Non-Surgical Interventions for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available.

Objectives

Analysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.

Design

Systematic overview of systematic reviews.

Methods

Articles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews.

Results

From 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established.

Conclusions

Higher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence.

Protocol registry number

CRD42013003538, PROSPERO     

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture

Background

The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.

Objectives

To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.

Methods

We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).

Results

Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were “protocol and registration”, “risk of bias across studies”, and “additional analyses” in both methods and results sections.

Conclusions

SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.     

Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis

Background

Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.

Objective

To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles’ quality.

Methods

The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.

Results

A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.

Conclusion

The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.     

Circulating Biomarkers for Predicting Cardiovascular Disease Risk; a Systematic Review and Comprehensive Overview of Meta-Analyses

Background

Cardiovascular disease is one of the major causes of death worldwide.Assessing the risk for cardiovascular disease is an important aspect in clinical decision making and setting a therapeutic strategy, and the use of serological biomarkers may improve this. Despite an overwhelming number of studies and meta-analyses on biomarkers and cardiovascular disease, there are no comprehensive studies comparing the relevance of each biomarker. We performed a systematic review of meta-analyses on levels of serological biomarkers for atherothrombosis to compare the relevance of the most commonly studied biomarkers.

Methods and Findings

Medline and Embase were screened on search terms that were related to “arterial ischemic events” and “meta-analyses”. The meta-analyses were sorted by patient groups without pre-existing cardiovascular disease, with cardiovascular disease and heterogeneous groups concerning general populations, groups with and without cardiovascular disease, or miscellaneous. These were subsequently sorted by end-point for cardiovascular disease or stroke and summarized in tables. We have identified 85 relevant full text articles, with 214 meta-analyses. Markers for primary cardiovascular events include, from high to low result: C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, the apolipoprotein A/apolipoprotein B ratio, high density lipoprotein, and vitamin D. Markers for secondary cardiovascular events include, from high to low result: cardiac troponins I and T, C-reactive protein, serum creatinine, and cystatin C. For primary stroke, fibrinogen and serum uric acid are strong risk markers. Limitations reside in that there is no acknowledged search strategy for prognostic studies or meta-analyses.

Conclusions

For primary cardiovascular events, markers with strong predictive potential are mainly associated with lipids. For secondary cardiovascular events, markers are more associated with ischemia. Fibrinogen is a strong predictor for primary stroke.     

An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of published network meta-analysis.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses of pharmaceuticals. We assessed general study characteristics, study transparency and reproducibility, methodological approach, and reporting of findings. We compared studies published in journals with lower impact factors with those published in journals with higher impact factors, studies published prior to January 1^st, 2013 with those published after that date, and studies supported financially by industry with those supported by non-profit institutions or that received no support.ResultsThe systematic literature search identified 854 citations. Three hundred and eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The number of network meta-analyses has grown rapidly, with 48% of studies published since January 2013. The majority of network meta-analyses were supported by a non-profit institution or received no support (68%). We found considerable inconsistencies among reviewed studies. Eighty percent reported search terms, 61% a network diagram, 65% sufficient data to replicate the analysis, and 90% the characteristics of included trials. Seventy percent performed a risk of bias assessment of included trials, 40% an assessment of model fit, and 56% a sensitivity analysis. Among studies with a closed loop, 69% examined the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Sixty-four percent of studies presented the full matrix of head-to-head treatment comparisons. For Bayesian studies, 41% reported the probability that each treatment was best, 31% reported treatment ranking, and 16% included the model code or referenced publicly-available code. Network meta-analyses published in higher impact factors journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across the assessment criteria. We found few differences between older and newer studies.ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in the network meta-analysis literature. Consensus among guidelines is needed improve the methodological quality, transparency, and consistency of study conduct and reporting.     

The Health Effects of Passive Smoking: An Overview of Systematic Reviews Based on Observational Epidemiological Evidence

Purpose

We aim to systematically summarize the available epidemiological evidence to identify the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for meta-analyses was conducted through January 2015. We included systematic reviews that investigated the association between passive smoking and certain diseases. Quantitative outcomes of association between passive smoking and the risk of certain diseases were summarized.

