Adv Exp Med Biol
-
Meta Analysis
The Level of Procalcitonin in Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
There is data from individual clinical trials suggesting that procalcitonin (PCT) may be a prognostic factor in the severity of COVID-19 disease. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate PCT levels in severe COVID-19 patients. We searched Embase, ProQuest, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ISI/Web of Science for studies that reported the level of PCT of patient with severe COVID-19. ⋯ The odds of having more severe COVID-19 disease was higher in subjects with elevated PCT (≥0.05 ng/mL) compared with those having low procalcitonin (<0.05 ng/mL) [n = 6, OR(95% CI) = 2.91(1.14, 7.42), p = 0.025). After estimating the mean and standard deviation values from the sample size, median, and interquartile range, a pooled effect analysis indicated higher serum PCT concentrations in patients with severe versus less severe disease [n = 6, SMD(95% CI) = 0.64(0.02, 1.26), p = 0.042]. The results of this study showed that PCT is increased in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.
-
This paper reviews the rapidly expanding literature on the ecological effects of cyanobacterial toxins. The study employs a qualitative meta-analysis from the literature examining results from a large number of independent studies and extracts general patterns from the literature or signals contradictions. The meta-analysis is set up by putting together two large tables--embodying a large and representative part of the literature (see Appendix A). ⋯ The paper concludes by summarizing the risks for birds, fish, macroinvertebrates and zooplankton. Although acute (lethal) effects are mentioned in the literature, mass mortalities of--especially--fish are more likely to be the result of multiple stress factors that co-occur during cyanobacterial blooms. Bivalves appear remarkably resistant, whilst the harmful effects of cyanobacteria on zooplankton vary widely and the specific contribution of toxins is hard to evaluate.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review.
Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are acknowledged widely, opinions and recommendations are divided on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. We systematically reviewed available evidence concerning the effects on child health, growth, and development and on maternal health of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months vs. exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding (introduction of complementary liquid or solid foods with continued breastfeeding) to 6 months. Two independent literature searches were conducted, together comprising the following databases: MEDLINE (as of 1966), Index Medicus (prior to 1966), CINAHL, HealthSTAR, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE-Medicine, EMBASE-Psychology, Econlit, Index Medicus for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region, African Index Medicus, Lilacs (Latin American and Carribean literature), EBM Reviews-Best Evidence, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. ⋯ Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea and faster postpartum weight loss. Based on the results of this review, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months to its member countries. Large randomized trials are recommended in both developed and developing countries to ensure that exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months does not increase the risk of undernutrition (growth faltering), to confirm the health benefits reported thus far, and to investigate other potential effects on health and development, especially over the long term.