Systematic Review of Second Primary Oropharyngeal Cancers in Patients With p16+ Oropharyngeal Cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982095117
Author(s):  
Craig A. Bollig ◽  
David S. Lee ◽  
Angela L. Mazul ◽  
Katelyn Stepan ◽  
Sidharth V. Puram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Alive With Disease ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective To systematically review the literature to determine the prevalence and clinical outcomes of second primary oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). Data Sources Search strategies created with a medical librarian were implemented using multiple databases in October 2019. Review Methods The population of interest included adults age >18 years with a p16+ or human papillomavirus-positive OPSCC. The outcome was a synchronous or metachronous second primary OPSCC. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to capture all study designs. In total, 685 records were identified by the search strategy. Two reviewers independently performed the review, extracted data, and performed a quality assessment. Primary Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Results A total of 2470 patients with 35 second primary OPSCCs from 15 studies were identified. The pooled prevalence of second primary OPSCC was 1.4% (range, 0%-14.3%). In the random-effects model, the prevalence was estimated at 1.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.3%; P = .51, I2 = 52%). Of the 30 patients with treatment information, 26 (86.7%) received surgical treatment, while 4 (13.3%) underwent nonsurgical therapy. Of the 29 patients with available survival information, 22 (75.9%) had no evidence of disease at last follow-up, 5 (17.2%) ultimately died of disease, and 2 (6.9%) were alive with disease. Conclusion Overall, the rate of second primary OPSCC in patients with an index p16+ OPSCC is low, and most patients are successfully treated. Insufficient evidence currently exists to recommend routine elective tonsillectomy during surgical treatment of p16+ OPSCC.

scholarly journals A systematic analysis on prevalence and sub-regional distribution of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus among adults in African countries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Getenet Dessie ◽  
Henok Mulugeta ◽  
Desalegne Amare ◽  
Ayenew Negesse ◽  
Fasil Wagnew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eastern Africa ◽  
Undiagnosed Diabetes ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Western Africa ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus

Abstract Background Despite the high prevalence of diabetes in Africa, the extent of undiagnosed diabetes in the region is still poorly understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine the pooled prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus among adults in Africa. Methods We conducted a systematic desk review and electronic web-based search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization’s Hinari portal (which includes the SCOPUS, African Index Medicus, and African Journals Online databases), identifying peer-reviewed research studies on the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes among adult individuals using pre-defined quality and inclusion criteria. We ran our search from June 1, 2018 to Jun 14, 2020. We extracted relevant data and presented descriptive summaries of the studies in tabular form. The I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity across studies. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus at a 95% confidence interval (CI). Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s tests were used to check for publication bias. The final effect size was determined by applying a trim and fill analysis in a random-effects model. Results Our search identified 1442 studies amongst which 23 articles were eligible for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. The average pooled prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus among adults was 3.85 (95% CI: 3.10–4.60). The pooled prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus based on geographic location was 4.43 (95% CI: 3.12–5.74) in Eastern Africa; 4.72 (95% CI: 2.64–6.80) in Western Africa; 4.27 (95% CI: 1.77–6.76) in Northern Africa and 1.46 (95%CI: 0.57–2.34) in southern Africa respectively. Conclusion Our findings indicate a high prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in Africa and suggest that it may be more prevalent in Western Africa than the rest of the regions. Given the high levels of undiagnosed diabetes in the Africa region, more attention should be paid to incorporating diabetes screening and treatment services into existing diabetes related programs to reduce the prevalence of undiagnosed cases.

Bivariate Random-effects Meta-analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX

2010 ◽  
Vol 49 (01) ◽  
pp. 54-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Menke
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Linear Mixed Model ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Summary Objectives: Meta-analysis allows to summarize pooled sensitivities and specificities from several primary diagnostic test accuracy studies. Often these pooled estimates are indirectly obtained from a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) analysis. This article presents a generalized linear random-effects model with the new SAS PROC GLIMMIX that obtains the pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity directly. Methods: Firstly, the formula of the bivariate random-effects model is presented in context with the literature. Then its implementation with the new SAS PROC GLIMMIX is empirically evaluated in comparison to the indirect HSROC approach, utilizing the published 2 x 2 count data of 50 meta-analyses. Results: According to the empirical evaluation the meta-analytic results from the bivariate GLIMMIX approach are nearly identical to the results from the indirect HSROC approach. Conclusions: A generalized linear mixed model with PROC GLIMMIX offers a straightforward method for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

scholarly journals A Global Mutational Profile of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 368,316 COVID-19 Patients

Life ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1224
Author(s):  
Wardah Yusof ◽  
Ahmad Adebayo Irekeola ◽  
Yusuf Wada ◽  
Engku Nur Syafirah Engku Abd Rahman ◽  
Naveed Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spike Protein ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Potential Influence ◽  
Viral Genomes ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
The Usa ◽  
New Mutations

