ONLINE RESEARCH CLUB
Nguyen Tien Huy, M.D., Ph.D
Founder of Online Research Club, Head of Lab.
School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University,
1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8523, Japan
Impediments to child education, health and development during the COVID-19 pandemic in India
Published on The Lancet Regional Health Southeast Asia
Authors: Akshay Raut; Nguyen Tien Huy
Chest imaging features of Coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Link: DOI: 10.23736/S2784-8477.21.01937-4
Journal: Edizione Minerva Medica
AUTHORS: Soon K. LOW, Mai N. LUU, Le H. MINH, Abdelaziz ABDELAAL, Sze JIA NG, Abdelrahman G. GAD, Le H. NHI, Tran N. LE, Nguyen T. HUY
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to systematically review the evidence reporting the key imaging findings in confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search for articles reporting the prevalence of imaging findings in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was conducted in seven databases up to April 10, 2020. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020172528).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 25 imaging features were identified in 29 studies. The most characteristic radiographic features of COVID-19 pneumonia include peripheral distribution (92.4%, 95% CI: 86.8-95.8), bilateral involvement (82.8%, 95% CI: 76.0-87.9), and ground-glass opacities (GGO) (76.0%, 95% CI: 59.5-87.3). Right lower lobe (RLL) was the most frequently involved lobe (89.0%, 95% CI: 79.6-94.4), followed by left lower lobe (LLL) in 86.5% (95% CI: 74.8-93.2) of patients. The atypical imaging features included bronchial wall thickening, lymphadenopathy, and pleural effusion, which were observed more commonly in severe and critical COVID-19 pneumonia compared to mild and moderate condition.
CONCLUSIONS: Chest imaging can help to diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia, especially in regions where the availability of RT-PCR testing kits is limited. Recognition of key radiographic features of COVID-19 pneumonia is essential to identify patients at early stages, monitor disease progression, and optimize their management plan.
The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies
AUTHORS: Dang The Hung; Suhaib Ghula; Jeza Muhamad Abdul Aziz; Abdelrahman M.Makram; Gehad Mohamed Tawfik; Ali Ahmed-Fouad Abozaid; Rohan Andrew Pancharatnam; Amr Mohamed Ibrahim; Muhammad Besher Shabouk; Morgan Turnage; Saloni Nakhare; Zahra Karmally; Basel Kouz; Tran Nhat Le; Suleiman Alhijazeen; Nguyen Quoc Phuong; Alaa Mohamed Ads; Ali Hussein Abdelaal; Nguyen Hai Nam; Tatsuo Iiyama; Kyoshi Kita; Kenji Hirayama; Nguyen Tien Huy.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in COVID-19 patients.
Methods: Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8th, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2nd, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.
Results: Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, one non-RCT, 21 observational studies, two case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR=1.60, p=0.02), defervescence at day 3-4 (RR=1.99, p<0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR=1.33, p<0.01), hospital discharge at day 10-11 (RR=1.19, p<0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD=-1.18, p=0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR=9.42, p<0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR=1.35, p<0.01), but lower rates of nausea (RR=0.42, p<0.01) and vomiting (RR=0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR=1•11, p=0•25). On non-hospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported.
Conclusion: Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.
Keywords: Favipiravir; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; efficacy; side effects
Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis
How to cite: Minh LHN, Abozaid AAA, Ha NX, Le LQ, Gadmil A, Tiwari R, Le TN, Dinh QK, AL-Manaseer B, Kien ND, Vuong NL, Zayan AH, Nhi LHH, Dila KAS, Varney J, Huy NT. Clinical aspect of novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Med Virol. 2021;e2288. doi:10.1002/rmv.2288.
Lessons Learned from the Reemergent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases in Areas of Long-reported No Community Transmission
Frequent inappropriate use of unweighted summary statistics in systematic reviews of pathogen genotypes or genogroups
Mar 2020 | J Clin Epidemiol
Objectives: Our study aimed to systematically assess and report the methodological quality used in epidemiological systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MA) of pathogen genotypes/genogroups.
Study design and setting: Nine electronic databases and manual search of reference lists were used to identify relevant studies. The method types were divided into three groups: 1) with weighted pooling analysis (which we call MA), (2) unweighted analysis of the study-level measures (which we call summary statistics), and (3) without any data pooling (which we call SR only). Characteristics were evaluated using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tools. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with CRD42017078146.
Results: Among 36 included articles, 5 (14%) studies conducted SR only, 16 (44%) performed MA, and 15 (42%) used summary statistics. The univariable and multivariable linear regression of AMSTAR and PRISMA scores showed that MA had higher quality compared with those with summary statistics. The SR only and summary statistics groups had approximately equal scores among three scales of AMSTAR, PRISMA, and ROBIS. The methodological quality of epidemiological studies has improved from 1999 to 2017.
Conclusion: Despite the frequent use of unweighted summary statistics, MA remains the most suitable method for reaching rational conclusions in epidemiological studies of pathogen genotypes/genogroups.
Keywords: Genogroups; Genotypes; Meta-analysis; Methodological quality; Summary statistics; Systematic review.
Introduction of Novel Surgical Techniques: A Survey on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Surgeons
Oct 2019 | Surg Innov
Purpose: To investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of surgeons toward introducing novel surgical techniques in Egypt, Palestine, and Vietnam.
Summary Background Data: Despite the recent advances in modern surgical care and its role in advancing the quality and the length of lives, surgery in the developing world has stagnated or even regressed.
Methods: A survey was undertaken among the surgeons in 9 hospitals belonging to the 3 countries. Questions were categorized into knowledge, attitude, and practice questions. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the event rate and compare between knowledge and practice, senior and junior surgeons.
Results: A total of 244 responses, with a response rate of 79.7%, were included in the analysis. Regarding knowledge and attitude, the results were satisfactory except that only 55.8% of surgeons appraised their level of education and 43.3% wanted to earn money from the novel procedure. There was a significant difference between knowledge and practice regarding getting informed consent from the patients (P = .024), discussing the novelty of the procedure (P < .001), discussing the alternative procedures (P < .001), discussing the surgeons' experience and level of skills (P < .001), discussing the risk of the new procedure (P < .001), and monitoring the outcomes after the new procedure (P < .001).
Conclusions: Most surgeons have sufficient knowledge and are motivated regarding adopting novel surgical techniques in order to provide the best care for the patients. However, there was a gap between knowledge and practice. Training programs and evidence-based guidelines regarding the introduction of novel surgical techniques are needed to overcome these challenges.
Keywords: business of surgery; evidence-based medicine; evidence-based surgery; surgical education.
Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis
Mar 2015 | Bull World Health Organ.
Objective: To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.
Methods: Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.
Findings: The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.
Conclusion: The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.