Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Xin Wang,&nbsp;Mengcong Deng,&nbsp;Shangchun Wu,&nbsp;Qunxia Mao","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12619","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12619","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Existing evidence of the relationship between induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy has not been assessed rigorously. This systematic review provides a comprehensive evaluation to examine whether induced abortion (IA) can increase the rate of ectopic pregnancy (EP).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, WanFang, and Sinomed databases since their inception until February 2023. Eligibility criteria included case-control studies and cohort studies that analyzed induced abortion associated with ectopic pregnancy. Data analyses were conducted by using R-studio Version 1.1.383 software.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 33 case-control studies and 7 cohort studies involving 132,926 participants were included. In case-control studies, there was a significant association between induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy by using single-factor analysis data (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.81–2.98). Subgroup analysis by region suggested no statistical significance in the Americas (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92–1.43) and Eastern Mediterranean (OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 0.88–15.18). The relationship was significant by using multiple regression analysis data (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.38–2.80). In cohort studies, statistical significance was found (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.001–2.018) after omitting one study in sensitivity analysis. The combined results of the two types of studies suggested that induced abortion would increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy to some degree, but the conclusion needs to be considered with caution.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study indicated that IA could increase the risk of EP to some degree and the times of IA had a negative impact on the risk. Safe abortion and avoiding repeat abortion due to unintended pregnancy could protect women's fertility.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141300828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The fate of rejected manuscripts in different biomedical disciplines","authors":"Clovis M. Faggion Jr,&nbsp;Max C. Menne","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12617","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12617","url":null,"abstract":"<p>A scientific journal may reject a submitted manuscript for several reasons. For example, desk rejection occurs when a topic is addressed that does not fit a journal's aims. Or the submitted manuscript has insufficient methodological quality. Therefore, authors need to manage manuscript rejection as a normal part of the publication process. Because methodological quality is not the only reason for rejection, authors will typically submit a rejected manuscript to another journal. This allows research authors to maintain efficiency and avoid wasted effort.<span>¹</span> Actually, not attempting to publish research material due to one journal's rejection can be considered a form of publication bias.<span>²</span></p><p>The fate of rejected manuscripts has already been researched in different biomedical disciplines. However, the quality and characteristics of the studies assessing rejected manuscripts have not been performed. The aim of the present survey was to examine the characteristics of studies assessing the fate of rejected manuscript submissions in various biomedical disciplines and to provide manuscript rejection rates.</p><p>Studies assessing the fate of rejected manuscripts in different biomedical disciplines were included. Similar studies focused on other scientific disciplines were excluded. Only articles written in English were included. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched on 12 May 2024, and articles published from the database's inception to the date of search were considered for inclusion. The following keywords and Boolean operators were applied in a search of the database: “rejected manuscript” OR “rejected manuscripts” OR “rejected articles” OR “rejected papers.” Additionally, the reference lists of the articles included were scrutinized for further potential studies to include (Section S1). We selected articles based on the eligibility criteria. Those not meeting these criteria were excluded, first in a title/abstract assessment and then in a full-text assessment (Sections S2–S4, Figure S1).</p><p>The reasons for exclusion were individually determined. When data on rejection rates were not reported, we calculated them by dividing the number of manuscripts submitted by the number of manuscripts rejected. The data were extracted into an Excel datasheet, and the included information is reported in Table 1. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate for 10 studies. After good agreement (more than 80%), the remaining process was performed by one author (M.C.M.).<span>³</span> Data were presented as frequencies and percentages and, when applicable, as means and medians.</p><p>A total of 36 studies meeting the eligibility criteria were found (Section S5). The most prevalent affiliation of the first author of the studies was the USA (<i>n</i> = 17, 47%), followed by Italy and Switzerland (each <i>n</i> = 3, 9%). The discipline of radiology ","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12617","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review","authors":"Louise Olsbro Rosengaard,&nbsp;Mikkel Zola Andersen,&nbsp;Jacob Rosenberg,&nbsp;Siv Fonnes","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12616","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12616","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12616","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141155046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reconciling conflicting evidence in the evaluation of the MitraClip system: Assessment of and response to the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials by key stakeholders","authors":"Manuela Montagnon,&nbsp;Yenfu Chen,&nbsp;Amy Grove,&nbsp;Jieun Park,&nbsp;Jean-François Obadia,&nbsp;Xavier Armoiry","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12614","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12614","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Two clinical trials (MITRA-FR and COAPT), which were set out to evaluate the effectiveness of adding percutaneous repair (PR) for patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR), came to very different conclusions. The MITRA-FR showed no benefit of PR,<span>¹</span> while the COAPT trial reported a dramatic improvement of clinical outcomes.