Since its first detection in December 2019, more than 232 million cases of COVID-19, including 4.7 million deaths, have been reported by the WHO. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes have evolved rapidly worldwide, causing the emergence of new variants. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to provide a global mutational profile of SARS-CoV-2 from December 2019 to October 2020. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA), and a study protocol was lodged with PROSPERO. Data from 62 eligible studies involving 368,316 SARS-CoV-2 genomes were analyzed. The mutational data analyzed showed most studies detected mutations in the Spike protein (n = 50), Nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (n = 34), ORF1ab gene (n = 29), 5′-UTR (n = 28) and ORF3a (n = 25). Under the random-effects model, pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants was estimated at 95.1% (95% CI; 93.3–96.4%; I2 = 98.952%; p = 0.000) while subgroup meta-analysis by country showed majority of the studies were conducted ‘Worldwide’ (n = 10), followed by ‘Multiple countries’ (n = 6) and the USA (n = 5). The estimated prevalence indicated a need to continuously monitor the prevalence of new mutations due to their potential influence on disease severity, transmissibility and vaccine effectiveness.

scholarly journals High burden of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. jclinpath-2020-207023
Author(s):  
Camila Barbosa Oliveira ◽  
Camilla Albertina Dantas Lima ◽  
Gisele Vajgel ◽  
Antonio Victor Campos Coelho ◽  
Paula Sandrin-Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

AimsHospitalised patients with COVID-19 have a variable incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) according to studies from different nationalities. The present systematic review and meta-analysis describes the incidence of AKI, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality among patients with COVID-19-associated AKI.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic database PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science to identify English articles published until 25 May 2020. In case of significant heterogeneity, the meta-analyses were conducted assuming a random-effects model.ResultsFrom 746 screened publications, we selected 21 observational studies with 15 536 patients with COVID-19 for random-effects model meta-analyses. The overall incidence of AKI was 12.3% (95% CI 7.3% to 20.0%) and 77% of patients with AKI were critically ill (95% CI 58.9% to 89.0%). The mortality among patients with AKI was 67% (95% CI 39.8% to 86.2%) and the risk of death was 13 times higher compared with patients without AKI (OR=13.3; 95% CI 6.1 to 29.2). Patients with COVID-19-associated AKI needed for RRT in 23.4% of cases (95% CI 12.6% to 39.4%) and those cases had high mortality (89%–100%).ConclusionThe present study evidenced an incidence of COVID-19-associated AKI higher than previous meta-analysis. The majority of patients affected by AKI were critically ill and mortality rate among AKI cases was high. Thus, it is extremely important for health systems to be aware about the impact of AKI on patients’ outcomes in order to establish proper screening, prevention of additional damage to the kidneys and adequate renal support when needed.

scholarly journals Prevalence of Headache in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,275 Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Asiful Islam ◽  
Sayeda Sadia Alam ◽  
Shoumik Kundu ◽  
Tareq Hossan ◽  
Mohammad Amjad Kamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Headache has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 2019 and March 2020. Adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 patients were considered eligible. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182529).Results: We identified 2,055 studies, of which 86 studies (n = 14,275, 49.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients was 10.1% [95% CI: 8.76–11.49]. There was no significant difference of headache prevalence in severe or critical vs. non-severe (RR: 1.05, p = 0.78), survived (recovered or discharged) vs. non-survived (RR: 1.36, p = 0.23), and ICU vs. non-ICU (RR: 1.06, p = 0.87) COVID-19 patients. We detected 64.0, 34.9, and 1.1% of the included studies as high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.Conclusions: From the first 4-month data of the outbreak, headache was detected in 10.1% of the adult COVID-19 patients.

Surgical Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Open Resection for Primary Sinonasal Malignancy: A Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 608-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M. Lu ◽  
Krishnan Ravindran ◽  
Kevin Phan ◽  
Jamie J. Van Gompel ◽  
Timothy R. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Open Resection ◽  
Sinonasal Malignancies ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Risk Ratios ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

Background Endoscopic resection (ER) for uncommon sinonasal malignancies (SNMs) has been reported to confer superior surgical outcomes compared to open resection (OR) based on indirect comparisons of limited evidence. Objective The aim of this study was to pool all direct comparative studies in the literature to validate this potential superior association. Methods Systematic searches of 7 electronic databases from their inception to April 2019 were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There were 1001 articles identified for screening. Outcomes of interest were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MD) and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results There were 10 studies included in this meta-analysis, with 900 SNM patients in total where ER and OR were utilized in 399 (44%) and 501 (56%) cases, respectively. Compared to OR, random-effects (RE) modeling indicated ER resulted in statistically comparable complications (RR = 0.68; P-effect = .12) and recurrence (RR = 0.84; P-effect = .35). ER was associated with significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) compared to OR (MD = −2.9 days; P-effect <.01). Conclusions The use of ER to manage SNM was associated with significantly favorable reduction in LOS compared to OR. However, with respect to other surgical outcomes and recurrence, the current literature does not indicate either ER or OR as statistically superior. Therefore, until greater validation of these associations can be proven, expectations that ER for SNMs confers superior surgical outcomes compared to OR should be tempered.

