An observational study found large methodological heterogeneity in systematic reviews addressing prevalence and cumulative incidence

Prevalence of frailty among elderly patients with hip fracture in China: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterised by a reduced ability to adapt to external stressors owing to a reduced physiological reserve, which is caused by degeneration of multiple organ systems. Frailty is particularly prevalent among patients with hip fractures. Research on frailty in China started late; thus, evidence regarding the prevalence of frailty among older patients with hip fracture in China is scarce. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically search for available data on the prevalence of frailty among older patients with hip fracture in China, assess the pooled prevalence of frailty and describe the association between frailty and clinical outcomes.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically search electronic databases, including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang data Database, to identify studies on the prevalence of frailty in older patients with hip fracture. Two reviewers will independently identify eligible studies according to defined inclusion criteria and critically appraise them using the Joanna Briggs Institute's standardised critical appraisal tool. Data will be analysed using Stata V.12.0.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required as this review will only include data from published sources. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022265321.

Tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH)

OBJECTIVE

There is no standard tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies. For the purposes of a living systematic review during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a tool to evaluate RoB in studies measuring the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH) and tested inter-rater reliability.

METHODS

We decided on items and signalling questions to include in RoB-PrevMH through iterative discussions. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users with two sets of prevalence studies. The first set included a random sample of 50 studies from our living systematic review. The second set included 33 studies from a systematic review of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorders, major depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We assessed the inter-rater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item.

RESULTS

RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signalling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The inter-rater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa scores were 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.63), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RoB-PrevMH is a brief, user-friendly and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for inter-rater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability and applicability should be assessed in future projects.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide

BACKGROUND

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature.

METHODS

In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Global trends in semen quality of young men: a systematic review and regression analysis

PURPOSE

Many studies have reported declines in semen quality mainly focused on total sperm counts (TSC) and sperm concentration (SC), ignoring the importance of progressive motile sperm (PR), total motile sperm (TM), and normal morphological sperm (NM). Therefore, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to explore the trend in semen quality of young men.

METHODS

We searched 3 English databases and 4 Chinese databases from January 1980 to August 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses and weighted linear regression models were conducted to perform the trend in semen quality.

RESULTS

Finally, 162 eligible studies including 264,665 men from 28 countries were got between 1978 and 2021. Significant decreases were observed in TSC (- 3.06 million/year, 95% CI - 3.28 to - 2.84), SC (- 0.47 million/ml/year, 95% CI - 0.51 to - 0.43), and PR (- 0.15%/year, 95% CI - 0.20 to - 0.09), and there was an upward trend in TM (0.28%/year, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.32). The results of meta-regression analyses indicated that age, continent, income, WHO criteria, and abstinence time significantly impacted on TSC, SC, PR, and TM. Positive regression coefficients were observed in some categories suggesting that outcomes might not be declining and even increasing in these subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Downward trends in semen quality among global young men were observed in our study, including TSC, SC, and PR. But TM did not appear to be trending down or even to be leveling off. More studies are needed to focus on the causes of the declines.

A tool to assess risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of mental health disorders (RoB-PrevMH)

Objective

Biases affect how certain we are about the available evidence, however no standard tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in prevalence studies exists. For the purposes of a living systematic review on prevalence of mental health disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed a RoB tool to evaluate prevalence studies in mental health (RoB-PrevMH) and tested interrater reliability.

Methods

We reviewed existing RoB tools for prevalence studies until September 2020, to develop a tool for prevalence studies in mental health. We tested the reliability of assessments by different users of RoB-PrevMH in 83 studies stemming from two systematic reviews of prevalence studies in mental health. We assessed the interrater agreement by calculating the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic for each item.

Results

RoB-PrevMH consists of three items that address selection bias and information bias. Introductory and signaling questions guide the application of the tool to the review question. The interrater agreement for the three items was 83%, 90% and 93%. The weighted kappa was 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73), 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and 0.32 (95% CI -0.04 to -0.63), respectively.

Conclusions

We developed a brief, user friendly, and adaptable tool for assessing RoB in studies on prevalence of mental health disorders. Initial results for interrater agreement were fair to substantial. The tool's validity, reliability, and applicability should be assessed in future projects.

