Dataset Information

Stride Length Predicts Adverse Clinical Events in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This meta-analysis aims to estimate the power of walking stride length as a predictor of adverse clinical events in older adults.

Methods

We searched all electronic databases until April 2021 for studies reporting stride length and other spatial gait parameters, including stride velocity, stride width, step width and stride variability, and compared them with clinical outcomes in the elderly. Meta-analyses of odds ratios (ORs) of effects of stride length on clinical outcomes used the generic inverse variance method and random model effects. Clinical outcomes were major adverse events (MAEs), physical disability and mortality.

Results

Eleven cohort studies with 14,167 patients (mean age 75.4 ± 5.6 years, 55.8% female) were included in the analysis. At 33.05 months follow up, 3839 (27%) patients had clinical adverse events. Baseline stride length was shorter, WMD -0.15 (-0.19 to -0.11, p < 0.001), and stride length variability was higher, WMD 0.67 (0.33 to 1.01, p < 0.001), in fallers compared to non-fallers. Other gait parameters were not different between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all). Short stride length predicted MAE OR 1.36 (95% CI; 1.19 to 1.55, p < 0.001), physical disability OR 1.26 (95% CI; 1.11 to 1.44, p = 0.004) and mortality OR 1.69 (95% CI; 1.41 to 2.02, p < 0.001). A baseline normalized stride length ≤ 0.64 m was more accurate in predicting adverse clinical events, with summary sensitivity 65% (58-71%), specificity 72% (69-75%) and accuracy 75.5% (74.2-76.7%) compared to stride length variability 5.7%, with summary sensitivity 66% (61-70%), specificity 56% (54-58%) and accuracy 57.1% (55.5-58.6%).

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analyses support the significant value of stride length for predicting life-threatening clinical events in older adults. A short stride length of ≤0.64 m accurately predicted clinical events, over and above other gait measures.

SUBMITTER: Bytyci I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235531 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Biliary and pancreatic diseases are common in the elderly; however, few studies have addressed the occurrence of adverse events in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Our objective was to determine the incidence rates of specific adverse events in this group and calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for selected comparison groups.Bibliographical searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. The studies included documented the incidence of adverse events (perforation, pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, cardiopulmonary adverse events, mortality) in patients aged ≥ 65 who underwent ERCP. Pooled incidence rates were calculated for each reported adverse event and IRRs were determined for available comparison groups. A parallel analysis was performed in patients aged ≥ 80 and ≥ 90.Our literature search yielded 7429 articles, of which 69 studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled incidence rates for adverse events (per 1000 ERCPs) in patients aged ≥ 65 were as follows: perforation 3.8 (95 %CI 1.8 - 7.0), pancreatitis 13.1 (95 %CI 11.0 - 15.5), bleeding 7.7 (95 %CI 5.7 - 10.1), cholangitis 16.1 (95 %CI 11.7 - 21.7), cardiopulmonary events 3.7 (95 %CI 1.5 - 7.6), and death 7.1 (95 %CI 5.2 - 9.4). Patients ≥ 65 had lower rates of pancreatitis (IRR 0.3, 95 %CI 0.3 - 0.4) compared with younger patients. Octogenarians had higher rates of death (IRR 2.4, 95 %CI 1.3 - 4.5) compared with younger patients, whereas nonagenarians had increased rates of bleeding (IRR 2.4, 95 %CI 1.1 - 5.2), cardiopulmonary events (IRR 3.7, 95 %CI 1.0 - 13.9), and death (IRR 3.8, 95 %CI 1.0 - 14.4). Conclusions ERCP appears to be safe in elderly patients, except in the very elderly who are at higher risk of some adverse events. These data on adverse event rates can help to inform clinical decision-making, the consent process, and comparative effectiveness analyses.

Project description:Cardiovascular adverse events (CVAE) with carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma can be potentially life-threatening and remain incompletely characterized. We performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis of carfilzomib-associated CVAE.To determine the incidence of carfilzomib-associated CVAE and to compare the rates of carfilzomib CVAE among different doses and companion therapies.PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried for the keywords "carfilzomib," "Kyprolis," and "PX-171" through January 1, 2017.Phase 1 to 3 prospective clinical trials of carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma with evaluable toxic effects data were eligible for meta-analysis.Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Pooled incidence rates and relative risks (for randomized trials) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess study-level characteristics associated with CVAE.Cardiovascular adverse events were defined as heart failure, hypertension, ischemia, and arrhythmia. All-grade and grades 3 or higher AEs and study characteristics were recorded.A total of 514 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 24 studies were eligible, including a total of 2594 patients with multiple myeloma. All-grade and grades 3 and higher CVAE were seen in 617 (18.1%) and 274 (8.2%), respectively. Phase 2 or 3 studies and carfilzomib doses of 45 mg/m2 or higher were associated with high-grade CVAE. Median age older than 65 years, prior myeloma therapies, and concurrent myeloma therapies were not associated with CVAE. For the 3 randomized clinical trials, the summary relative risk of all-grade and grade 3 or higher CVAE for patients receiving carfilzomib compared with noncarfilzomib-receiving control patients were 1.8 and 2.2, respectively.Carfilzomib was associated with a significant incidence of CVAE, with higher rates seen with higher doses of carfilzomib. Phase 1 studies may be underdetecting CVAE. Future studies are needed to identify patients at high risk for CVAE, develop optimal monitoring strategies, and explore strategies to mitigate these risks.

