Insulin Infusion Protocols for Critically ILL Patients: A Highlight of Differences and Similarities

ObjectiveTo discuss the major differences and similarities among the currently published insulin infusion protocols (IIPs) for critically ill patients.MethodsIIPs were identified by searching MED-LINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The reference lists for all retrieved protocols were also reviewed to identify any IIPs that were not surfaced with use of our initial search strategies. The major differences and similarities among the IIPs were identified and examined. In addition, strategies for successful implementation of IIPs were outlined.ResultsOur search strategies retrieved 17 IIPs. Currently, no published studies have compared one insulin protocol with another. The major differences or similarities among the published IIPs were in the following areas: patient characteristics, target glucose level, time to achieve target glucose level, incidence of hypoglycemia, rationale for adjusting the rates of insulin infusion, and methods of blood glucose measurements. Because of variations in the definition of hypoglycemia, methods of blood glucose measurement, and types of blood samples used, some comparisons across the protocols were difficult. Use of a multidisciplinary team and gaining administrative support are crucial for addressing issues and provision of necessary resources for implementing a protocol for “tight” glycemic control in critically ill patients.ConclusionClinicians should evaluate the type of patients in their critical care units, the mean baseline glucose levels, and the available resources to determine the most appropriate and practical IIP for their institution. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:137-146)     

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals.DesignAnalysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists.StudiesArticles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library.Results50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 22 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive flaws. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library.ConclusionsMost reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals.     

Dissemination Bias in Systematic Reviews of Animal Research: A Systematic Review

Background

Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research.

Methods

Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1^st January 2009 to 9^th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al.

Results

The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%).

Discussion

Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.     

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study

Objectives To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results.Data sources Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals.Study selection 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002.Data synthesis The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely.Conclusions Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.     

Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 Reporting Guideline: the Perspectives of Systematic Review Authors

Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to ‘road-test’ the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.     

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell–based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19

BackgroundMesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.Methods and FindingsAll English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I² = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, –0.69; 95% CI, –1.15 to –0.22; P = .004; I² = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.ConclusionUse of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.     

Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) and health outcomes: a meta-research review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping study

BackgroundAlthough a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews.PurposeThe present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274.ResultsNineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources.ConclusionThe available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.     

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.     

Men’s Knowledge of Obstetric Danger Signs,Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness in Rural Tanzania

BackgroundMen’s involvement in reproductive health is recommended. Their involvement in antenatal care service is identified as important in maternal health. Awareness of obstetric danger signs facilitates men in making a joint decision with their partners regarding accessing antenatal and delivery care. This study aims to assess the level of knowledge of obstetric complications among men in a rural community in Tanzania, and to determine their involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted where 756 recent fathers were invited through a two-stage cluster sampling procedure. A structured questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge of danger signs and steps taken on birth preparedness and complication readiness. Data were analyzed using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with being prepared, with statistically significant level at p<0.05.ResultsAmong the invited men, 95.9% agreed to participate in the community survey. Fifty-three percent could mention at least one danger sign during pregnancy, 43.9% during delivery and 34.6% during the postpartum period. Regarding birth preparedness and complication readiness, 54.3% had bought birth kit, 47.2% saved money, 10.2% identified transport, 0.8% identified skilled attendant. In general, only 12% of men were prepared. Birth preparedness was associated with knowledge of danger signs during pregnancy (AOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.8-2.6). It was less likely for men living in the rural area to be prepared (AOR=0.6, 95% CI; 0.5-0.8).ConclusionThere was a low level of knowledge of obstetric danger signs among men in a rural district in Tanzania. A very small proportion of men had prepared for childbirth and complication readiness. There was no effect of knowledge of danger signs during childbirth and postpartum period on being prepared. Innovative strategies that increase awareness of danger signs as well as birth preparedness and complication readiness among men are required. Strengthening counseling during antenatal care services that involve men together with partners is recommended.     