Results

Sixteen meta-analyses covering 130 cohort studies, 159 case-control studies, and 161 cross-sectional studies and involving 25 diseases or health problems were reviewed. Passive smoking appears not to be significantly associated with eight diseases or health problems, but significantly elevates the risk for eleven specific diseases or health problems, including invasive meningococcal disease in children (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.63–2.92), cervical cancer (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35–2.21), Neisseria meningitidis carriage (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.19–2.36), Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.33–2.07), lower respiratory infections in infancy (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.33–1.51), food allergy (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.12–1.83), and so on.

Conclusions

Our overview of systematic reviews of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that passive smoking is significantly associated with an increasing risk of many diseases or health problems, especially diseases in children and cancers.     

Systematic Review: Representativeness of Participants in RCTs of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors

Objective

To determine whether there are differences in age and sex distribution and presence of comorbidities between participants included in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and nationwide cohort of persons with Alzheimer’s disease.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched for original articles from their inception to January 4, 2015. Double-blind randomized controlled trials with donepezil, rivastigmine or galantamine compared to placebo in participants with Alzheimer’s disease were included. Data from a nationwide cohort of persons with clinically verified diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease was defined as a reference population.

Results

128 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 31 of them fulfilled criteria. Mean age of participants in randomized controlled trials (n = 15,032) was 5.8 years lower (95% CI 5.7 to 5.9, P < 0.001), compared to the mean age of 79.7 years in the reference population with Alzheimer’s disease (n = 28,093). Most of the articles did not report age distribution of participants. The proportion of women was 63.2% (9,475/14,991) in randomized controlled trials and 67.8% (19,043/28,093) (P < 0.001) in the reference population. Information on comorbidities and use of concomitant drugs were lacking or poorly reported in most articles.

Conclusions

There is a discrepancy between participants in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and real-life population with Alzheimer’s disease. Participants in randomized controlled trials were significantly younger. Further, more detailed reporting of age distribution, comorbidities and concomitant drugs would be important information for clinicians when evaluating conclusions from randomized controlled trials to real-life practice. The existing recommendations of inclusion of older people should be followed to ensure safe pharmacotherapy for older people.     

The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China

Background

The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time.

Methods

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31^st 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5.

Results

A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050).

Conclusion

The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.     

The Effectiveness of Public Health Interventions to Reduce the Health Impact of Climate Change: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Background

Climate change is likely to be one of the most important threats to public health in the coming years. Yet despite the large number of papers considering the health impact of climate change, few have considered what public health interventions may be of most value in reducing the disease burden. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions to reduce the disease burden of high priority climate sensitive diseases.

Methods and Findings

For each disease, we performed a systematic search with no restriction on date or language of publication on Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane CENTRAL and SCOPUS up to December 2010 to identify systematic reviews of public health interventions. We retrieved some 3176 records of which 85 full papers were assessed and 33 included in the review. The included papers investigated the effect of public health interventions on various outcome measures. All interventions were GRADE assessed to determine the strength of evidence. In addition we developed a systematic review quality score. The interventions included environmental interventions to control vectors, chemoprophylaxis, immunization, household and community water treatment, greening cities and community advice. For most reviews, GRADE showed low quality of evidence because of poor study design and high heterogeneity. Also for some key areas such as floods, droughts and other weather extremes, there are no adequate systematic reviews of potential public health interventions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found the evidence base to be mostly weak for environmental interventions that could have the most value in a warmer world. Nevertheless, such interventions should not be dismissed. Future research on public health interventions for climate change adaptation needs to be concerned about quality in study design and should address the gap for floods, droughts and other extreme weather events that pose a risk to health.     

Mindfulness-Based Therapies in the Treatment of Somatization Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) has been used effectively to treat a variety of physical and psychological disorders, including depression, anxiety, and chronic pain. Recently, several lines of research have explored the potential for mindfulness-therapy in treating somatization disorders, including fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and irritable bowel syndrome.