Project description:BackgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.ObjectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.ResultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.ConclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have reported higher mortality among older adults treated with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) versus second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). A few studies examined risk for medical events, including stroke, ventricular arrhythmia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and hip fracture.Objectives1) Review robust epidemiologic evidence comparing mortality and medical event risk between FGAs and SGAs in older adults; 2) Quantify how much these medical events explain the observed mortality difference between FGAs and SGAs.Data sourcesPubmed and Science Citation Index.Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventionsStudies of antipsychotic users that: 1) evaluated mortality or medical events specified above; 2) restricted to populations with a mean age of 65 years or older 3) compared FGAs to SGAs, or both to a non-user group; (4) employed a "new user" design; (5) adjusted for confounders assessed prior to antipsychotic initiation; (6) and did not require survival after antipsychotic initiation. A separate search was performed for mortality estimates associated with the specified medical events.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsFor each medical event, we used a non-parametric model to estimate lower and upper bounds for the proportion of the mortality difference-comparing FGAs to SGAs-mediated by their difference in risk for the medical event.ResultsWe provide a brief, updated summary of the included studies and the biological plausibility of these mechanisms. Of the 1122 unique citations retrieved, we reviewed 20 observational cohort studies that reported 28 associations. We identified hip fracture, stroke, myocardial infarction, and ventricular arrhythmias as potential intermediaries on the causal pathway from antipsychotic type to death. However, these events did not appear to explain the entire mortality difference.ConclusionsThe current literature suggests that hip fracture, stroke, myocardial infarction, and ventricular arrhythmias partially explain the mortality difference between SGAs and FGAs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.Information sourcesSearches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (?2).ResultsOf 15?023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280?638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, ?2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, ?2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, ?2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, ?2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, ?2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42018116860.

Project description:ObjectivesThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).MethodsEight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty-five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately.ConclusionsSerious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Project description:ObjectiveOverview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses of prospective studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception date to 15 September 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesProspective studies assessing AEs caused by needle acupuncture in humans as primary outcome published in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers selected articles, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Overall risks and risks for different AE categories were obtained from random effects meta-analyses.Main outcomesOverall risk of minor AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) per patients and per treatments.ResultsA total of 7679 publications were identified. Twenty-two articles reporting on 21 studies were included. Meta-analyses suggest at least one AE occurring in 9.31% (95% CI 5.10% to 14.62%, 11 studies) of patients undergoing an acupuncture series and in 7.57% (95% CI 1.43% to 17.95%, 5 studies) of treatments. Summary risk estimates for SAEs were 1.01 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.33, 11 studies) per 10 000 patients and 7.98 (95% CI 1.39 to 20.00, 14 studies) per one million treatments, for AEs requiring treatment 1.14 (95% CI 0.00 to 7.37, 8 studies) per 1000 patients. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 >80%). On average, 9.4 AEs occurred in 100 treatments. Half of the AEs were bleeding, pain or flare at the needle site that are argued to represent intended acupuncture reaction. AE definitions and assessments varied largely.ConclusionAcupuncture can be considered among the safer treatments in medicine. SAEs are rare, and the most common minor AEs are very mild. AEs requiring medical management are uncommon but necessitate medical competence to assure patient safety. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity call for standardised AE assessments tools, clear criteria for differentiating acupuncture-related AEs from therapeutically desired reactions, and identification of patient-related risk factors for AEs.Prospero registration numberCRD42020151930.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with use of varenicline compared with placebo in randomised controlled trials.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis comparing study effects using two summary estimates in fixed effects models, risk differences, and Peto odds ratios.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials with a placebo comparison group that reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events (depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide, insomnia, sleep disorders, abnormal dreams, somnolence, fatigue, anxiety) and death. Studies that did not involve human participants, did not use the maximum recommended dose of varenicline (1 mg twice daily), and were cross over trials were excluded.ResultsIn the 39 randomised controlled trials (10,761 participants), there was no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 8.57), suicidal ideation (0.58, 0.28 to 1.20), depression (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22), irritability (0.98, 0.81 to 1.17), aggression (0.91, 0.52 to 1.59), or death (1.05, 0.47 to 2.38) in the varenicline users compared with placebo users. Varenicline was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders (1.63, 1.29 to 2.07), insomnia (1.56, 1.36 to 1.78), abnormal dreams (2.38, 2.05 to 2.77), and fatigue (1.28, 1.06 to 1.55) but a reduced risk of anxiety (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93). Similar findings were observed when risk differences were reported. There was no evidence for a variation in depression and suicidal ideation by age group, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, presence or absence of psychiatric illness, and type of study sponsor (that is, pharmaceutical industry or other).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, or death with varenicline. These findings provide some reassurance for users and prescribers regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline. There was evidence that varenicline was associated with a higher risk of sleep problems such as insomnia and abnormal dreams. These side effects, however, are already well recognised.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009224.