Artificial intelligence applications in medical imaging: A review of the medical physics research in Italy

PurposeTo perform a systematic review on the research on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to imaging published in Italy and identify its fields of application, methods and results.Materials and MethodsA Pubmed search was conducted using terms Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deep learning, imaging, and Italy as affiliation, excluding reviews and papers outside time interval 2015–2020. In a second phase, participants of the working group AI4MP on Artificial Intelligence of the Italian Association of Physics in Medicine (AIFM) searched for papers on AI in imaging.ResultsThe Pubmed search produced 794 results. 168 studies were selected, of which 122 were from Pubmed search and 46 from the working group. The most used imaging modality was MRI (44%) followed by CT(12%) ad radiography/mammography (11%). The most common clinical indication were neurological diseases (29%) and diagnosis of cancer (25%). Classification was the most common task for AI (57%) followed by segmentation (16%). 65% of studies used machine learning and 35% used deep learning. We observed a rapid increase of research in Italy on artificial intelligence in the last 5 years, peaking at 155% from 2018 to 2019.ConclusionsWe are witnessing an unprecedented interest in AI applied to imaging in Italy, in a diversity of fields and imaging techniques. Further initiatives are needed to build common frameworks and databases, collaborations among different types of institutions, and guidelines for research on AI.     

Testing methods to estimate abundance of Magellanic Penguins Spheniscus magellanicus

Capsule Using simulations in a geographical information system our results showed that systematic sampling with quadrats was the most accurate, precise and cost-effective method to survey Magellanic Penguin colonies.

Aims To determine which sampling method gives better estimations of penguin abundance.

Methods A virtual colony was generated deriving spatial parameters from a real survey and applying Kriging interpolation. Three sampling methods were then applied on this virtual colony: random sampling with quadrats; systematic sampling with quadrats; systematic sampling with fixed-width transects. The estimated abundance for each trial was compared to the abundance of the virtual colony to have a measure of accuracy and precision.

Results Systematic sampling with quadrats estimated penguin abundance better than random or systematic sampling with transects since it achieved 100% accuracy and great precision after sampling only 2.1% of the virtual colony.

Conclusion The use of a simulated colony allowed the comparison of several sampling methods traditionally used in Magellanic Penguin surveys. The results of this study are important in order to standardize sampling protocols for Magellanic Penguins and to have more comparable estimations to detect trends over time. Also, the methodological approach used here could be used to assess sampling methods for other colonial bird species.     

Mapping Systematic Reviews on Atopic Eczema—An Essential Resource for Dermatology Professionals and Researchers

Background

Many research studies have been published on atopic eczema and these are often summarised in systematic reviews (SRs). Identifying SRs can be time-consuming for health professionals, and researchers. In order to facilitate the identification of important research, we have compiled an on-line resource that includes all relevant eczema reviews published since 2000.

Methods

SRs were searched for in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and NHS Evidence. Selected SRs were assessed against the pre-defined eligibility criteria and relevant articles were grouped by treatment category for the included interventions. All identified systematic reviews are included in the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) and key clinical messages are summarised here.

Results

A total of 128 SRs reviews were identified, including three clinical guidelines. Of these, 46 (36%) were found in the Cochrane Library. No single database contained all of the SRs found. The number of SRs published per year has increased substantially over the last thirteen years, and reviews were published in a variety of clinical journals. Of the 128 SRs, 1 (1%) was on mechanism, 37 (29%) were on epidemiology, 40 (31%) were on eczema prevention, 29 (23%) were on topical treatments, 31 (24%) were on systemic treatments, and 24 (19%) were on other treatments. All SRs included searches of MEDLINE in their search methods. One hundred six SRs (83%) searched more than one electronic database. There were no language restrictions reported in the search methods of 52 of the SRs (41%).

Conclusions

This mapping of atopic eczema reviews is a valuable resource. It will help healthcare practitioners, guideline writers, information specialists, and researchers to quickly identify relevant up-to-date evidence in the field for improving patient care.     

A framework for prospective,adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data from randomised trials

BackgroundThe vast majority of systematic reviews are planned retrospectively, once most eligible trials have completed and reported, and are based on aggregate data that can be extracted from publications. Prior knowledge of trial results can introduce bias into both review and meta-analysis methods, and the omission of unpublished data can lead to reporting biases. We present a collaborative framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data to provide results that are less prone to bias. Also, with FAME, we monitor how evidence from trials is accumulating, to anticipate the earliest opportunity for a potentially definitive meta-analysis.MethodologyWe developed and piloted FAME alongside 4 systematic reviews in prostate cancer, which allowed us to refine the key principles. These are to: (1) start the systematic review process early, while trials are ongoing or yet to report; (2) liaise with trial investigators to develop a detailed picture of all eligible trials; (3) prospectively assess the earliest possible timing for reliable meta-analysis based on the accumulating aggregate data; (4) develop and register (or publish) the systematic review protocol before trials produce results and seek appropriate aggregate data; (5) interpret meta-analysis results taking account of both available and unavailable data; and (6) assess the value of updating the systematic review and meta-analysis. These principles are illustrated via a hypothetical review and their application to 3 published systematic reviews.ConclusionsFAME can reduce the potential for bias, and produce more timely, thorough and reliable systematic reviews of aggregate data.