Methods

Thirteen studies were identified as fulfilling the present criteria of employing randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy of any form of MBT in treating somatization disorders. A meta-analysis of the effects of mindfulness-based therapy on pain, symptom severity, quality of life, depression, and anxiety was performed to determine the potential of this form of treatment.

Findings

While limited in power, the meta-analysis indicated a small to moderate positive effect of MBT (compared to wait-list or support group controls) in reducing pain (SMD  = −0.21, 95% CI: −0.37, −0.03; p<0.05), symptom severity (SMD  = −0.40, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.26; p<0.001), depression (SMD  = −0.23, 95% CI: −0.40, −0.07, p<0.01), and anxiety (SMD  = −0.20, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.02, p = 0.07) associated with somatization disorders, and improving quality of life (SMD  = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.59; p<0.001) in patients with this disorder. Subgroup analyses indicated that the efficacy of MBT was most consistent for irritable bowel syndrome (p<0.001 for pain, symptom severity, and quality of life), and that mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MCBT) were more effective than eclectic/unspecified MBT.

Conclusions

Preliminary evidence suggests that MBT may be effective in treating at least some aspects of somatization disorders. Further research is warranted.     

Meditative Movement Therapies and Health-Related Quality-of-Life in Adults: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses

Poor health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) is a significant public health issue while the use of meditative movement therapies has been increasing. The purpose of this investigation was to carry out a systematic review of previous meta-analyses that examined the effects of meditative movement therapies (yoga, tai chi and qigong) on HRQOL in adults. Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published up through February, 2014 were included by searching nine electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual-selection and data abstraction occurred. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Instrument (AMSTAR) was used to assess methodological quality. Standardized mean differences that were pooled using random-effects models were included. In addition, 95% prediction intervals were calculated as well as the number needed-to-treat and percentile improvements. Of the 510 citations screened, 10 meta-analyses representing a median of 3 standardized mean differences in 82 to 528 participants (median = 270) with breast cancer, schizophrenia, low back pain, heart failure and diabetes, were included. Median methodological quality was 70%. Median length, frequency and duration of the meditative movement therapies were 12 weeks, 3 times per week, for 71 minutes per session. The majority of results (78.9%) favored statistically significant improvements (non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals) in HRQOL, with standardized mean differences ranging from 0.18 to 2.28. More than half of the results yielded statistically significant heterogeneity (Q ≤ 0.10) and large or very large inconsistency (I² ≥ 50%). All 95% prediction intervals included zero. The number-needed-to-treat ranged from 2 to 10 while percentile improvements ranged from 9.9 to 48.9. The results of this study suggest that meditative movement therapies may improve HRQOL in adults with selected conditions. However, a need exists for a large, more inclusive meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42014014576).     

Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions

BackgroundA large proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials report statistically significant results, even in the context of very low statistical power. The objective of the present study was to characterize the reporting of “positive” results in randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. We also assessed mindfulness-based therapy trial registrations for indications of possible reporting bias and reviewed recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether reporting biases were identified.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. The number of positive trials was described and compared to the number that might be expected if mindfulness-based therapy were similarly effective compared to individual therapy for depression. Trial registries were searched for mindfulness-based therapy registrations. CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS were also searched for mindfulness-based therapy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results108 (87%) of 124 published trials reported ≥1 positive outcome in the abstract, and 109 (88%) concluded that mindfulness-based therapy was effective, 1.6 times greater than the expected number of positive trials based on effect size d = 0.55 (expected number positive trials = 65.7). Of 21 trial registrations, 13 (62%) remained unpublished 30 months post-trial completion. No trial registrations adequately specified a single primary outcome measure with time of assessment. None of 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that effect estimates were overestimated due to reporting biases.ConclusionsThe proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials with statistically significant results may overstate what would occur in practice.     

