世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)最新文献

{"title":"Real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the Delta and Omicron variants: Systematic review.","authors":"Harvey Palalay,&nbsp;Riddhi Vyas,&nbsp;Barbara Tafuto","doi":"10.13105/wjma.v11.i5.167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v11.i5.167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As of 31 December 2022, there were over 6.6 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths and over 651 million cases across 200 countries worldwide. Despite the increase in vaccinations and booster shots, COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to remain high. While the effectiveness of these vaccines has already been established by different manufacturers, the fact remains that these vaccines were created quickly for global emergency use, tested under controlled clinical conditions from voluntary subjects and age groups whose general characteristics may differ from the actual general population.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct a systematic review to determine the real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the predominance of Delta and Omicron variants in preventing COVID-19 related infection, hospital, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, and death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A combination of Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings was carried out to identify all relevant research articles that meets the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, as well as qualified research studies from pre-print servers using medRxiv and Research Square, published from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As per the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were evaluated from an estimated total study population of 26,535,692 using infection, hospital, ICU admission and intubation, and death as outcome measures from studies published between 2021 and 2022, conducted in New York, Finland, Canada, Costa Rica, Qatar, Greece, and Brazil. The risk of bias was evaluated using risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. While clinical trial data on Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated 94% vaccine effectiveness in the elderly, the results in this study showed that vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings is marginally lower against infection (40%-89%), hospitalization (92%), ICU admission and intubation (98%-85%), and death (77%-87%) with an indication of diminished effectiveness of vaccine over time. Furthermore, 2 doses of mRNA vaccines are inadequate and only provides interim protection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because of the natural diminishing effectiveness of the vaccine, the need for booster dose to restore its efficacy is vital. From a research perspective, the use of highly heterogeneous outcome measures inhibits the comparison, contrast, and integration of the results which makes data pooling across different studies problematic. While pharmaceutical intervention like vaccination is important to fight an epidemic, utilizing common outcome measurements or carrying out studi","PeriodicalId":65781,"journal":{"name":"世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)","volume":"11 5","pages":"167-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/19/nihms-1915737.PMC10421623.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10008222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prophylactic tracheal intubation for upper GI bleeding: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Ashraf A Almashhrawi,&nbsp;Rubayat Rahman,&nbsp;Samuel T Jersak,&nbsp;Akwi W Asombang,&nbsp;Alisha M Hinds,&nbsp;Hazem T Hammad,&nbsp;Douglas L Nguyen,&nbsp;Matthew L Bechtold","doi":"10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate usefulness of prophylactically intubating upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UGIB results in a significant number of hospital admissions annually with endoscopy being the key intervention. In these patients, risks are associated with the bleeding and the procedure, including pulmonary aspiration. However, very little literature is available assessing the use of prophylactic endotracheal intubation on aspiration in these patients. A comprehensive search was performed in May 2014 in Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, PubMed/Medline, Embase, and published abstracts from national gastroenterology meetings in the United States (2004-2014). Included studies examined UGIB patients and compared prophylactic intubation to no intubation before endoscopy. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 by Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird models with results presented as odds ratio for aspiration, pneumonia (within 48 h), and mortality. Funnel plots were utilized for publication bias and <i>I</i>² measure of inconsistency for heterogeneity assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial search identified 571 articles. Of these articles, 10 relevant peer-reviewed articles in English and two relevant abstracts were selected to review by two independent authors (Almashhrawi AA and Bechtold ML). Of these studies, eight were excluded: Five did not have a control arm, one was a letter the editor, one was a survey study, and one was focused on prevention of UGIB. Therefore, four studies (<i>N</i> = 367) were included. Of the UGIB patients prophylactically intubated before endoscopy, pneumonia (within 48 h) was identified in 20 of 134 (14.9%) patients as compared to 5 of 95 (5.3%) patients that were not intubated prophylactically (<i>P</i> = 0.02). Despite observed trends, no significant differences were found for mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.18) or aspiration (<i>P</i> = 0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pneumonia within 48 h is more likely in UGIB patients who received prophylactic endotracheal intubation prior to endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":65781,"journal":{"name":"世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)","volume":"3 1","pages":"4-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33103850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}