Dataset Information

Association of frailty status with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Frailty status has been recognised as an important prognostic factor of adverse clinical outcomes in various clinical settings. Recently, the role of frailty status in adverse clinical outcomes for COVID-19-infected patients has received increasing attention with controversial results. Hence, we will conduct a comprehensive dose-response meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the association between frailty status and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The researchers will systematically search PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, ISI Knowledge via Web of Science and MedRxiv or BioRxiv databases (from inception until December 2020) to identify all retrospective and prospective cohort studies. All-cause mortality during hospitalisation will be set as the primary outcome. Univariable or multivariable meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted for the comparison between frail versus non-frail categories. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of our results by removing each included study one at a time to obtain and evaluate the remaining overall estimates of all-cause mortality. To conduct a dose-response meta-analysis for the potential linear or restricted cubic spline regression relationship between frailty status and all-cause mortality, studies with three or more categories will be included.

Ethics and dissemination

In accordance with the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College, ethical approval is not an essential element for the systematic review protocol. This meta-analysis will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020220226.

SUBMITTER: Pei H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098297 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDisparities in health outcomes between immigrant and native-origin populations, particularly pregnant women, pose significant challenges to healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among immigrant-women compared to native-origin women in the host country.MethodsPubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to retrieve studies published in English language up to September 2020. All observational studies examining the prevalence of at least one of the short-term single pregnancy outcomes for immigrants who crossed international borders compared to native-origin pregnant population were included. The meta-prop method was used for the pooled-estimation of adverse pregnancy-outcomes' prevalence. For pool-effect estimates, the association between the immigration-status and outcomes of interest, the random-effects model was applied using the model described by DerSimonian and Laird. I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. The publication bias was assessed using the Harbord-test. Meta-regression was performed to explore the effect of geographical region as the heterogeneity source.FindingsThis review involved 11 320 674 pregnant women with an immigration-background and 56 102 698 pregnant women as the native-origin population. The risk of emergency cesarean section (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0-1.2), shoulder dystocia (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0-1.3), gestational diabetes mellites (Pooled-OR = 1.4, 95%CI = 1.2-1.6), small for gestational age (Pooled-OR=1.3, 95%CI = 1.1-0.4), 5-min Apgar less than 7 (Pooled-OR = 1.2, 95%CI = 1.0-1.3) and oligohydramnios (Pooled-OR = 1.8, 95%CI = 1.0-3.3) in the immigrant women were significantly higher than those with the native origin background. The immigrant women had a lower risk of labor induction (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.8), pregnancy induced hypertension (Pooled-OR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.5-0.7) preeclampsia (Pooled-OR = 0.7, 95%CI = 0.6-0.8), macrosomia (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.9) and large for gestational age (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7-0.8). Also, the risk of total and primary cesarean section, instrumental-delivery, preterm-birth, and birth-trauma were similar in both groups. According to meta-regression analyses, the reported ORs were not influenced by the country of origin.ConclusionThe relationship between the immigration status and adverse perinatal outcomes indicated a heterogenous pattern, but the immigrant women were at an increased risk of some important adverse pregnancy outcomes. Population-based studies with a focus on the various aspects of this phenomena are required to explain the source of these heterogenicities.

Project description:Hyperuricemia, characterized by elevated serum uric acid levels, has garnered significant attention in cardiovascular research due to its potential association with coronary heart disease (CHD). While some studies suggest hyperuricemia as a risk factor of CHD, others present conflicting findings. A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis is warranted to comprehensively summarize the previous studies and determine the association between hyperuricemia and CHD, thereby supporting clinical practice and future studies in this field. In this study, we will comprehensively search Medline, EMBase, Cochrane Central, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to December 31, 2024. Prospective or retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies investigating the association between hyperuricemia and CHD will be included. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome will be the pooled relative risk of CHD associated with hyperuricemia by using random-effect model. Dose-response meta-analysis will be performed with linear and non-linear model to explore the the magnitude and direction of the association between serum uric acid levels and CHD risk. Subgroup analyses will be conducted based on uric acid test approaches and corresponding cut-off values and human races. Sensitivity analyses will assess the robustness of the results with leave-one-out method, while publication bias will be evaluated using funnel plots, Egger's test, and Begg's test. We will further use GRADE to evaluate the quality of the evidences provided by our systematic review. From this systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, we hope out findings will provide reliable conclusion and data support on the association between hyperuricemia and CHD. The transparent and replicable methodologies outlined in this protocol contribute to advancing understanding of hyperuricemia as a potentially modifiable risk factor for CHD, thus supporting evidence-based strategies for cardiovascular disease management. This protocol describes a rigorous plan to systematically review and analyze the quantitative association between hyperuricemia and CHD risk. In a word, we will help further clinical practice and scientific studies in this field. This protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42024538553.

Project description:IntroductionCombinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors are strongly associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. It is unclear how socioeconomic status (SES) affects those associations. Lower SES groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle factors compared with higher SES groups via interactions with other factors associated with low SES (eg, stress) or via accelerated biological ageing. This systematic review aims to synthesise studies that examine how SES moderates the association between lifestyle factor combinations and adverse health outcomes. Greater understanding of how lifestyle risk varies across socioeconomic spectra could reduce adverse health by (1) identifying novel high-risk groups or targets for future interventions and (2) informing research, policy and interventions that aim to support healthy lifestyles in socioeconomically deprived communities.Methods and analysisThree databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) from inception to March 2020. Reference lists, citations and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion criteria are: (1) prospective cohort studies; (2) investigations of two key exposures: (a) lifestyle factor combinations of at least three lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, physical activity and diet) and (b) SES (eg, income, education or poverty index); (3) an assessment of the impact of SES on the association between combinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors and health outcomes; (4) at least one outcome from-mortality (all cause, CVD and cancer), CVD or cancer incidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies. Data extraction will focus on cohort characteristics, exposures, direction and magnitude of SES effects, methods and quality (via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If appropriate, a meta-analysis, pooling the effects of SES, will be performed. Alternatively, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, professional networks, social media and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42020172588.