métodos , Rifampina/farmacologia , Tuberculose Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Viés , Intervalos de Confiança , Estudos Controlados Antes e Depois , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Infecções por HIV/mortalidade , Humanos , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/genética , Técnicas de Amplificação de Ácido Nucleico/métodos , Razão de Chances , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico , Tuberculose Pulmonar/tratamento farmacológico , Tuberculose Pulmonar/microbiologia , Tuberculose Pulmonar/mortalidade
10.
J Affect Disord ; 291: 307-314, 2021 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34077820

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric problem across the lifespan, with typical onset during the pediatric period. Prior literature has examined cognitive mechanisms associated with youth anxiety and identified interpretation bias, the threatening appraisal of ambiguity, as a ubiquitous correlate and likely mechanism. A small set of studies have examined interpretation bias and anxiety in parent-child dyads, although results about this potential relationship are conflicted. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the association between parent interpretation bias with child interpretation bias and child anxiety. METHODS: Eight studies met the rigorous inclusion criteria, which required direct assessment of interpretation bias in both youth and parent. RESULTS: Meta-analysis with a random effects model indicated a small and significant correlation between parent and child interpretation biases (r = 0.14, p < .01), as well as a small and significant correlation between parent interpretation bias and child anxiety (r =  = 0.20, p = .01). LIMITATIONS: As only eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, reflecting the state of the extant literature, it is possible that, as data accumulate and this work continues in the future, results may or may not be replicated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in findings across the included empirical studies, the current meta-analysis suggests that a correlational relationship between parent interpretation bias and child bias/anxiety exists. This work has implications for conceptualizing parent interpretation bias as a possible explanatory mechanism underlying youth interpretation bias and anxiety.


Assuntos
Transtornos de Ansiedade , Ansiedade , Adolescente , Viés , Criança , Humanos , Longevidade , Pais
11.
Toxins (Basel) ; 13(5)2021 05 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34069344

RESUMO

The objectives of the present work were to assess the accuracy of previously published equations for predicting effects of deoxynivalenol (DON) on the growth performance changes of pigs and to update equations based on recently published data. A total of 59 data were employed for the validation of previously published equations. These data were used to update the equations. The REG and CORR procedures of SAS were used. In the present validation test, a linear bias was significant (p < 0.05), indicating that prediction errors were not consistent across the data ranges. The intercept for ΔFI (-7.75 ± 1.19, p < 0.01) representing a mean bias was less than 0, indicating that the predicted mean of ΔFI was greater than the measured mean of ΔFI. Dietary DON concentrations had negative correlations with ΔWG (r = -0.79; p < 0.01) and ΔFI (r = -0.71; p < 0.01). Updated prediction equations were: ΔWG = -5.93 × DON with r2 = 0.77 and ΔFI = -4.42 × DON with r2 = 0.68. In conclusion, the novel equations developed in this study might accurately predict effects of dietary DON on the performance changes of pigs.


Assuntos
Ração Animal/análise , Dieta/veterinária , Suínos/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Tricotecenos/toxicidade , Animais , Viés
12.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 21(1): 123, 2021 06 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34130658

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Due to clinical and methodological diversity, clinical studies included in meta-analyses often differ in ways that lead to differences in treatment effects across studies. Meta-regression analysis is generally recommended to explore associations between study-level characteristics and treatment effect, however, three key pitfalls of meta-regression may lead to invalid conclusions. Our aims were to determine the frequency of these three pitfalls of meta-regression analyses, examine characteristics associated with the occurrence of these pitfalls, and explore changes between 2002 and 2012. METHODS: A meta-epidemiological study of studies including aggregate data meta-regression analysis in the years 2002 and 2012. We assessed the prevalence of meta-regression analyses with at least 1 of 3 pitfalls: ecological fallacy, overfitting, and inappropriate methods to regress treatment effects against the risk of the analysed outcome. We used logistic regression to investigate study characteristics associated with pitfalls and examined differences between 2002 and 2012. RESULTS: Our search yielded 580 studies with meta-analyses, of which 81 included meta-regression analyses with aggregated data. 57 meta-regression analyses were found to contain at least one pitfall (70%): 53 were susceptible to ecological fallacy (65%), 14 had a risk of overfitting (17%), and 5 inappropriately regressed treatment effects against the risk of the analysed outcome (6%). We found no difference in the prevalence of meta-regression analyses with methodological pitfalls between 2002 and 2012, nor any study-level characteristic that was clearly associated with the occurrence of any of the pitfalls. CONCLUSION: The majority of meta-regression analyses based on aggregate data contain methodological pitfalls that may result in misleading findings.