Utilization of dental care services among adult Indian population: A meta-analysis of evidence from 2011-2022

Background: This study aimed to generate a pooled national estimate on dental health care services utilization by the adult population in India from any public or private facility in an effort to highlight the demand and usage for oral health care. Methods: In this meta-analysis, PubMed, ScienceDirect, DOAJ, and Google Scholar were searched using a search strategy that combined MeSH headings and keywords (e.g., "Oral Health", "Dental Health Services", utilization, India, etc.) for articles on dental utilization among Indian adults, published between January 2011 and June 2022. Study quality was assessed using the NIH Quality assessment tool, and a random-effects inverse-variance method was used for pulling utilization proportions. Meta-regression and sub-group analyses were conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is reported as I². To examine publication bias, the funnel plot, egger's test, and trim-and-fill analysis were performed. Results: From 4012 identified articles, 21 were eligible for inclusion. The pooled dental care utilization amongst Indian adults were found to be 23.96% (confidence interval [CI]: 16.81%- 31.11%, P<0.001, I²=98.93%), and the highest estimate was in South Zone (30.02%, CI: 19.14-40.90, P<0.01, I²=98.63%). Visual inspection of the funnel plot revealed the presence of publication bias (egger's P value 0.02). A mild decrease in utilization estimate was noted through trim and fill analysis (adjusted estimate 17.65%, CI: 8.97-26.33, P=0.03). No significant subgroup effect was found for the variables study zone and conduction years (P value: 0.09 & 0.34 respectively). Conclusion: Future studies should be undertaken to focus on the demand and supply of oral health care services since an evidential gap has been identified due to the uneven distribution of studies available from various regions of India. The heterogeneity can be attributed to the diverse socioeconomic, literacy, and inherent health system performance status.

Are Occupational Voice Disorders Accurately Measured? A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Methodologies in Schoolteachers to Report Voice Disorders

PURPOSE

Different measuring instruments have been described to determine the prevalence of voice disorders in schoolteachers. However, the heterogeneity of prevalence figures has made it difficult in determining the impact of voice disorders in this group. This investigation aims to review and identify scientific evidence of methodological analysis of voice disorders in teachers, the relevance of measuring instruments, the prevalence of dysphonia, and the impact on the development of vocal health prevention programs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by searching six important scientific databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were carried out. Articles were included whether they presented data related to the prevalence of dysphonia and the impact of therapy programs on teachers.

RESULTS

Twenty articles out of 8,998 were selected. The cross-sectional design type was predominant throughout the investigations. Differences were observed in the number of participants across studies, leading to heterogeneous prevalence figures - which ranged from 10.5% to 69.1%. The assessment instruments are not standardly used to effectively determine the disease burden. Despite the fact of the extensive evidence of the effectiveness of programs that address dysphonia in teachers, the scarcity of literature is yet evident on systematic programs promoted by either the government or educational institutions.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that future investigations should consider the consensus of a global definition for occupational dysphonia in teachers in order to develop accurately measuring instruments and to assist with voice care programs and treatment approaches in this population. This might be crucial since it could also assist with the implementation of Delphi-type studies that could support the development of further evidence-based agreements around these programs (voice care and treatment approaches) in schoolteachers.

Studies of prevalence: how a basic epidemiology concept has gained recognition in the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Prevalence measures the occurrence of any health condition, exposure or other factors related to health. The experience of COVID-19, a new disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, has highlighted the importance of prevalence studies, for which issues of reporting and methodology have traditionally been neglected.

OBJECTIVE

This communication highlights key issues about risks of bias in the design and conduct of prevalence studies and in reporting them, using examples about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

SUMMARY

The two main domains of bias in prevalence studies are those related to the study population (selection bias) and the condition or risk factor being assessed (information bias). Sources of selection bias should be considered both at the time of the invitation to take part in a study and when assessing who participates and provides valid data (respondents and non-respondents). Information bias appears when there are systematic errors affecting the accuracy and reproducibility of the measurement of the condition or risk factor. Types of information bias include misclassification, observer and recall bias. When reporting prevalence studies, clear descriptions of the target population, study population, study setting and context, and clear definitions of the condition or risk factor and its measurement are essential. Without clear reporting, the risks of bias cannot be assessed properly. Bias in the findings of prevalence studies can, however, impact decision-making and the spread of disease. The concepts discussed here can be applied to the assessment of prevalence for many other conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to strengthen methodological research and improve assessment of the risk of bias and the quality of reporting of studies of prevalence in all fields of research should continue beyond this pandemic.

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVE

The academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A meta-research: systematic review of reviews.

INFORMATION SOURCES

PubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Any peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Abstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.

RISK OF BIAS

For articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.

RESULTS

2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.

