Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Sero-Epidemiological Association between Epstein Barr Virus and Multiple Sclerosis

Background

A role for Epstein Barr virus (EBV) in multiple sclerosis (MS) has been postulated. Previous systematic reviews found higher prevalences of anti-EBV antibodies in MS patients compared to controls, but many studies have since been published, and there is a need to apply more rigorous systematic review methods.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We examined the link between EBV and MS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies that examined the prevalence of anti-EBV antibodies in the serum of cases and controls. We searched Medline and Embase databases from 1960 to 2012, with no language restriction. The Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (OR) for anti-EBV antibodies sero-positivity were calculated, and meta-analysis conducted. Quality assessment was performed using a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Thirty-nine studies were included. Quality assessment found most studies reported acceptable selection and comparability of cases and controls. However the majority had poor reporting of ascertainment of exposure. Most studies found a higher sero-prevalence of anti-EBNA IgG and anti-VCA IgG in cases compared to controls. The results for anti-EA IgG were mixed with only half the studies finding a higher sero-prevalence in cases. The meta-analysis showed a significant OR for sero-positivity to anti-EBNA IgG and anti-VCA IgG in MS cases (4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 6.6, p<0.00001] and 4.5 [95% CI 2.8 to 7.2, p<0.00001] respectively). However, funnel plot examination suggested publication bias for the reporting of the anti-EBNA IgG. No significant difference in the OR for sero-positivity to anti-EA IgG was found (1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.09]).

Conclusion/Significance

These findings support previous systematic reviews, however publication bias cannot be excluded. The methodological conduct of studies could be improved, particularly with regard to reporting and conduct of laboratory analyses.     

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.     

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Objectives

To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

Study Design and Setting

All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently.

Results

One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance.

Conclusion

While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored.     

Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors

BackgroundPrevious research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles.ObjectivesTo more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods.MethodsA survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression.Results1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary.ConclusionsUse of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.     

External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR)

Background

Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews.

Methodology

AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently.

Conclusions

The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson''s R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson''s R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.     

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Background

Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.

Methods and Findings

A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people''s awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11–2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13–1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28–1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients'' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study''s main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.

Conclusion

Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants'' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?

Background

PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines.

Methods

Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated.

Results

Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35).

Conclusions

Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.     

Methodological Rigour and Transparency of Clinical Practice Guidelines Developed by Neurology Professional Societies in Croatia

Background

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically created documents that summarize knowledge and assist in delivering high-quality medicine by identifying evidence that supports best clinical care. They are produced not only by international professional groups but also by local professionals to address locally-relevant clinical practice. We evaluated the methodological rigour and transparency of guideline development in neurology formulated by professionals in a local medical community.

Methods

We analyzed clinical guidelines in neurology publicly available at the web-site of the Physicians’ Assembly in Croatia in 2012: 6 guidelines developed by Croatian authors and 1 adapted from the European Federation of Neurological Societies. The quality was assessed by 2 independent evaluators using the AGREE II instrument. We also conducted a search of the Cochrane Library to identify potential changes in recommendation from Cochrane systematic reviews included in guideline preparation.

Results

The methodological quality of the guidelines greatly varied across different domains. „Scope and Purpose” and „Clarity of Presentation“ domains received high scores (100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 98.5–100] and 97% [77.9–100], respectively), the lowest scores were in “Stakeholder Involvement“ (19% [15.5–34.6]) and “Editorial Independence” (0% [0–19.2]). Conclusions of 3 guidelines based on Cochrane systematic reviews were confirmed in updated versions and one update provided new information on the effectiveness of another antidepressant. Two Cochrane reviews used in guidelines were withdrawn and split into new reviews and their findings are now considered to be out of date.

Conclusion

Neurological guidelines used in Croatia differ in structure and their methodological quality. We recommend to national societies and professional groups to develop a more systematic and rigorous approach to the development of the guidelines, timely inclusion of best evidences and an effort to involve target users and patients in the guideline development procedures.     

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

Introduction

Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research.

Methods

We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion.

Results

Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity.

Conclusion

The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.     

Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices

Background

Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including “Instructions to Authors” from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).

Conclusions

There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers).[1,2]To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this.[3]The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009)[4–10] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews.[11] The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper[12–16] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60 000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews,[17–20] although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline.[21]Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence,[22–24] methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate,[25–27] and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies.[28,29] Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews.[30, 31] Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence.[32] In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols,[33, 34] disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.Summary points

• To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found
• The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies
• The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
• We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders

     

Meta-Regression Analyses to Explain Statistical Heterogeneity in a Systematic Review of Strategies for Guideline Implementation in Primary Health Care

