Gonorrhoea: a systematic review of prevalence reporting globally
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends periodic gonorrhoea prevalence assessments in the general population or proxies thereof (including pregnant women, women attending family planning clinics, military recruits, and men undergoing employment physicals for example) and in population groups at increased risk, including men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and sex workers. Method
We evaluated reported prevalence data, including estimates from proxy general population samples to reflect the WHO recommendations. We describe the outcomes from the general population country-by-country and extend previous reviews to include MSM, sex workers, and extragenital infections. Result and conclusion
In our systematic search, 2015 titles were reviewed (January 2010–April 2019) and 174 full-text publications were included. National, population-based prevalence data were identified in only four countries (the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Peru, New Caledonia) and local population-based estimates were reported in areas within five countries (China, South Africa, Brazil, Benin, and Malawi). The remaining studies identified only reported test positivity from non-probability, proxy general population samples. Due to the diversity of the reviewed studies, detailed comparison across studies was not possible. In MSM, data were identified from 64 studies in 25 countries. Rectal infection rates were generally higher than urogenital or pharyngeal infection rates, where extragenital testing was conducted. Data on sex workers were identified from 41 studies in 23 countries; rates in female sex workers were high. Current prevalence monitoring was shown to be highly suboptimal worldwide. Serial prevalence monitoring of critical epidemiological variables, and guidelines to optimize prevalence study conduct and reporting beyond antenatal settings are recommended. Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06381-4.
SUBMITTER: Whelan J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8582208 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this systematic review study was to determine the national, regional, and global prevalence of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) vaping.MethodThe articles were searched in July 2020 without a time limit in Web of Science (ISI), Scopus, PubMed, and Ovid-MEDLINE. At first, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed, and if they were appropriate, they entered the second stage of screening. In the second stage, the whole articles were reviewed and articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. In this study, search, selection of studies, qualitative evaluation, and data extraction were performed by two authors independently, and any disagreement between the two authors was reviewed and corrected by a third author.ResultsIn this study, the lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping globally were 23% and 11%, respectively. Lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in women were 16% and 8%, respectively. Also, lifetime and current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in men were 22% and 12%, respectively. In this study, the current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in who had lifetime smoked conventional cigarette was 39%, and in current smokers was 43%. The lifetime prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in the Continents of America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania were 24%, 26%, 16%, and 25%, respectively. The current prevalence of e-cigarettes vaping in the Continents of America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania were 10%, 14%, 11%, and 6%, respectively.ConclusionsBased on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the popularity of e-cigarettes is increasing globally. Therefore, it is necessary for countries to have more control over the consumption and distribution of e-cigarettes, as well as to formulate the laws prohibiting about the e-cigarettes vaping in public places. There is also a need to design and conduct information campaigns to increase community awareness about e-cigarettes vaping.
| S-EPMC9682677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence and prevalence of SSc covering the entire literature.MethodsThis study followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of 2009. We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase to identify articles reporting incidence and/or prevalence of SSc. Two authors conducted the search, reviewed articles for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We used random-effects models to estimate the pooled prevalence and incidence of SSc and performed subgroup analyses by sex, case definition and region to investigate heterogeneity. We explored the association between calendar period and reported estimates using meta-regression.ResultsAmong 6983 unique records identified, we included 61 studies of prevalence and 39 studies of incidence in the systematic review. The overall pooled prevalence of SSc was 17.6 (95% CI 15.1, 20.5) per 100 000 and the overall pooled incidence rate of SSc was 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.9) per 100 000 person-years. We observed significant regional variations in reported estimates; studies conducted in North America reported considerably higher estimates than other regions. The pooled incidence and prevalence in women were five times higher than in men. More recent studies reported higher estimates than older ones.ConclusionIn this comprehensive review of the incidence and prevalence of SSc across the world, there was large heterogeneity among estimates, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
| S-EPMC8516513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany publications report the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the general population. Comparisons across studies are hampered as CKD prevalence estimations are influenced by study population characteristics and laboratory methods.MethodsFor this systematic review, two researchers independently searched PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all original research articles that were published between 1 January 2003 and 1 November 2014 reporting the prevalence of CKD in the European adult general population. Data on study methodology and reporting of CKD prevalence results were independently extracted by two researchers.ResultsWe identified 82 eligible publications and included 48 publications of individual studies for the data extraction. There was considerable variation in population sample selection. The majority of studies did not report the sampling frame used, and the response ranged from 10 to 87%. With regard to the assessment of kidney function, 67% used a Jaffe assay, whereas 13% used the enzymatic assay for creatinine determination. Isotope dilution mass spectrometry calibration was used in 29%. The CKD-EPI (52%) and MDRD (75%) equations were most often used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). CKD was defined as estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in 92% of studies. Urinary markers of CKD were assessed in 60% of the studies. CKD prevalence was reported by sex and age strata in 54 and 50% of the studies, respectively. In publications with a primary objective of reporting CKD prevalence, 39% reported a 95% confidence interval.ConclusionsThe findings from this systematic review showed considerable variation in methods for sampling the general population and assessment of kidney function across studies reporting CKD prevalence. These results are utilized to provide recommendations to help optimize both the design and the reporting of future CKD prevalence studies, which will enhance comparability of study results.