DISCUSSION

This meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.

INTERPRETATION

Flaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as 'systematic reviews', many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in 'real time'.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188822.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in Psychology: A scoping review

This article describes the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in Psychology. The inclusion criteria were self-declared SRs in all branches of Psychology, published between 2019 and 2020. The search was performed in the PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases, from which 2487 records were identified, and 305 papers selected. There were many discrepancies in the reporting of Psychology SRs. Some PRISMA items, such as self-identification as an SR, description of the aim and the inclusion criteria, specification of the databases, and the description of the search and selection process using a flow diagram were reported in more than 90% of the SRs. Other items had lower coverage, such as the specification of the PICO framework, presentation of the complete search strategies, mention of the reporting guidelines, description of the exclusion criteria, performance of a risk of bias assessment, and analysis of the quality of the evidence, among others. The study highlights the need to improve the planning, performance and reporting of SR in Psychology.

Burden of pneumococcal disease among adults in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece): a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim was to summarize pneumococcal disease burden data among adults in Southern Europe and the potential impact of vaccines on epidemiology. Of 4779 identified studies, 272 were selected. Invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) incidence was 15.08 (95% CI 11.01-20.65) in Spain versus 2.56 (95% CI 1.54-4.24) per 100,000 population in Italy. Pneumococcal pneumonia incidence was 19.59 (95% CI 10.74-35.74) in Spain versus 2.19 (95% CI 1.36-3.54) per 100,000 population in Italy. Analysis of IPD incidence in Spain comparing pre-and post- PCV7 and PCV13 periods unveiled a declining trend in vaccine-type IPD incidence (larger and statistically significant for the elderly), suggesting indirect effects of childhood vaccination programme. Data from Portugal, Greece and, to a lesser extent, Italy were sparse, thus improved surveillance is needed. Pneumococcal vaccination uptake, particularly among the elderly and adults with chronic and immunosuppressing conditions, should be improved, including shift to a higher-valency pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when available.

Burden of invasive group B Streptococcus disease in non-pregnant adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Streptococcus agalactiae or group B Streptococcus (GBS) has emerged as an important cause of invasive disease in adults, particularly among the elderly and those with underlying comorbidities. Traditionally, it was recognised as an opportunistic pathogen colonising and causing disease in pregnant women, neonates, and young infants. Reasons for the upsurge of invasive GBS (iGBS) among the elderly remain unclear, although it has been related to risk factors such as underlying chronic diseases, immunosenescence, impaired inflammatory response, and spread of virulent clones. Antibiotics are successfully as treatment or prophylaxis against iGBS. Several candidate vaccines against iGBS are under development.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the current literature on invasive GBS in order to determine disease incidence and case fatality ratio (CFR) among non-pregnant adults. Additionally, information on risk factors, clinical presentation, serotype distribution, and antimicrobial resistance was also retrieved.

Methods

Between January and June 2020, electronic searches were conducted in relevant databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, and SCOPUS. Studies were included in the systematic review if they met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The authors assessed the selected studies for relevance, risk of bias, outcome measures, and heterogeneity. Meta-analyses on incidence and CFR were conducted after evaluating the quality of methods for assessment of exposure and outcomes.

Results

Pooled estimates of iGBS incidence in non-pregnant adults 15 years and older were 2.86 cases per 100.000 population (95% CI, 1.68–4.34). Incidence rates in older adults were substantially higher, 9.13 (95%CI, 3.53–17.22) and 19.40 (95%CI, 16.26–22.81) per 100.000 population ≥50 and ≥ 65 years old, respectively. Incidence rates ranged from 0.40 (95% CI, 0.30–0.60) in Africa to 5.90 cases per 100.000 population (95% CI, 4.30–7.70) in North America. The overall CFR was and 9.98% (95% CI, 8.47–11.58). CFR was highest in Africa at 22.09% (95% CI, 12.31–33.57). Serotype V was the most prevalent serotype globally and in North America accounting for 43.48% (n = 12926) and 46,72% (n = 12184) of cases, respectively. Serotype Ia was the second and serotype III was more prevalent in Europe (25.0%) and Asia (29.5%). Comorbidities were frequent among non-pregnant adult iGBS cases. Antimicrobial resistance against different antibiotics (i.e., penicillin, erythromycin) is increasing over time.