This study is an in-depth-analysis to explain statistical heterogeneity in a systematic review of implementation strategies to improve guideline adherence of primary care physicians in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases. The systematic review included randomized controlled trials from a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings and registers of ongoing studies. Implementation strategies were shown to be effective with substantial heterogeneity of treatment effects across all investigated strategies. Primary aim of this study was to explain different effects of eligible trials and to identify methodological and clinical effect modifiers. Random effects meta-regression models were used to simultaneously assess the influence of multimodal implementation strategies and effect modifiers on physician adherence. Effect modifiers included the staff responsible for implementation, level of prevention and definition pf the primary outcome, unit of randomization, duration of follow-up and risk of bias. Six clinical and methodological factors were investigated as potential effect modifiers of the efficacy of different implementation strategies on guideline adherence in primary care practices on the basis of information from 75 eligible trials. Five effect modifiers were able to explain a substantial amount of statistical heterogeneity. Physician adherence was improved by 62% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 29 to 104%) or 29% (95% CI 5 to 60%) in trials where other non-medical professionals or nurses were included in the implementation process. Improvement of physician adherence was more successful in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by around 30% (30%; 95% CI -2 to 71% and 31%; 95% CI 9 to 57%, respectively) compared to tertiary prevention. This study aimed to identify effect modifiers of implementation strategies on physician adherence. Especially the cooperation of different health professionals in primary care practices might increase efficacy and guideline implementation seems to be more difficult in tertiary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.     

Recommended reporting items for epidemic forecasting and prediction research: The EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines

BackgroundThe importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research.Methods and findingsWe developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies.ConclusionsThese guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement.

Simon Pollett and co-workers describe EPIFORGE, a guideline for reporting research on epidemic forecasting.     

Total Hip Replacement for the Treatment of End Stage Arthritis of the Hip: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Evolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included.

Results

Fourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive.

Conclusions

The majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence.     

Prelacteal feeding and associated factors in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Prelacteal feeding can be defined as giving any solid or liquid foods other than breast milk during the first three days after birth. It affects timely initiation of breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding practices. Even though the issue was investigated in Ethiopia, fragmented and inconsistent findings were reported. Therefore, the main objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled prevalence of prelacteal feeding and associated factors in Ethiopia.

Methods

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guideline was followed. Articles were systematically searched through different searching mechanisms. Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument adapted for cross-sectional study design was used for quality assessment of each individual study. The total of 28 studies were included and analyzed. The random effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence; subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to identify the probable source of heterogeneity. Both Egger’s, and Begg’s test were used to check publication bias. The effects between associated factor variables, and prelacteal feeding practices were tested.

Results

A total of 492 studies were retrieved and 28 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of prelacteal feeding practice in Ethiopia was 25.29% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 17.43, 33.15) with severe heterogeneity (I² =?99.7, p <?0.001) and no publication bias. Antenatal care (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% CI 0.09, 0.69), counselling on infant feeding (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22, 0.63), timely initiation of breastfeeding (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.21, 0.38) and an urban residence (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26, 0.86) had lower odds, while home birth had higher odds (OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.17, 7.10) of prelacteal feeding in Ethiopia.

Conclusions

In Ethiopia, one in four children were given prelacteal foods. Mothers who gave birth at home are more prone to give prelacteal foods. Whereas, antenatal care, timely initiation of breastfeeding, counseling on infant feeding and an urban residence decreases prelacteal feeding practices in Ethiopia. Therefore, the government and health institutions should focus to increase maternal health service utilization and promote infant and young child feeding practices according to the guideline.

     

Relationship between physical activity and stiff or painful joints in mid-aged women and older women: a 3-year prospective study

This prospective study examined the association between physical activity and the incidence of self-reported stiff or painful joints (SPJ) among mid-age women and older women over a 3-year period. Data were collected from cohorts of mid-age (48–55 years at Time 1; n = 4,780) and older women (72–79 years at Time 1; n = 3,970) who completed mailed surveys 3 years apart for the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Physical activity was measured with the Active Australia questions and categorized based on metabolic equivalent value minutes per week: none (<40 MET.min/week); very low (40 to <300 MET.min/week); low (300 to <600 MET.min/week); moderate (600 to <1,200 MET.min/week); and high (1,200+ MET.min/week). Cohort-specific logistic regression models were used to examine the association between physical activity at Time 1 and SPJ 'sometimes or often' and separately 'often' at Time 2. Respondents reporting SPJ 'sometimes or often' at Time 1 were excluded from analysis. In univariate models, the odds of reporting SPJ 'sometimes or often' were lower for mid-age respondents reporting low (odds ratio (OR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63–0.94), moderate (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68–0.99), and high (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62–0.90) physical activity levels and for older respondents who were moderately (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65–0.98) or highly active (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.69–0.99) than for those who were sedentary. After adjustment for confounders, these associations were no longer statistically significant. The odds of reporting SPJ 'often' were lower for mid-age respondents who were moderately active (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52–0.97) than for sedentary respondents in univariate but not adjusted models. Older women in the low (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55–0.96), moderate (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.39–0.76), and high (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46–0.82) physical activity categories had lower odds of reporting SPJ 'often' at Time 2 than their sedentary counterparts, even after adjustment for confounders. These results are the first to show a dose–response relationship between physical activity and arthritis symptoms in older women. They suggest that advice for older women not currently experiencing SPJ should routinely include counseling on the importance of physical activity for preventing the onset of these symptoms.