<span>²</span> We reviewed the assessment of and response to the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials by key stakeholders, whether regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, or authors of publications in medical journals.</p><p>Briefly, a systematic literature search was conducted to identify documents that met the following criteria: (1) licensing/reimbursement decisions, clinical guidelines, and academic papers from top medical journals; (2) published between September 2018 and December 2023; (3) dealing with the conflicting evidence from the two trials. A total of 53 studies meeting our inclusion criteria over the period among our selected sources (details methods and details could be accessed by contacting the authors), reflecting the major controversy resulting from the publication of the two trials. The majority were authored by clinicians (46 out of 53) while five (9%) were elaborated by health services managers/HTA bodies, and two (4%) by regulatory agencies.</p><p>The main factors highlighted as potential reasons for the conflicting results were differences in terms of patients’ echocardiographic characteristics (<i>n</i> = 52), the concurrent control therapy (64%), and the rate of interventional procedure success (43%). Less frequently, document authors explained the divergence in findings by focusing on the definition and measurement of outcomes (<i>n</i> = 9), or considering differences in the learning curve and/or the experience of operators (<i>n</i> = 8). Only one document (2%) mentioned the difference between industrial and academic support as a potential explanation for the discrepancy.</p><p>In 51% of cases (<i>n</i> = 27) (Table 1), authors were deemed to be in favor of the findings of COAPT when drawing conclusions while in 34% (<i>n</i> = 18) of the documents, conclusions were equivocal with authors accepting the unexplained heterogeneity in the findings. Less frequently, the conclusions were that effectiveness depended on contextual factors (<i>n</i> = 5), or were not clearly drawn (<i>n</i> = 3). None of the selected documents seemed to favor the findings of the MITRA-FR trial. All six official documents, either originating from policymakers, managers of health services, or regulators, supported the findings of COAPT.</p><p>Irrespective of their main conclusions, 26% (<i>n</i> = 14) of authors suggested further research to be conducted, either mentioning the ongoing RESHAPE-2 RCT as an additional source of evidence or advocating for an individual-patient data meta-analysis based on the two trials (<i>n</i> = 4). In 34 cases (64%), analyses were carri","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12614","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141088118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among adults living with HIV in the eastern coast of Tanzania: A nested cross-sectional study","authors":"Goodluck G. Nyondo,&nbsp;Fredrick K. Msalenge,&nbsp;Frank A. Majaliwa,&nbsp;Erca Deograthias,&nbsp;Erick Philipo,&nbsp;Belinda J. Njiro,&nbsp;Emmanuel Mang'ombe,&nbsp;David T. Myemba,&nbsp;George M. Bwire","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12609","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12609","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140860301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis","authors":"Lina Feng,&nbsp;Jialun Guan,&nbsp;Ruonan Dong,&nbsp;Kai Zhao,&nbsp;Mingyu Zhang,&nbsp;Suhong Xia,&nbsp;Yu Zhang,&nbsp;Liping Chen,&nbsp;Fang Xiao,&nbsp;Jiazhi Liao","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12607","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12607","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12607","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140802328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The application of acupuncture-moxibustion therapy in perioperative period pain control","authors":"Jun Xiong,&nbsp;Yuxin Li,&nbsp;Yingping Kuang,&nbsp;Han Hu,&nbsp;Lijun Yao,&nbsp;Meng Lin","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12608","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12608","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140611832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of initiation time of levothyroxine therapy in women with gestational subclinical hypothyroidism and negative thyroid peroxidase antibodies on the neurological development of offspring","authors":"Jiajia Chen,&nbsp;Zhenyao Li,&nbsp;Fengli Yin,&nbsp;Jiale Bao,&nbsp;Yuanfan Lu,&nbsp;Xiaoting Yu,&nbsp;Xianping Huang,&nbsp;Huiqiu Xiang,&nbsp;Tong Zhou,&nbsp;Jing Zhu,&nbsp;Zhangye Xu","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12592","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12592","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is characterized by an elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) with normal thyroxine (T4) levels. The 2017 American Thyroid Association (ATA) recommends that an upper reference limit of 4.0 mIU/L should be used in the absence of pregnancy-specific TSH ranges.<span>¹</span> It is well known that overt hypothyroidism exerts a profound effect on pregnancy outcomes; conflicting data have been reported regarding the association between SCH and the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. To date, various observational studies have shown that SCH is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery,<span>²</span> gestational diabetes,<span>³</span> gestational hypertension, eclampsia,<span>⁴</span> low birth weight, low Apgar score, and lower childhood IQ.<span>^{5, 6}</span> Additional studies have not demonstrated the association of adverse outcomes with SCH,<span>^{7, 8}</span> although the status of antithyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAbs) was not differentiated in these studies. Previous studies have shown higher impairment of positive TPOAbs (TPOAb⁺) on neurocognitive outcomes in offspring.<span>⁹</span> The adverse impact of negative TPOAbs in gestational SCH (SCH-TPOAb⁻) on offspring development has not yet been identified.</p><p>No consensus has been demonstrated on the treatment of pregnant women with SCH-TPOAb⁻. The Endocrine Society recommends therapy in all pregnant women with SCH, irrespective of their TPOAb status.