scholarly journals Precancerous cervical lesion in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayele Semachew Kasa ◽  
Tadesse Dagget ◽  
Yeshiwork Beyene ◽  
Getnet Dessie ◽  
Aklilu Endalamaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Addis Ababa ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cervical Lesion ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Precancerous Cervical Lesion ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Precancerous Cervical Lesions

Abstract Background Though cervical cancer is largely preventable, it is still the second most common female cancer globally and the leading cause of cancer deaths among females in African. Though many efforts have been done to study the burden of the disease in Ethiopia, primary studies examining the prevalence of precancerous cervical lesions are fragmented. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at estimating the pooled prevalence of precancerous cervical lesion and its trends in Ethiopia. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the following electronic databases. PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Google Scholar, African Index Medicus (AIM), African Journals Online databases, and Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar Universities research repositories were searched following the Preferred Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Guideline. STATA 15 statistical software was used to analyze the data. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality appraisal tool for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q test and I2 test statistics based on the random effects model. A random effects model was computed to estimate the pooled prevalence of precancerous cervical lesion in Ethiopia. Finally, the trend of precancerous cervical lesion in the country was presented. Result Seventeen studies with a total of 26,112 participants were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of precancerous cervical lesion was 15.16 (95% CI 10.16–19.70). The subgroup analysis by region showed the highest prevalence of precancerous cervical lesion at the Southern Nations and Nationalities Peoples Region (19.65%; 95% CI 15.51–23.80). The trend of precancerous cervical lesion prevalence showed an increased pattern over time. Conclusion Approximately one among six of the study participants had precancerous cervical lesion. The trend also showed that there is still an increasing precancerous cervical lesion in Ethiopia. Best practices in achieving high vaccination coverage shall be informed by practices in other successful countries.

scholarly journals Prevalence of and risk factors for severe malaria caused by Plasmodium and dengue virus co-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manas Kotepui ◽  
Kwuntida Uthaisar Kotepui ◽  
Giovanni De Jesus Milanez ◽  
Frederick Ramirez Masangkay
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dengue Virus ◽  
Severe Malaria ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevalence Estimate ◽  
Severe Dengue ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

Abstract Background Co-infection with both Plasmodium and dengue virus (DENV) infectious species could have serious and fatal outcomes if left undiagnosed and without timely treatment. The present study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence estimate of severe malaria among patients with co-infection, the risk of severe diseases due to co-infection, and to describe the complications of severe malaria and severe dengue among patients with co-infection. Methods Relevant studies published between databases between 12 September 1970 and 22 May 2020 were identified and retrieved through a search of the ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE. The pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) of severe malaria among patients with Plasmodium and DENV co-infection was estimated with a random-effects model to take into account the between-study heterogeneity of the included studies. The risks of severe malaria and severe diseases due to co-infection were estimated with the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI with a random-effects model. Results Of the 5653 articles screened, 13 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that the pooled prevalence estimate of severe malaria among patients with co-infection was 32% (95% CI: 18–47%, I2 = 92.3%). Patients with co-infection had a higher risk of severe diseases than those with DENV mono-infection (odds ratio [OR] = 3.94, 95% CI: 1.96–7.95, I2 = 72%). Patients with co-infection had a higher risk of severe dengue than those with DENV mono-infection (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.08–3.63, I2 = 69%). The most severe complications found in severe dengue were bleeding (39.6%), jaundice (19.8%), and shock/hypotension (17.9%), while the most severe complications found in severe malaria were severe bleeding/bleeding (47.9%), jaundice (32.2%), and impaired consciousness (7.43%). Conclusions The present study found that there was a high prevalence of severe malaria among patients with Plasmodium and DENV co-infection. Physicians in endemic areas where these two diseases overlap should recognize that patients with this co-infection can develop either severe malaria or severe dengue with bleeding complications, but a greater risk of developing severe dengue than severe malaria was noted in patients with this co-infection. Trial registration The protocol of this study was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42020196792.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keum Hwa Lee ◽  
Sojung Yoon ◽  
Gwang Hun Jeong ◽  
Jong Yeob Kim ◽  
Young Joo Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Coronavirus Infections

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631–2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221–0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670–5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

Exploring the Relationships Between Problem Gambling and ADHD: A Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 1427-1437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Theule ◽  
Kylee E. Hurl ◽  
Kristene Cheung ◽  
Michelle Ward ◽  
Brenna Henrikson
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Problem Gambling ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Adhd Symptoms ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Problem Gamblers ◽  
Gambling Severity ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: At present, there are inconsistencies in the literature pertaining to the association between ADHD and problem gambling. This study utilized meta-analytic techniques to clarify the association between symptoms of problem gambling and symptoms of ADHD. Method: Several meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model. PsycINFO, PubMed, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies. Results: The weighted mean correlation between ADHD symptomology and gambling severity was r = .17, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.12, 0.22], p < .001. Mean age of the sample was the only moderator to approach significance, with greater age being linked to a stronger relationship between symptoms of ADHD and gambling severity. Conclusion: Clinicians needs to be cognizant of the greater risk of ADHD symptoms when working with problem gamblers and vice versa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document