| S-EPMC4514069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGhostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.ObjectiveTo systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.Eligibility criteriaAll publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.ResultsOf the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.ConclusionsEvidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.
| S-EPMC4120312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To generate estimates of the global prevalence and incidence of urogenital infection with chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis in women and men, aged 15-49 years, in 2016. Methods:For chlamydia, gonorrhoea and trichomoniasis, we systematically searched for studies conducted between 2009 and 2016 reporting prevalence. We also consulted regional experts. To generate estimates, we used Bayesian meta-analysis. For syphilis, we aggregated the national estimates generated by using Spectrum-STI. Findings:For chlamydia, gonorrhoea and/or trichomoniasis, 130 studies were eligible. For syphilis, the Spectrum-STI database contained 978 data points for the same period. The 2016 global prevalence estimates in women were: chlamydia 3.8% (95% uncertainty interval, UI: 3.3-4.5); gonorrhoea 0.9% (95% UI: 0.7-1.1); trichomoniasis 5.3% (95% UI:4.0-7.2); and syphilis 0.5% (95% UI: 0.4-0.6). In men prevalence estimates were: chlamydia 2.7% (95% UI: 1.9-3.7); gonorrhoea 0.7% (95% UI: 0.5-1.1); trichomoniasis 0.6% (95% UI: 0.4-0.9); and syphilis 0.5% (95% UI: 0.4-0.6). Total estimated incident cases were 376.4 million: 127.2 million (95% UI: 95.1-165.9 million) chlamydia cases; 86.9 million (95% UI: 58.6-123.4 million) gonorrhoea cases; 156.0 million (95% UI: 103.4-231.2 million) trichomoniasis cases; and 6.3 million (95% UI: 5.5-7.1 million) syphilis cases. Conclusion:Global estimates of prevalence and incidence of these four curable sexually transmitted infections remain high. The study highlights the need to expand data collection efforts at country level and provides an initial baseline for monitoring progress of the World Health Organization global health sector strategy on sexually transmitted infections 2016-2021.
| S-EPMC6653813 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHepatitis delta virus (HDV) is a satellite RNA virus that relies on hepatitis B virus (HBV) for transmission. HIV/HBV/HDV coinfection or triple infection is common and has a worse prognosis than monoinfection.ObjectiveWe aimed to reveal the epidemiological characteristics of HIV/HBV/HDV triple infection in the global population.MethodsA systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies of the prevalence of HIV/HBV/HDV triple infection published from January 1, 1990, to May 31, 2021. The Der Simonian-Laird random effects model was used to calculate the pooled prevalence.ResultsWe included 14 studies with 11,852 participants. The pooled triple infection rate in the global population was 7.4% (877/11,852; 95% CI 0.73%-29.59%). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the prevalence of triple infection was significantly higher in the Asian population (214/986, 21.4%; 95% CI 7.1%-35.8%), in men (212/5579, 3.8%; 95% CI 2.5%-5.2%), and in men who have sex with men (216/2734, 7.9%; 95% CI 4.3%-11.4%). In addition, compared with people living with HIV, the HIV/HBV/HDV triple infection rate was higher in people with hepatitis B.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that the prevalence of HIV/HBV/HDV triple infection in the global population is underestimated, and we should focus more effort on the prevention and control of HIV/HBV/HDV triple infection.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021273949; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=273949.