Assuntos
Publicações , Viés , Estudos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Análise de Regressão
13.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 57(6)2021 May 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34072159

RESUMO

Background and objectives: cardiovascular complications (CVC) are the leading cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Standard cardiovascular disease risk prediction models used in the general population are not validated in patients with CKD. We aim to systematically review the up-to-date literature on reported outcomes of computational methods such as artificial intelligence (AI) or regression-based models to predict CVC in CKD patients. Materials and methods: the electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were systematically searched. The risk of bias and reporting quality for each study were assessed against transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) and the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Results: sixteen papers were included in the present systematic review: 15 non-randomized studies and 1 ongoing clinical trial. Twelve studies were found to perform AI or regression-based predictions of CVC in CKD, either through single or composite endpoints. Four studies have come up with computational solutions for other CV-related predictions in the CKD population. Conclusions: the identified studies represent palpable trends in areas of clinical promise with an encouraging present-day performance. However, there is a clear need for more extensive application of rigorous methodologies. Following the future prospective, randomized clinical trials, and thorough external validations, computational solutions will fill the gap in cardiovascular predictive tools for chronic kidney disease.


Assuntos
Inteligência Artificial , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Viés , Simulação por Computador , Humanos , Prognóstico , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações
14.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 21(1): 114, 2021 06 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34082702

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Use of real world data (RWD) from non-randomised studies (e.g. single-arm studies) is increasingly being explored to overcome issues associated with data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare methods for pairwise meta-analysis of RCTs and single-arm studies using aggregate data, via a simulation study and application to an illustrative example. METHODS: We considered contrast-based methods proposed by Begg & Pilote (1991) and arm-based methods by Zhang et al (2019). We performed a simulation study with scenarios varying (i) the proportion of RCTs and single-arm studies in the synthesis (ii) the magnitude of bias, and (iii) between-study heterogeneity. We also applied methods to data from a published health technology assessment (HTA), including three RCTs and 11 single-arm studies. RESULTS: Our simulation study showed that the hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods by Zhang et al provided a consistent reduction in uncertainty, whilst maintaining over-coverage and small error in scenarios where there was limited RCT data, bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity between the two sets of data. The contrast-based methods provided a reduction in uncertainty, but performed worse in terms of coverage and error, unless there was no marked difference in heterogeneity between the two sets of data. CONCLUSIONS: The hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods provide the most robust approach to synthesising aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm studies, balancing the need to account for bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity, whilst reducing uncertainty in estimates. This work was restricted to considering a pairwise meta-analysis using aggregate data.


Assuntos
Viés , Humanos
15.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 1205, 2021 06 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282248

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Covid-status certification - certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 - has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. METHOD: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. RESULTS: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 - outside of the context of international travel - has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Viés , Certificação , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação
16.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e045987, 2021 06 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34168027

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA; ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.