Jayne Tierney and coauthors discuss FAME, an approach for adaptive meta-analysis of data from randomised trials.     

Identification of additional trials in prospective trial registers for cochrane systematic reviews

Background

Publication and selective outcome reporting bias are a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Extensive searching for additional trials in prospective trial registers could reduce this problem. We have evaluated how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews currently make use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We included 210 systematic Cochrane reviews of interventions published between 2008 and 2010 of which the protocol was first published in 2008. When prospective trial registers were searched we recorded the names of the register(s), the authors'' motive(s) and if they yielded any extra trials.In 80 reviews (38.1%) the authors had searched in one or more prospective trial register(s) of which 55% had searched in overlapping search portals and individual registers. Most frequently assessed were the MetaRegister (66.3%) and Clinicaltrials.gov (60%) which is in sharp contrast of other registers or portals like the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (20%). Reported motives to use registers were to identify ongoing trials (83.3%), to identify unpublished outcomes or trials (23.5%), to identify recently published trials (11.8%), or to identify any relevant trial (3.9%).In 28 reviews (35%) the authors had selected (ongoing) trials identified in trial registers as potentially eligible.

Discussion

Trial registers as an additional source of information are gaining acknowledgement amongst Cochrane reviewers. Nevertheless, searches seem to be inefficient as overlapping databases are frequently consulted, while the WHO ICTRP Search Portal that includes the data from all approved registers worldwide is being underused. Moreover, the emphasis is now on the identification of ongoing trials, although the prospective registers offer a broader potential. Further familiarity of registers and guidance how to search and to report will help to implement this as a common method and utilize the full potential of prospective trial registers for systematic reviews.     

Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews

Background

The interest in prognostic reviews is increasing, but to properly review existing evidence an accurate search filer for finding prediction research is needed. The aim of this paper was to validate and update two previously introduced search filters for finding prediction research in Medline: the Ingui filter and the Haynes Broad filter.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Based on a hand search of 6 general journals in 2008 we constructed two sets of papers. Set 1 consisted of prediction research papers (n = 71), and set 2 consisted of the remaining papers (n = 1133). Both search filters were validated in two ways, using diagnostic accuracy measures as performance measures. First, we compared studies in set 1 (reference) with studies retrieved by the search strategies as applied in Medline. Second, we compared studies from 4 published systematic reviews (reference) with studies retrieved by the search filter as applied in Medline. Next – using word frequency methods – we constructed an additional search string for finding prediction research. Both search filters were good in identifying clinical prediction models: sensitivity ranged from 0.94 to 1.0 using our hand search as reference, and 0.78 to 0.89 using the systematic reviews as reference. This latter performance measure even increased to around 0.95 (range 0.90 to 0.97) when either search filter was combined with the additional string that we developed. Retrieval rate of explorative prediction research was poor, both using our hand search or our systematic review as reference, and even combined with our additional search string: sensitivity ranged from 0.44 to 0.85.

Conclusions/Significance

Explorative prediction research is difficult to find in Medline, using any of the currently available search filters. Yet, application of either the Ingui filter or the Haynes broad filter results in a very low number missed clinical prediction model studies.     

Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis

Background

In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, time-to-event outcomes are most appropriately analysed using hazard ratios (HRs). In the absence of individual patient data (IPD), methods are available to obtain HRs and/or associated statistics by carefully manipulating published or other summary data. Awareness and adoption of these methods is somewhat limited, perhaps because they are published in the statistical literature using statistical notation.

Methods

This paper aims to 'translate' the methods for estimating a HR and associated statistics from published time-to-event-analyses into less statistical and more practical guidance and provide a corresponding, easy-to-use calculations spreadsheet, to facilitate the computational aspects.

Results

A wider audience should be able to understand published time-to-event data in individual trial reports and use it more appropriately in meta-analysis. When faced with particular circumstances, readers can refer to the relevant sections of the paper. The spreadsheet can be used to assist them in carrying out the calculations.