| S-EPMC9748799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adverse drug reactions are major global public health problems and an important cause of mortality. Problems related to medicines safety can emerge from real-life medication use due to increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and noncommunicable diseases, hence leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems. The objective of this review was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals in Ethiopia. Relevant literatures were searched from Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct using inclusion and exclusion criteria. From 133 searched studies, 13 studies were reviewed. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting ranged from 22.68% -60.33% and 47.22% -67.14%, with averages of 41.50% and 57.18%, respectively. While 46.93% encountered adverse drug reactions and 41.8% reported in the last 12 months. One-third (34.15%) of health care professionals do not know how to report adverse drug reactions. Fearing to report, uncertainty about the adverse drug reaction, concern about reporting generating extra work, thinking that one report does not make any difference, nonavailability of reporting forms, and lack of feedback from regulatory authority were the stated reasons for underreporting. We conclude that the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals towards spontaneous ADR reporting were low. Conducting awareness and educational training and implementation of electronic reporting can improve the ADR reporting practice.
| S-EPMC7439161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the oncological safety of TM but reporting of critically important outcomes, such as quality of life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, are limited, piecemeal or inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to identify all outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM to facilitate development of a core outcome set. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to 5 August 2020. Included studies reported clinical outcomes following TM for adult women. Two authors screened articles independently for eligibility. Data were extracted regarding the outcome definition and classification type (for example, oncological, quality of life, etc.), time of outcome reporting and measurement tools. Of 5709 de-duplicated records, 148 were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority of studies (n = 102, 68.9 per cent) reported measures of survival and/or recurrence; approximately three-quarters (n = 75, 73.5 per cent) had less than 5 years follow-up. Aesthetic outcome was reported in half of studies (n = 75, 50.7 per cent) using mainly subjective, non-validated measurement tools. The time point at which aesthetic assessment was conducted was highly variable, and only defined in 48 (64.0 per cent) studies and none included a preoperative baseline for comparison. Few studies reported quality of life (n = 30, 20.3 per cent), functional outcomes (n = 5, 3.4 per cent) or resource use (n = 28, 18.9 per cent). Given the oncological equivalence of TM and mastectomy, treatment decisions are often driven by aesthetic and functional outcomes, which are infrequently and inconsistently reported with non-validated measurement tools.
| S-EPMC8665419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimAdverse drug events (ADEs) are harmful and unintended consequences of medications. Their reporting is essential for drug safety monitoring and research, but it has not been standardized internationally. Our aim was to synthesize information about the type and variety of data collected within ADE reporting systems.MethodsWe developed a systematic search strategy, applied it to four electronic databases, and completed an electronic grey literature search. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and all eligible full-texts. We extracted data using a standardized form, and discussed disagreements until reaching consensus. We synthesized data by collapsing data elements, eliminating duplicate fields and identifying relationships between reporting concepts and data fields using visual analysis software.ResultsWe identified 108 ADE reporting systems containing 1782 unique data fields. We mapped them to 33 reporting concepts describing patient information, the ADE, concomitant and suspect drugs, and the reporter. While reporting concepts were fairly consistent, we found variability in data fields and corresponding response options. Few systems clarified the terminology used, and many used multiple drug and disease dictionaries such as the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).ConclusionWe found substantial variability in the data fields used to report ADEs, limiting the comparability of ADE data collected using different reporting systems, and undermining efforts to aggregate data across cohorts. The development of a common standardized data set that can be evaluated with regard to data quality, comparability and reporting rates is likely to optimize ADE data and drug safety surveillance.
| S-EPMC4917803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.
| S-EPMC3898583 | biostudies-literature