Conclusions

This systematic review revealed that iGBS in non-pregnant adults has risen in the last few years and has become a serious public health threat especially in older adults with underlying conditions. Given the current serotype distribution, vaccines including serotypes predominant among non-pregnant adults (i.e., serotypes V, Ia, II, and III) in their formulation are needed to provide breadth of protection. Continued surveillance monitoring potential changes in serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance patterns are warranted to inform public health interventions.

The global prevalence of familial multiple sclerosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering that many recent studies have reported the prevalence of familial multiple sclerosis (FMS), we performed an updated meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of FMS by the addition of recent publications.

METHODS

A search in PubMed, Scopus, the ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar was undertaken up to 20 December 2020. The inclusion criteria were based on the CoCoPop approach (condition, context, and population). Meta-analysis of the qualified studies was conducted by comprehensive meta-analysis ver. 2 software.

RESULTS

The pooled prevalence of MS in relatives of 16,179 FMS cases was estimated to be 11.8% (95% CI: 10.7-13) based on a random-effects model. The pooled mean age of disease onset in adult probands was calculated to be 28.7 years (95% CI: 27.2 ± 30.2). Regarding 13 studies that reported the data of FMS in pediatrics (n = 877) and adults (n = 6636), the FMS prevalence in pediatrics and adults was 15.5% (95% CI: 13.8-17.4) and 10.8% (95% CI: 8.1-14.2), respectively. The prevalence of FMS in affected males (n = 5243) and females (n = 11,503) was calculated to be 13.7% (95% CI: 10.1-18.2) and 15.4% (95% CI: 10.3-22.4), respectively. The odds ratio of male/female in FMS cases was not statistically significant (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.6-1.2, P = 0.55). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the prevalence of FMS between the geographical areas (P = 0.007). The meta-regression model indicated that the prevalence of FMS is lower with higher latitude and higher MS prevalence (P < 0.001). In contrast, meta-regression based on prevalence day was not statistically significant (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of FMS is higher in the pediatric group than that of adults, distinct between geographical areas, and diminishes with the increment of MS prevalence and latitude. Also, the symptoms initiate relatively at younger ages in the FMS cases. Interestingly, our analysis unveiled that FMS is not more prevalent in men than women and the risk of MS development in relatives is not higher when the affected proband is male.

Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability.

CONCLUSIONS

People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017068807 .

Prevalence of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder among COVID-19 patients: protocol for a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on the impact of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the mental health of the patients has been limited by the lack of relevant data. With the rapid and sustained growth of the publications on COVID-19 research, we will perform a living systematic review (LSR) to provide comprehensive and continuously updated data to explore the prevalence of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We will perform a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature to identify relevant studies. We will include peer-reviewed cross-sectional studies published in English and Chinese. Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal tool and perform data extraction. In the absence of clinical heterogeneity, the prevalence estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of delirium, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will be calculated by using random-effects model to minimize the effect of between-study heterogeneity separately. The literature searches will be updated every 3 months. We will perform meta-analysis if any new eligible studies or data are obtained. We will resubmit an updated review when there were relevant changes in the results, i.e., when outcomes became statistically significant (or not statistically significant anymore) or when heterogeneity became substantial (or not substantial anymore).

DISCUSSION

This LSR will provide an in-depth and up-to-date summary of whether the common neuropsychiatric conditions observed in patients hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) are also prevalent in a different stage of COVID-19 patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020196610.

Feasibility and advantages of endoscope-assisted parotidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The object of this paper was to explore the feasibility and advantages of endoscope-assisted parotid tumour resection. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were used to search for all related randomised controlled trials or controlled trials (up to November 2019). The key parameters for assessment included 'Endoscope', 'Endoscopes', 'Cancer of Parotid', and 'Parotid Cancer'. To evaluate the feasibility and advantages of endoscope-assisted resection of parotid tumours, the data for each parameter were pooled, based on patients who received endoscope-assisted surgery and those who received conventional surgery. This meta-analysis included seven studies, involving 170 patients in the endoscopy group and 270 patients in the control group. The analysis using the pooled data showed that there were no significant differences in the operating times between the two groups; however, the endoscopy group had significantly shorter incisions and less intraoperative bleeding. In addition, the patients who received endoscope-assisted surgery had lower incidences of temporary facial paralysis and Frey's syndrome after surgery. Patients in the endoscopy group had greater postoperative satisfaction. Endoscope-assisted parotid tumour resection results in only a small, concealed incision wound and fewer postoperative complications. Therefore, it is promising for the surgical treatment of parotid tumours.

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

Background

There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews.

Results

A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3–6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15–41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I² was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.