An Evaluation on the Frequencies of Underlying Diseases and Symptoms Along with the Mortality Rate of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Tavan ◽  
Morteza Shams ◽  
Mohamad Karimian ◽  
Gholamreza Kalvandi ◽  
Milad Borji
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Underlying Diseases

Intracranial Hypertension After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence and Mortality Rate

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Agustín Godoy ◽  
Rafael A. Núñez-Patiño ◽  
Andres Zorrilla-Vaca ◽  
Wendy C. Ziai ◽  
J. Claude Hemphill
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Intracerebral Hemorrhage ◽  
Intracranial Hypertension ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage

762. The Mortality Rate of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. S309-S310
Author(s):  
Nina Torring ◽  
Sohag N Sanghani ◽  
Georgios Petrides ◽  
Charles H Kellner ◽  
Soren Dinesen Ostergaard
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Length of stay, cost, and mortality of healthcare-acquired bloodstream infections in children and neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Karagiannidou ◽  
Christos Triantafyllou ◽  
Theoklis E. Zaoutis ◽  
Vassiliki Papaevangelou ◽  
Nikolaos Maniadakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Healthcare Cost ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Attributable Mortality ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

AbstractObjective:To estimate the attributable mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare cost of pediatric and neonatal healthcare-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSIs).Design:A systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods:A systematic search (January 2000–September 2018) was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases. Reference lists of selected articles were screened to identify additional studies. Case–control or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion when full text was available in English and data for at least 1 of the following criteria were provided: attributable or excess LOS, healthcare cost, or mortality rate due to HA-BSI. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tool (CASP). Study selection and quality assessment were conducted by 2 independent researchers, and a third researcher was consulted to resolve any disagreements. Fixed- or random-effect models, as appropriate, were used to synthesize data. Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated.Results:In total, 21 studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Attributable mean LOS ranged between 4 and 27.8 days; healthcare cost ranged between $1,642.16 and $160,804 (2019 USD) per patient with HA-BSI; and mortality rate ranged between 1.43% and 24%. The pooled mean attributable hospital LOS was 16.91 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.70–20.11) and the pooled attributable mortality rate was 8% (95% CI, 6–9). A meta-analysis was not conducted for cost due to lack of eligible studies.Conclusions:Pediatric HA-BSIs have a significant impact on mortality, LOS, and healthcare cost, further highlighting the need for implementation of HA-BSI prevention strategies.

scholarly journals Chlorhexidine-Related Mortality Rate in Critically Ill Subjects in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-349
Author(s):  
Sojung Lee ◽  
Nima Laghapour Lighvan ◽  
Victoria McCredie ◽  
Petros Pechlivanoglou ◽  
Murray Krahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Related Mortality

scholarly journals Acute Cardiac Injury and COVID-19 – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Husam M Salah ◽  
Angel Lopez Candales
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiac Injury ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Common Finding ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Current Prevalence ◽  
Case Series Study

Abstract Introduction:The ongoing global pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ranged from an asymptomatic state to unprecedented number of deaths worldwide. In symptomatic patients, a viral pneumonia can unrelentingly progress to multi-system failure with preferential cardiac tropism. Although the full spectrum of COVID-19 cardiac manifestations is still not clear; acute cardiac injury (ACI) remains a common finding. The goal of our study, not only is to examine the current prevalence of ACI among COVID-19 infected patients but also, the reported mortality.Method:After thoroughly searching the literature for appropriate studies, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Inclusion criteria were 1) Cohort study, case-control study, or case series study. 2) The study population included individuals with COVID-19 3) The presence or absence of cardiac injury was reported in the study 4) Mortality among patients with cardiac injury is reported or can be calculated.Results:Ten studies were included with a total of 1664 patients. The prevalence of ACI was 30.8%. The mortality rate among patients with concurrent COVID-19 and ACI was 53%.Conclusion:ACI can occur in one third of patients with COVID-19. Concurrent COVID-19 and ACI entails a high mortality rate. Serum troponin level can be a good prognostic tool in COVID-19.

scholarly journals Risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients : a systematic review and meta analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lizhen Xu ◽  
Yaqian Mao ◽  
Gang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Body Mass Index ◽  
Elderly Male ◽  
Corona Virus ◽  
Laboratory Test Results ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Underlying Diseases

AbstractImportanceWith the increasing number of infections for COVID-19, the global health resources are deficient. At present, we don’t have specific medicines or vaccines against novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) and our assessment of risk factors for patients with severe pneumonia was limited. In order to maximize the use of limited medical resources, we should distinguish between mild and severe patients as early as possible.ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence of risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.Evidence ReviewWe conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in both Chinese and English electronic bibliographic data bases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Weipu, Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (CBM-SinoMed), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and Web of science. The American agency for health research and quality (AHRQ) tool were used for assessing risk of bias. Mata-analysis was undertaken using STATA version 15.0.Results20 articles (N=4062 participants) were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. First in this review and meta-analysis, we found that elderly male patients with a high body mass index, high breathing rate and a combination of underlying diseases (such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were more likely to develop into critically ill patients. second, compared with ordinary patients, severe patients had more significant symptom such as fever and dyspnea. Besides, the laboratory test results of severe patients had more abnormal than non-severe patients, such as the elevated levels of white-cell counts, liver enzymes, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, c-reactive protein and procalcitonin, etc, while the decreased levels of lymphocytes and albumin, etc.InterpretationThis is the first systematic review investigating the risk factors for severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The findings are presented and discussed by different clinical characteristics. Therefore, our review may provide guidance for clinical decision-making and optimizes resource allocation.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the risk factors for severe patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?FindingsFirst in this review and meta-analysis, we found that elderly male patients with a high body mass index, high breathing rate and a combination of underlying diseases were more likely to develop into critically ill patients. second, compared with ordinary patients, severe patients had more significant symptom such as fever and dyspnea. Last, we also found that the laboratory test results of severe patients had more abnormal than non-severe patients.MeaningThis review summaried the risk factors of severe COVID-19 patients and aim to provide a basis for early identification of severe patients by clinicians.

