Search

Abstract Background Anxiety symptoms in older adults can significantly impact their well-being. Physical activity is increasingly recognized as a potential intervention to alleviate anxiety in this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the impact of physical activity on anxiety symptoms in geriatric individuals. Methods A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Embase databases until November 29, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened articles based on predefined inclusion criteria. Results Eleven randomized controlled trials were included. These trials, involving 770 geriatric participants, demonstrated a significant overall effect of physical activity on reducing anxiety symptoms (SMD =-0.60, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.32). Subgroup analysis based on type of intervention and duration of follow-up was performed. The results showed all types of exercises reduced anxiety symptoms compared to the control group. Furthermore, those studies with shorter follow-up (less than 10 weeks) did not show a statistically significant reduction in anxiety symptoms. Moderate heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 67%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the overall effect size. Funnel plot inspection and Egger’s test (p = 0.36) suggested no signs of publication bias or small study effects. Conclusion This meta-analysis provides strong evidence that physical activity significantly reduces anxiety symptoms in older adults. The study highlights the differential effects of cardio and strength exercises and underscores the high quality of evidence supporting the anxiolytic benefits of physical activity in geriatric populations.

Abstract Background Post COVID-19 syndrome, also known as "Long COVID," is a complex and multifaceted condition that affects individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder in individuals coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome. Methods A rigorous search of electronic databases was conducted to identify original studies until 24 January 2023. The inclusion criteria comprised studies employing previously validated assessment tools for depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, reporting prevalence rates, and encompassing patients of all age groups and geographical regions for subgroup analysis Random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was done. Results The pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety among patients coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome was estimated to be 23% (95% CI: 20%—26%; I2 = 99.9%) based on data from 143 studies with 7,782,124 participants and 132 studies with 9,320,687 participants, respectively. The pooled prevalence of sleep disorder among these patients, derived from 27 studies with 15,362 participants, was estimated to be 45% (95% CI: 37%—53%; I2 = 98.7%). Subgroup analyses based on geographical regions and assessment scales revealed significant variations in prevalence rates. Meta-regression analysis showed significant correlations between the prevalence and total sample size of studies, the age of participants, and the percentage of male participants. Publication bias was assessed using Doi plot visualization and the Peters test, revealing a potential source of publication bias for depression (p = 0.0085) and sleep disorder (p = 0.02). However, no evidence of publication bias was found for anxiety (p = 0.11). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate a considerable burden of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, among individuals recovering from COVID-19. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive mental health support and tailored interventions for patients experiencing persistent symptoms after COVID-19 recovery.

A few mostly underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been used to study the impact of blood pressure (BP) targets in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between the higher BP target and the lower BP target groups following OHCA. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library until December 2022. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.4. Our search yielded four RCTs with a total of 1114 patients. Regarding our primary outcome of all-cause mortality, there was no significant difference between higher versus lower BP target goals in post-OHCA patients (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.45). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups in good neurological outcome, the incidence of arrhythmia, need for renal replacement therapy, and the levels of neuron-specific enolase at 48 h. The length of ICU stay of patients treated with the higher BP target was significantly lower but by a small margin. These findings do not support the use of a higher BP target but are subject to confirmation by large-scale RCTs investigating homogenous BP goals.

BackgroundWe sought to conduct this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance in Iranian medical students and resident physicians.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on 23 December 2023 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Iranian national databases. We pooled the prevalence of individual studies using the random effect model.ResultsOur systematic search showed 36 articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Most included studies were cross-sectional. The most used questionnaire to assess depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance were Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21), and The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), respectively. The overall prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance among Iranian medical students were 43% (95%CI: 33%-53%%, I2 = 98%), 44% (95%CI: 31%-58%%, I2 = 99%), 48% (95%CI: 39%-56%%, I2 = 97%), respectively. The results of subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed questionnaires used and the place of the medical school were significantly associated with the prevalence of aforementioned outcomes. Funnel plot and Begg's regression test did not show a significant source of funnel plot asymmetry for depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance.ConclusionIn conclusion, our study showed that nearly half of the medical students had some type of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance problems. To address this serious national public health issue, efficient preventive measures, routine screenings, and prompt interventions are required.

Abstract Background Esophageal motility disorders are a group of disorders associated with dysfunctional swallowing resulting from impaired neuromuscular coordination. Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors induce smooth relaxation and are proposed as a treatment option for esophageal motility disorders such as achalasia. Methods This study is conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We systematically searched MEDLINE/ PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for esophageal outcomes of individuals treated with PDE5 inhibitors. A random effect meta-analysis was conducted. Results A total of 14 studies were included. They were conducted in different countries, with Korea and Italy having the highest number of articles. The main drug assessed was sildenafil. PDE-5 inhibitors resulted in a significant reduction in lower esophageal sphincter pressure (SMD − 1.69, 95% CI: -2.39 to -0.99) and the amplitude of contractions (SMD − 2.04, 95% CI: -2.97 to -1.11). Residual pressure was not significantly different between the placebo and sildenafil groups (SMD − 0.24, 95% CI: -1.20 to 0.72). Furthermore, a recent study reported contractile integral, stating that ingestion of sildenafil leads to a significant reduction in distal contractile integral and a significant increase in proximal contractile integral. Conclusion PDE-5 inhibitors significantly reduce LES resting pressure and esophageal peristaltic vigor, decreasing esophageal body contractility and contraction reserve. Therefore, using these drugs in patients affected by esophageal motility disorders may potentially improve their condition regarding symptom relief and prevention of further associated complications. Future reports investigating larger sample size is necessary in order to establish definite evidence regarding the efficacy of these drugs.

AimsWe sought to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov till March 2023 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included data from 14 RCTs. SGLT2i reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.87; I2 = 0%); these results were consistent across the cohorts of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients. There was no significant decrease in the risk of cardiovascular death (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.13; I2 = 36%) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.05; I2 = 0%). There was a significant improvement in the quality of life in the SGLT2i group (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.20; I2 = 51%).ConclusionThe use of SGLT2i is associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome and a higher quality of life among HFpEF/HFmrEF patients. However, further research involving more extended follow-up periods is required to draw a comprehensive conclusion.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42022364223).

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Methods Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. Results A total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)). Conclusions and relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births.

Abstract Background We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence. Methods MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria. Results 19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR − 0.27 [95% CI − 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI − 0.18–0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI − 0.22–0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD − 0.40 [95% CI − 0.85–0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD − 0.36 [95% CI − 0.89–0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR − 0.67 [95% CI − 1.20 to − 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality. Conclusion Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.