The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Virus in the Maghreb Region: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objective

To systematically review and synthesize available epidemiological data on hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence and incidence in the Maghreb region and to estimate the country-specific population-level HCV prevalence.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of HCV antibody prevalence and incidence in the Maghreb countries as outlined by the PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted using DerSimonian-Laird random-effect models with inverse variance weighting to pool HCV prevalence estimates among general population groups.

Results

We identified 133 HCV prevalence measures and two HCV incidence measures. Among high risk groups, HCV prevalence ranged between 22% and 94% among people who inject drugs, 20% and 76% among dialysis patients, and 2% and 51% among hemophiliacs. Among intermediate-risk groups, considerable but widely variable HCV prevalence was found. Most common risk factors cited across studies were the duration of dialysis, number of transfusions, and having a history of surgery or dental work. The national HCV prevalence in Algeria was estimated at 0.3% (95%CI: 0.1–0.5), Libya 1.2% (95%CI: 1.1–1.3), Mauritania 1.1% (95%CI: 0–2.3), Morocco 0.8% (95%CI: 0.5–1.2), and Tunisia 0.6% (95%CI: 0.5–0.8).

Conclusions

HCV prevalence in the Maghreb region of the Middle East and North Africa is comparable to that in developed countries of about 1%. HCV exposures appear often to be linked to medical care and are suggestive of ongoing transmission in such settings. Injecting drug use appears also to be a major, though not dominant, contributor to HCV transmission. Further research is needed to draw a more thorough understanding of HCV epidemiology, especially in the countries with limited number of studies. HCV prevention policy and programming in these countries should focus on the settings of exposure.     

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses on Gene Polymorphisms and Gastric Cancer Risk

Background

Individual variations in gastric cancer risk have been associated in the last decade with specific variant alleles of different genes that are present in a significant proportion of the population. Polymorphisms may modify the effects of environmental exposures, and these gene-environment interactions could partly explain the high variation of gastric cancer incidence around the world. The aim of this report is to carry out a systematic review of the published meta-analyses of studies investigating the association between gene polymorphisms and gastric cancer risk, and describe their impact at population level. Priorities on the design of further primary studies are then provided.

Methods

A structured bibliographic search on Medline and EMBASE databases has been performed to identify meta-analyses on genetic susceptibility to gastric cancer, without restriction criteria. We report the main results of the meta-analyses and we describe the subgroup analyses performed, focusing on the detection of statistical heterogeneity. We investigated publication bias by pooling the primary studies included in the meta-analyses, and we computed the population attributable risk (PAR) for each polymorphism.

Results

Twelve meta-analyses and one pooled-analysis of community based genetic association studies were included, focusing on nine genes involved in inflammation (IL-1β, IL-1RN, IL-8), detoxification of carcinogens (GSTs, CYP2E1), folate metabolism (MTHFR), intercellular adhesion (E-cadherin) and cell cycle regulation (p53). According to their random-Odds Ratios, individuals carrying one of the IL-1RN *2, IL-1β -511T variant alleles or homozygotes for MTHFR 677T are significantly at higher risk of gastric cancer than those with the wild type homozygote genotypes, showing high PARs. The main sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analyses were ethnicity, quality of the primary study, and selected environmental co-exposures. Effect modification by Helicobacter pylori infection for subjects carrying the unfavourable variant of IL-1 polymorphisms and by low folate intake for individuals homozygotes for MTHFR 677T allele has been reported, while genes involved in the detoxification of carcinogens show synergistic interactions. Publication bias was observed (Egger test, p = 0.03).

Discussion

The published meta-analyses included in our systematic review focused on polymorphisms having a small effect in increasing gastric cancer risk per se. Nevertheless, the risk increase by interacting with environmental exposures and in combination with additional unfavourable polymorphisms. Unfortunately meta-analyses are underpowered for many subgroup analyses, so additional primary studies performed on larger population and collecting data on environmental and genetic co-exposures are demanded.Key Words: Gastric cancer, meta-analysis, heterogeneity, polymorphism, population attributable risk.