<span>¹⁰</span> The 2017 ATA supports treatment for a specific subgroup of women with SCH who are TPOAb⁺ (SCH-TPOAb⁺) or TPOAb⁻ and possess TSH levels greater than 10 mU/L.<span>¹</span> The application of levothyroxine (L-T4) treatment for SCH-TPOAb⁻ is somewhat ambiguous (TSH cutoff 4.0–10.0 mIU/L). Moreover, a limited number of studies have investigated the influence of the time frame on the treatment effect in SCH during pregnancy. Previously, it was reported from our group that standardized treatment should be used for SCH-TPOAb⁻ pregnant women prior to 8 gestational weeks; their TSH levels ranged from 4.0 to 10.0 mIU/L, which might significantly improve the intellectual development of the 2-year-old offspring.<span>¹¹</span> It was hypothesized that the later treatment of patients with negative TPOAb and TSH levels between 4.0 and 10.0 mlU/L (4.0 mIU/L &lt; TSH ≤ 10.0) would have greater adverse effects on the neurobehavioral development of their offspring.</p><p>To assess this hypothesis, electronic health records and abstracted clinical data from patients who were reviewed at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were retrieved from June 2016 to June 2019. Pregnant women were routinely screened at their first antenatal visit for thyroid function, s","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12592","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140586953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The detection of circulating tumor cells indicates poor therapeutic efficacy and prognosis in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Shan Wang,&nbsp;Xiaolin Liu,&nbsp;Hongwei Lv,&nbsp;Jing Yu,&nbsp;Huihui Li","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12606","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12606","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The efficacy and prognostic value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are controversial based on the existing research. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the significance of CTCs in NSCLC therapy monitoring and prognosis prediction, supporting their potential as clinical biomarkers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, CNKI, and VIP through September 20, 2023. Inclusion criteria were cohort studies involving NSCLC patients, focusing on peripheral blood CTCs, and assessing outcomes such as pre- and posttreatment CTC rates or levels, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We utilized Review Manager 5.4.1 for meta-analysis, calculating pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences for continuous variables and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival data, applying fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity assessed by the <i>I</i>² statistic. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42023450035).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twenty-two eligible studies with a total of 1674 NSCLC patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that the CTCs-positive rate (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77, <i>p = </i>0.0001) and CTCs count (mean difference = –3.10, 95% CI –5.52 to –0.69, <i>p = </i>0.01) were significantly decreased after antitumor treatment. Compared with the CTCs nonreduced group, the CTC-reduced group showed better PFS (HR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.17, <i>p </i>&lt; 0.00001) and OS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.86, <i>p = </i>0.0003) after treatment. PFS and OS in CTC-positive groups were lower than those in the CTCs-negative group pretreatment (HR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.47, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001; HR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.52, <i>p</i> = 0.0006) and posttreatment (HR = 3.36, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.33, <i>p </i>&lt; 0.00001; HR = 3.31, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.27, <i>p = </i>0.0002).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CTCs can be used as a biomarker to monitor NSCLC efficacy, predict prognosis and guide follow-up treatment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140586952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Real-world experience of Fuzheng Yiqing granule as chemoprophylaxis against COVID-19 infection among close contacts: A prospective cohort study","authors":"Qianzi Che,&nbsp;Ruili Huo,&nbsp;Chen Zhao,&nbsp;Wei Yang,&nbsp;Xinghua Xiang,&nbsp;Shihuan Tang,&nbsp;Jiaheng Shi,&nbsp;Cheng Lu,&nbsp;Hongmei Li,&nbsp;Luqi Huang","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12591","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12591","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of the current study was to evaluate whether the use of traditional Chinese medicine, Fuzheng Yiqing granule (FZYQG), was associated with a reduced infection risk of COVID-19 in close contacts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research design and methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This was a prospective cohort study across 203 quarantine centres for close contacts and secondary contacts of COVID-19 patients in Yangzhou city. FZYQG group was defined as quarantined individuals who voluntarily took FZYQG; control group did not take FZYQG. The primary outcome was the coronavirus test positive rate during quarantine period. Logistic regression with propensity score inverse probability weighting was used for adjusted analysis to evaluate independent association between FZYQG and test positive rate.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From July 13, 2021 to September 30, 2021, 3438 quarantined individuals took FZYQG and 2248 refused to take the granule. Test positive rate was significantly lower among quarantined individuals who took FZYQG (0.29% vs. 1.73%, risk ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08–0.34, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). On logistic regression, odds for test positive were decreased in FZYQG group (odds ratio: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.08–0.32, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Close and secondary contacts of COVID-19 patients who received FZYQG had a lower test positive rate than control individuals in real-world experience.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Trial registration</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study has been registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100049590) on August 5, 2021.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140870419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}