Assuntos
Publicações , Editoração , Viés , Humanos , Metanálise como Assunto , Metanálise em Rede , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
17.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e051417, 2021 06 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276967

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021235288.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Resiliência Psicológica , Viés , Humanos , Pandemias , Projetos de Pesquisa , SARS-CoV-2 , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
18.
Bull Cancer ; 108(7-8): 677-685, 2021.
Artigo em Francês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34175111

RESUMO

Clinical practice and medical research can expose to several situations with risks of conflicts of interests. Such situations can induce attenuations of their primary professional interest in favor of, so-called, secondary interests, and leading to bias in their judgement and actions. In this area, if financial conflicts of interests are consistent and frequently dominant, intellectual conflicts of interests have to be analyzed and considered, like those amplified and even induced by the current tremendous competition for scientific publication. In this article, after a contextual review of conflicts of interests in medicine, we will document and discuss more specifically those frequently induced by leaks of financial interests and those linked by evolutions of the current scientific expansion and competition.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Conflito de Interesses/economia , Ética Médica , Editoração/ética , Viés , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Raciocínio Clínico , Comunicação , Competição Econômica , Empoderamento , Setor de Assistência à Saúde/economia , Setor de Assistência à Saúde/ética , Humanos , Poder Psicológico , Má Conduta Científica/ética
19.
Vaccine ; 39(30): 4082-4088, 2021 07 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34130883

RESUMO

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown high efficacy of multiple vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), and recent studies have shown the vaccines are also effective against infection. Evidence for the effect of each of these vaccines on ability to transmit the virus is also beginning to emerge. We describe an approach to estimate these vaccines' effects on viral positivity, a prevalence measure which under the reasonable assumption that vaccinated individuals who become infected are no more infectious than unvaccinated individuals forms a lower bound on efficacy against transmission. Specifically, we recommend separate analysis of positive tests triggered by symptoms (usually the primary RCT outcome) and cross-sectional prevalence of positive tests obtained regardless of symptoms. The odds ratio of carriage for vaccine vs. placebo provides an unbiased estimate of vaccine effectiveness against viral positivity, under certain assumptions, and we show through simulations that likely departures from these assumptions will only modestly bias this estimate. Applying this approach to published data from the RCT of the Moderna vaccine, we estimate that one dose of vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%, possibly considerably more. We describe how these approaches can be translated into observational studies of vaccine effectiveness.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas , Viés , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Infez Med ; 29(2): 181-190, 2021 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34061782

RESUMO

In recent years, and now especially with the arrival of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there has been increased interest in understanding the role of bats in the dynamics of transmission and origin of this pandemic agent. To date, no systematic reviews have been published on this topic. This systematic review aimed to summarize and highlight the frequency of bat infections reported in currently available observational studies for coronavirus. The purpose of this study was also to examine the differences between the pool prevalence by technique and country. We performed a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, using three databases to assess coronavirus (CoV) infection in bats and its diagnosis by serological and molecular tests. We carried out random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). In all, 824 articles were retrieved (1960-2021). After screening by abstract/title, 43 articles were selected for full-text assessment. Of these, 33 were finally included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. From the total of studies, the pool prevalence by RT-PCR (n=14,295 bats) for CoV was 9.8% (95% CI 8.7-10.9%); Italy reported the highest pooled prevalence (44.9%, 95% CI 31.6-58.1%), followed by the Philippines (29.6%). Regarding the ELISA, the pool prevalence for coronavirus from 15 studies, including 359 bats, was 30.2% (95% CI 14.7-45.6%). The results for coronaviruses with the MIF were significantly lower, 2.6% (95% CI 1.5-3.7%). A considerable proportion of infected bats tested positive, particularly by molecular tests. This essential condition highlights the relevance of bats and the need for future studies to detail their role as potential reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2. In this meta-analysis, bats were positive in almost 10% by RT-PCR, suggesting their relevance and the need to understand their potential participation in maintaining wild zoonotic transmission.


Assuntos
COVID-19/veterinária , Quirópteros/virologia , Reservatórios de Doenças/virologia , SARS-CoV-2 , Animais , Viés , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/virologia , Intervalos de Confiança , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Prevalência , Estudos Soroepidemiológicos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...