Conclusion

The methods cannot circumvent the potential biases associated with relying on published data for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. However, this practical guide should improve the quality of the analysis and subsequent interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include time-to-event outcomes.     

Estimating the Effect of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Use of Contraception: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is an important global public health problem. While there is a growing literature on the association between IPV and women’s reproductive health (RH) outcomes, most studies are cross-sectional—which weakens inference about the causal effect of IPV on women’s RH. This systematic review synthesizes existing evidence from the strongest study designs to estimate the impact of IPV on women’s use of contraception.MethodsWe searched 11 electronic databases from January of 1980 to 3 December 2013 and reviewed reference lists from systematic reviews for studies examining IPV and contraceptive use. To be able to infer causality, we limited our review to studies that had longitudinal measures of either IPV or women’s use of contraception.ResultsOf the 1,574 articles identified by the search, we included 179 articles in the full text review and extracted data from 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We limited the meta-analysis to seven studies that could be classified as subject to low or moderate levels of bias. Women’s experience of IPV was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of using contraception (n = 14,866; OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.85; I² = 92%; 95% CI_I²: 87%, 96%). Restricting to studies that measured the effect of IPV on women’s use of partner dependent contraceptive methods was associated with a reduction in the heterogeneity of the overall estimate. In the three studies that examined women’s likelihood of using male condoms with their partners, experience of IPV was associated with a significant decrease in condom use (OR: 0.48; 95% CI_OR: 0.32, 0.72; I² = 51%; 95% CI_I²: 0%, 86%).ConclusionsIPV is associated with a reduction in women’s use of contraception; women who experience IPV are less likely to report using condoms with their male partners. Family planning and HIV prevention programs should consider women’s experiences of IPV.     

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia Including Dexamethasone-Associated Hyperglycemia in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveOptimal glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GCIH) management is unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this issue more prominent because dexamethasone became the standard of care in patients needing respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to describe the management of GCIH and summarize available management strategies for dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases with results from 2011 through January 2022. Keywords included synonyms for “steroid-induced diabetes” or “steroid-induced hyperglycemia.” Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for review of GCIH management. All studies focusing on dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 were included regardless of study quality.ResultsInitial search for non-COVID GCIH identified 1230 references. After screening and review, 33 articles were included in the non-COVID section of this systematic review. Initial search for COVID-19–related management of dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 identified 63 references, whereas 7 of these were included in the COVID-19 section. RCTs of management strategies were scarce, did not use standard definitions for hyperglycemia, evaluated a variety of treatment strategies with varying primary end points, and were generally not found to be effective except for Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin added to basal-bolus regimens.ConclusionFew RCTs are available evaluating GCIH management. Further studies are needed to support the formulation of clinical guidelines for GCIH especially given the widespread use of dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Measuring endemicity and burden of leprosy across countries and regions: A systematic review and Delphi survey

BackgroundLeprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae, the annual new case detection in 2019 was 202,189 globally. Measuring endemicity levels and burden in leprosy lacks a uniform approach. As a result, the assessment of leprosy endemicity or burden are not comparable over time and across countries and regions. This can make program planning and evaluation difficult. This study aims to identify relevant metrics and methods for measuring and classifying leprosy endemicity and burden at (sub)national level.MethodsWe used a mixed-method approach combining findings from a systematic literature review and a Delphi survey. The literature search was conducted in seven databases, searching for endemicity, burden and leprosy. We reviewed the available evidence on the usage of indicators, classification levels, and scoring methods to measure and classify endemicity and burden. A two round Delphi survey was conducted to ask experts to rank and weigh indicators, classification levels, and scoring methods.ResultsThe literature review showed variation of indicators, levels, and cut-off values to measure leprosy endemicity and/or burden. The most used indicators for endemicity include new case detection rate (NCDR), new cases among children and new cases with grade 2 disability. For burden these include NCDR, MB cases, and prevalence. The classification levels ‘high’ and ‘low’ were most important. It was considered most relevant to use separate scoring methods for endemicity and burden. The scores would be derived by use of multiple indicators.ConclusionThere is great variation in the existing method for measuring endemicity and burden across countries and regions. Our findings contribute to establishing a standardized uniform approach to measure and classify leprosy endemicity and burden at (sub)national level, which would allow effective communication and planning of intervention strategies.     

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common—along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE’s] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015–2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.

A cross sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews reveals deficiencies in reporting and provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of specific guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.