scholarly journals Sex Differences in Presentation of Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Ali ◽  
Hendrikus J.A. van Os ◽  
Nelleke van der Weerd ◽  
Jan W. Schoones ◽  
Martijn W. Heymans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Transient Ischemic Attack ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurological Symptoms ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ischemic Attack ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background and Purpose: Women have worse outcomes than men after stroke. Differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and, in part, explain these disparities. We investigated whether there are sex differences in clinical presentation of acute stroke or transient ischemic attack. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Inclusion criteria were (1) cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, or randomized controlled trial design; (2) admission for (suspicion of) ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack; and (3) comparisons possible between sexes in ≥1 nonfocal or focal acute stroke symptom(s). A random-effects model was used for our analyses. We performed sensitivity and subanalyses to help explain heterogeneity and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias. Results: We included 60 studies (n=582 844; 50% women). In women, headache (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11–1.39]; I 2 =75.2%; 30 studies) occurred more frequently than in men with any type of stroke, as well as changes in consciousness/mental status (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.19–1.61]; I 2 =95.0%; 17 studies) and coma/stupor (OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.25–1.55]; I 2 =27.0%; 13 studies). Aspecific or other neurological symptoms (nonrotatory dizziness and non-neurological symptoms) occurred less frequently in women (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94–0.97]; I 2 =0.1%; 5 studies). Overall, the presence of focal symptoms was not associated with sex (pooled OR, 1.03) although dysarthria (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04–1.24]; I 2 =48.6%; 11 studies) and vertigo (OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13–1.34]; I 2 =44.0%; 8 studies) occurred more frequently, whereas symptoms of paresis/hemiparesis (OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54–0.97]; I 2 =72.6%; 7 studies) and focal visual disturbances (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70–0.99]; I 2 =62.8%; 16 studies) occurred less frequently in women compared with men with any type of stroke. Most studies contained possible sources of bias. Conclusions: There may be substantive differences in nonfocal and focal stroke symptoms between men and women presenting with acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, but sufficiently high-quality studies are lacking. More studies are needed to address this because sex differences in presentation may lead to misdiagnosis and undertreatment.

A Current Estimation of the Early Risk of Stroke after Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Intervention Studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Valls ◽  
Maranta Peiro-Chamarro ◽  
Serafí Cambray ◽  
Jessica Molina-Seguin ◽  
Ikram Benabdelhak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transient Ischemic Attack ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Clinic Management ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Ischemic Attack ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: Recent studies have demonstrated that there is a decrease in the risk of subsequent stroke after transient ischemic attack (TIA) when urgent care (UC) is administered. However, no meta-analysis has been developed with contemporaneous TIA studies. We perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis to establish the risk of early stroke recurrence (SR) considering data from studies that offered UC to TIA patients. Methods: We searched for studies, without language restriction, from January 2007 to January 2015 according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies with TIA patients who underwent UC and reported the proportion of SR at 90 days. We excluded studies that were centered on less than 100 patients and cohorts including both stroke and TIA, if stroke risk after TIA was not described. For its relevance, we included the TIAregistry.org study published in 2016. We performed both fixed and random effects meta-analyses to determine SR and assess sources of heterogeneity. Results: From 4,103 identified citations, we selected 15 papers that included 14,889 patients. There was great variation in terms of the number of patients included in each study, ranging from 115 to 4,160. Seven studies were TIA clinic based. The mean age and the percentage of men were similar among studies, ranging from 62.4 to 73.1 years and 45.1-62%, respectively. The reported risk of stroke ranged from 0 to 1.46% 2 days after TIA (9 studies included), 0-2.55% 7 days after TIA (11 studies included), 1.91-2.85% 30 days after TIA (4 studies included), and 0.62-4.76% 90 days after TIA (all studies included). The pooled stroke risk was 3.42% (95% CI 3.14-3.74) at 90 days, 2.78% (95% CI 2.47-3.12) at 30 days, 2.06% (95% CI 1.83-2.33) at 7 days and 1.36% (95% CI 1.15-1.59) at 2 days. Although we did not find statistically significant heterogeneity in SR among studies, those with a higher proportion of patients with motor weakness had a significantly higher risk of SR. No statistically significant association was observed between TIA clinic management and SR. Conclusion: The pooled early SR is lower than in previous meta-analyses and homogeneous for all studies with an urgent assessment and management strategy regardless of vascular risk factors and clinical characteristics. Therefore, the best setting for TIA management can be individualized for each center.

scholarly journals Magnesium and mood disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis

BJPsych Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Phelan ◽  
Patricio Molero ◽  
Miguel A. Martínez-González ◽  
Marc Molendijk
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mood Disorders ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Levels ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Bodily Fluids ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundMagnesium (Mg2+) has received considerable attention with regards to its potential role in the pathophysiology of the mood disorders, but the available evidence seems inconclusive.AimsTo review and quantitatively summarise the human literature on Mg2+intake and Mg2+blood levels in the mood disorders and the effects of Mg2+supplements on mood.MethodSystematic review and meta-analyses.ResultsAdherence to a Mg2+-rich diet was negatively associated with depression in cross-sectional (odds ratio = 0.66) but not in prospective studies. Mg2+levels in bodily fluids were on average higher in patients with a mood disorder (Hedge'sg = 0.19), but only in patients treated with antidepressants and/or mood stabilisers. There was no evident association between Mg2+levels and symptom severity. Mg2+supplementation was associated with a decline in depressive symptoms in uncontrolled (g = −1.60) but not in placebo-controlled trials (g = −0.21).ConclusionOur results provide little evidence for the involvement of Mg2+in the mood disorders.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals Is Sensory Loss an Understudied Risk Factor for Frailty? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (12) ◽  
pp. 2461-2470
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kye Jyn Tan ◽  
Ryan Eyn Kidd Man ◽  
Alfred Tau Liang Gan ◽  
Eva K Fenwick ◽  
Varshini Varadaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Longitudinal Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sensory Impairments ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Age-related sensory loss and frailty are common conditions among older adults, but epidemiologic research on their possible links has been inconclusive. Clarifying this relationship is important because sensory loss may be a clinically relevant risk factor for frailty. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 3 databases for observational studies investigating 4 sensory impairments—vision (VI), hearing (HI), smell (SI), and taste (TI)—and their relationships with frailty. We meta-analyzed the cross-sectional associations of VI/HI each with pre-frailty and frailty, investigated sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression and subgroup analyses, and assessed publication bias using Egger’s test. Results We included 17 cross-sectional and 7 longitudinal studies in our review (N = 34,085) from 766 records. Our cross-sectional meta-analyses found that HI and VI were, respectively, associated with 1.5- to 2-fold greater odds of pre-frailty and 2.5- to 3-fold greater odds of frailty. Our results remained largely unchanged after subgroup analyses and meta-regression, though the association between HI and pre-frailty was no longer significant in 2 subgroups which lacked sufficient studies. We did not detect publication bias. Longitudinal studies largely found positive associations between VI/HI and frailty progression from baseline robustness, though they were inconclusive about frailty progression from baseline pre-frailty. Sparse literature and heterogenous methods precluded meta-analyses and conclusions on the SI/TI–frailty relationships. Conclusions Our meta-analyses demonstrate significant cross-sectional associations between VI/HI with pre-frailty and frailty. Our review also highlights knowledge gaps on the directionality and modifiability of these relationships and the impact of SI/TI and multiple sensory impairments on frailty.

Is sexual content in new media linked to sexual risk behaviour in young people? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sexual Health ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Watchirs Smith ◽  
Bette Liu ◽  
Louisa Degenhardt ◽  
Juliet Richters ◽  
George Patton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Young People ◽  
New Media ◽  
Sexual Intercourse ◽  
Sexual Attitudes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sexual Content ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Causal Pathways ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Social networking and digital media increasingly have an impact on the lives of young people. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the relationship between exposure to sexually explicit websites (SEWs) and ‘sexting’ (i.e. sending semi-nude or nude photos from a mobile phone) and the sexual attitudes and practices of young people. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement, Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for papers that described the statistical association between viewing SEWs or sexting by young people (defined as 10–24 years) and their sexual attitudes and behaviours. Results: Fourteen studies, all cross-sectional in design, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies (10 352 participants) examined young people’s exposure to SEWs and eight (10 429 participants) examined sexting. There was substantial variation across studies in exposure and outcome definitions. Meta-analyses found that SEW exposure was correlated with condomless sexual intercourse (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–1.38, two studies); sexting was correlated with ever having had sexual intercourse (OR 5.58, 95% CI: 4.46–6.71, five studies), recent sexual activity (OR 4.79, 95% CI: 3.55–6.04, two studies), alcohol and other drug use before sexual intercourse (OR 2.65, 95% CI: 1.99–3.32, two studies) and multiple recent sexual partners (OR 2.79, 95% CI: 1.95–3.63, two studies). Most studies had limited adjustment for important potential confounders. Conclusions: Cross-sectional studies show a strong association between self-reported exposure to sexual content in new media and sexual behaviours in young people. Longitudinal studies would provide a greater opportunity to adjust for confounding, and better insight into the causal pathways underlying the observed associations.

scholarly journals Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Alhumaid ◽  
Abbas Al Mutair ◽  
Zainab Al Alawi ◽  
Ali A. Rabaan ◽  
Raghavendra Tirupathi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Objectives To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. Methods Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document