Search

Objective: To estimate the pooled prevalence, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution, of urolithiasis among subjects in China. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of both Chinese and English databases to retrieve literature pertaining to the prevalence of urolithiasis in the indigenous Chinese population. A random‐effects meta‐analysis model was employed to calculate the pooled prevalence of urolithiasis. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on factors such as time, region, gender, and sample size. Prevalence and spatial distribution maps were created based on provinces and latitude/longitude coordinates. Results: A total of 46 studies conducted in 22 provinces across China were included in this meta‐analysis and the pooled prevalence of urolithiasis, kidney stones, ureteric calculi, urethral and bladder stones were 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6–11.1%), 7.8% (95% CI 5.8–10.0%), 3.2% (95% CI 0.6–5.7%), 0.5% (95% CI 0.1–0.9%). Most of the urolithiasis prevalence screening in China was concentrated between 100° E and 120° E, with higher rates observed in low latitude areas. Subgroup analysis of kidney stones revealed that Guangdong (12.7%) and Guangxi (10.3%) had the highest prevalence, with the eastern developed area exhibiting higher rates compared to the west. The prevalence in males was higher than in females (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.46–1.92), although the gender gap has significantly reduced since 2006. Moreover, a greater sample size is associated with a decreased prevalence of urolithiasis. Conclusions: The prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing in China, and there are noteworthy regional or provincial disparities in occurrence. It is worth noting that the current number of screening studies in some areas is insufficient. Additional investigations with appropriate sample sizes should be supplemented in time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) working group proposed core outcome sets (COS) to address the heterogeneity in outcome measures in clinical studies. According to the recommendations of COMET, performing systematic reviews (SRs) usually was the first step for COS development. However, the SRs that serve as a basis for COS are not specifically appraised by organizations such as COMET regarding their quality. Here, we investigated the status of SRs related to development of COS and evaluated their methodological quality. Methods: We conducted a search on PubMed to identify SRs related to COS development published from inception to May 2022. We qualitatively summarized the disease included in SR topics, and the studies included in the SRs. We evaluated the methodological quality of the SRs using AMSTAR 2.0 and compared the overall quality of SRs with and without protocols using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: We included 175 SRs from 23 different countries or regions, and they mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease (n = 19, 10.86%), injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes (n = 18, 10.29%), digestive system disease (n = 16, 9.14%), nervous system disease (n = 15, 8.57%), and genitourinary system disease (n = 15, 8.57%). Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The assessment results on the basis of AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ‘’critically low’’ to ‘’low’’ in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P =.017). Conclusion: The overall quality of published SRs regarding COS development was poor. Our findings emphasize the need for researchers to carefully select the disease topic and strictly adhere to the requirements of optimal methodology when conducting a SR for the establishment of a COS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To overview the colonoscopy adherence in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluate potential influence of the initial tests based on an ecological evaluation. Methods: The performance of the initial screening tests and adherence to subsequent colonoscopy were extracted from relevant studies published up to 16 October 2020. The age‐standardised incidence (ASRi) of CRC in populations in the year of screening was derived from the Cancer Statistics. Results: One hundred sixty‐six observational studies and 60 experimental studies were identified. Most studies applied cascade screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) as an initial test. The adherence to colonoscopy varied greatly across populations by continents, gross national income and type of initial tests, with a median (interquartile range) of 79.8% (63.1%–87.8%) in observational studies and 82.1% (66.7%–90.4%) in randomised trials. The adherence was positively correlated with the ASRi of CRC (r = 0.145, p = 0.023) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial tests (r = 0.206, p = 0.002) in observational studies and correlated with ASRi of CRC (r = 0.309, p = 0.002) and sensitivity of the initial tests (r = −0.704, p = 0.003) in experimental studies. Conclusions: Adherence to colonoscopy varies greatly across populations and is related with performance of the initial tests, indicating the importance to select appropriate initial tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: This study aims to systematically evaluate adherence to colonoscopy and related factors in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) among average‐risk populations, which is crucial to achieve the effectiveness of CRC screening. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English up to October 16, 2020, and reporting the adherence to colonoscopy following positive results of initial screening tests. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was applied to estimate pooled adherence and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis and mixed‐effects meta‐regression analysis were performed to evaluate heterogeneous factors for adherence level. Results: A total of 245 observational and 97 experimental studies were included and generated a pooled adherence to colonoscopy of 76.6% (95% confidence interval: 74.1–78.9) and 80.4% (95% confidence interval: 77.2–83.1), respectively. The adherence varied substantially by calendar year of screening, continents, CRC incidence, socioeconomic status, recruitment methods, and type of initial screening tests, with the initial tests as the most modifiable heterogeneous factor for adherence across both observational (Q = 162.6, P < 0.001) and experimental studies (Q = 23.2, P < 0.001). The adherence to colonoscopy was at the highest level when using flexible sigmoidoscopy as an initial test, followed by using guaiac fecal occult blood test, quantitative or qualitative fecal immunochemical test, and risk assessment. The pooled estimate of adherence was positively associated with specificity and positive predictive value of initial screening tests, but negatively with sensitivity and positivity rate. Conclusions: Colonoscopy adherence is at a low level and differs by study‐level characteristics of programs and populations. Initial screening tests with high specificity or positive predictive value may be followed by a high adherence to colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]