scholarly journals Anti-Xa versus time-guided anticoagulation strategies in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Perfusion ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026765912095298
Author(s):  
Ariane Willems ◽  
Peter P Roeleveld ◽  
Sonia Labarinas ◽  
John W Cyrus ◽  
Jennifer A Muszynski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lower Mortality ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose was to compare time-based vs anti-Xa-based anticoagulation strategies in patients on ECMO. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using multiple electronic databases and included studies from inception to July 19, 2019. The proportion of bleeding, thrombosis, and mortality were evaluated. Twenty-six studies (2,086 patients) were included. Bleeding occurred in 34.2% (95%CI 25.1;43.9) of the patients with anti-Xa-based versus 41.6% (95%CI 24.9;59.4) of the patients with time-based anticoagulation strategies. Thrombosis occurred in 32.6% (95%CI 19.1;47.7) of the patients with anti-Xa-based versus 38.4% (95%CI 22.2;56.1) of the patients with time-based anticoagulation strategies. And mortality rate was 35.4% (95%CI 28.9;42.1) of the patients with anti-Xa-based versus 42.9% (95%CI 36.9;48.9) of the patients with time-based anticoagulation strategies. Among the seven studies providing results from both anticoagulation strategies, significantly fewer bleeding events occurred in the anti-Xa-based anticoagulation strategy (adjusted OR 0.49 (95%CI 0.32;0.74), p < 0.001) and a significantly lower mortality rate (adjusted OR 0.61 (95%CI 0.40;0.95), p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in thrombotic events (adjusted OR 0.91 (95%CI 0.56;1.49), p = 0.71). In these seven observational studies, only a small fraction of the patients were adults, and data were insufficient to analyze the effect of the type of ECMO. In this meta-analysis of observational studies of patients on ECMO, an anti-Xa-based anticoagulation strategy, when compared to a time-based strategy, was associated with fewer bleeding events and mortality rate, without an increase in thrombotic events.

scholarly journals Statins Use and Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence and Death: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjan Mansourian ◽  
Shaghayegh Haghjooy-Javanmard ◽  
Azadeh Eshraghi ◽  
Golnaz Vaseghi ◽  
Alireza Hayatshahi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Breast Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Reduce Mortality Rate

Purpose. Statins are widely prescribed drugs for lowering cholesterol. Some studies have suggested that statins can prevent breast cancer recurrence and reduce mortality rate. However they are not conclusive. Present systematic review and meta-analysis of published cohort studies was conducted to determine the effects of statins intake and risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality rate. Methods. Online databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO and Cochrane Collaboration) were searched through October 2014. Pooled relative risks and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects. Results. A total of 8 cohort studies (4 for recurrence 2 for mortality and 2 for both) involving 124669 participants with breast cancer were eligible. Our results suggest a significant reduction in  recurrence (OR= 0.79. I2= 38%) and death (OR = 0.84, I2 = 8.58 %) among statin users. Conclusion. Our meta-analysis suggests that breast cancer patients will benefit from statin intake, however from these cohorts we are unable to differentiate between various statins in terms of effectiveness and duration of use. We highly propose conducting randomized clinical trials. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine Versus COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Shamshirian ◽  
Amirhossein Hessami ◽  
Keyvan Heydari ◽  
Reza Alizadeh-Navaei ◽  
Mohammad Ali Ebrahimzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mesh Terms

AbstractBackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to overcome the controversies regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19, using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine. Two authors selected and assessed the quality of studies independently using related checklists. Data have been extracted from included studies and analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. heterogeneity was also assessed using the I-squared test. We also conducted different sensitivity analyses to examine the effect of studies that greatly influence the results.ResultsOut of 14 studies entered into our systematic review, 12 studies including seven comparative studies with control group and five observational studies containing 3,428 participants have entered into the study. The results of the meta-analysis on comparative studies indicated no significant clinical effectiveness (negative in RT-PCR evaluation) for HCQ regimen in the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to control group (RR: 1.04, 95% CI, 0.83-1.31). The same result was observed for the combination of HCQ+azithromycin (RR: 2.15, 95% CI, 0.31-14.77). Approximately 1.7 times higher mortality rate was observed among the HCQ regimen group in comparison to control group (RR: 1.73, 95% CI, 1.06-2.81), which was not related to the age differences according to meta-regression analysis (P=0.305). No substantial difference was observed for disease exacerbation (RR: 1.87, 95% CI, 0.28-12.36) between HCQ group and controls. Also, radiological findings significantly improved in the HCQ group (OR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.11-0.98). Odds of known HCQ adverse effects (diarrhea, vomiting, blurred vision, rash, headache, etc.) occurred in the HCQ regimen group was approximately 3.5 times of control group (OR: 3.55, 95% CI, 1.61-7.82), but no substantial differences were found regarding intubation odds between HCQ group and control group (OR: 2.11, 95% CI, 0.31-14.03).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis not only indicated no clinical benefits regarding HCQ treatment with/without azithromycin for COVID-19 patients, but the higher mortality rate and frequency of known HCQ adverse effects were observed for the HCQ regimen group. However, due to that most of the studies were non-randomized and results were not homogenous, selection bias was unavoidable and further large randomized clinical trials following comprehensive meta-analysis should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document