Objective: Previous meta-analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods:We searched PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to January 27, 2020 to identify relevant systematic reviews. The RCTs included in systematic reviews were identified. Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results:A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.28, P > .05), laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.11), laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). Conclusion:The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.
Background National immunisation programmes globally are at risk of suspension due to the severe health system constraints and physical distancing measures in place to mitigate the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to compare the health benefits of sustaining routine childhood immunisation in Africa with the risk of acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection through visiting routine vaccination service delivery points. Methods We considered a high-impact scenario and a low-impact scenario to approximate the child deaths that could be caused by immunisation coverage reductions during COVID-19 outbreaks. In the high-impact scenario, we used previously reported country-specific child mortality impact estimates of childhood immunisation for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, measles, meningitis A, rubella, and yellow fever to approximate the future deaths averted before 5 years of age by routine childhood vaccination during a 6-month COVID-19 risk period without catch-up campaigns. In the low-impact scenario, we approximated the health benefits of sustaining routine childhood immunisation on only the child deaths averted from measles outbreaks during the COVID-19 risk period. We assumed that contact-reducing interventions flattened the outbreak curve during the COVID-19 risk period, that 60% of the population will have been infected by the end of that period, that children can be infected by either vaccinators or during transport, and that upon child infection the whole household will be infected. Country-specific household age structure estimates and age-dependent infection-fatality rates were applied to calculate the number of deaths attributable to the vaccination clinic visits. We present benefit-risk ratios for routine childhood immunisation, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Findings In the high-impact scenario, for every one excess COVID-19 death attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections acquired during routine vaccination clinic visits, 84 (95% UI 14-267) deaths in children could be prevented by sustaining routine childhood immunisation in Africa. The benefit-risk ratio for the vaccinated children is 85 000 (4900-546 000), for their siblings (<20 years) is 75 000 (4400-483 000), for their parents or adult carers (aged 20-60 years) is 769 (148-2700), and for older adults (>60 years) is 96 (14-307). In the low-impact scenario that approximates the health benefits to only the child deaths averted from measles outbreaks, the benefit-risk ratio to the households of vaccinated children is 3 (0•5-10); if the risk to only the vaccinated children is considered, the benefitrisk ratio is 3000 (182-21 000). Interpretation The deaths prevented by sustaining routine childhood immunisation in Africa outweigh the excess risk of COVID-19 deaths associated with vaccination clinic visits, especially for the vaccinated children. Routine childhood immunisation should be su...
Background COVID-19 has spread to 6 continents. Now is opportune to gain a deeper understanding of what may have happened. The findings can help inform mitigation strategies in the disease-affected countries.Methods In this work, we examine an essential factor that characterizes the disease transmission patterns: the interactions among people. We develop a computational model to reveal the interactions in terms of the social contact patterns among the population of different age-groups. We divide a city's
Owing to the complexity of spinal surgery, there is a great prevalence of dural tear causing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage. Many studies focused on suture repair for dural tear to stop CSF leak. Now some new treatment strategies have shown a promising effect that is listed as follows: 1) creating watertight dural closure to stop CSF leak with the help of dural substitute material; and 2) retarding CSF leak by changing pressure difference, including reducing the subarachnoid fluid pressure, increasing the epidural space pressure and both. In fact several methods mentioned above are usually combined to treat CSF leak. However, no update review summarized the relevant studies implemented in recent years. In this review, the authors would compare the effects of different dural closure techniques, and introduce the latest treatment methods and mechanisms.
In this pilot study, the ThromboLUX score strongly correlated with transfusion outcome (PLT recovery and survival) independent of clinical and product issues.
Background:Postdural puncture headache (PDPH), mainly resulting from the loss of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), is a well-known iatrogenic complication of spinal anesthesia and diagnostic lumbar puncture. Spinal needles have been modified to minimize complications. Modifiable risk factors of PDPH mainly included needle size and needle shape. However, whether the incidence of PDPH is significantly different between cutting-point and pencil-point needles was controversial. Then we did a meta-analysis to assess the incidence of PDPH of cutting spinal needle and pencil-point spinal needle.Methods:We included all randomly designed trials, assessing the clinical outcomes in patients given elective spinal anesthesia or diagnostic lumbar puncture with either cutting or pencil-point spinal needle as eligible studies. All selected studies and the risk of bias of them were assessed by 2 investigators. Clinical outcomes including success rates, frequency of PDPH, reported severe PDPH, and the use of epidural blood patch (EBP) were recorded as primary results. Results were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables. Rev Man software (version 5.3) was used to analyze all appropriate data.Results:Twenty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our study. The analysis result revealed that pencil-point spinal needle would result in lower rate of PDPH (RR 2.50; 95% CI [1.96, 3.19]; P < 0.00001) and severe PDPH (RR 3.27; 95% CI [2.15, 4.96]; P < 0.00001). Furthermore, EBP was less used in pencil-point spine needle group (RR 3.69; 95% CI [1.96, 6.95]; P < 0.0001).Conclusions:Current evidences suggest that pencil-point spinal needle was significantly superior compared with cutting spinal needle regarding the frequency of PDPH, PDPH severity, and the use of EBP. In view of this, we recommend the use of pencil-point spinal needle in spinal anesthesia and lumbar puncture.
Background: Tubulointerstitial fibrosis (TIF) plays an important role in the progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Forkhead box O1 (FoxO1) is involved in the regulation of metabolism and cell apoptosis, but its function in renal TIF induced by DKD is less well understood. Methods: Human kidney biopsies with DKD and normal controls were used to detect apoptosis and TIF induced by diabetes. A mouse model with kidney-specific overexpression of Pax2-3aFoxO1 was established to further investigate the functions of FoxO1 in vivo. The in vitro roles of FoxO1 were analyzed in HK-2 cells with 3aFoxO1-knockin (3aFoxO1-KI) or FoxO1-knockdown (FoxO1-KD) via CRISPR/Cas9. Western blot, immunohistochemistry, and chromatin immunoprecipitation were used to explore the underlying mechanisms. Findings: In this study, DKD patients had increased renal TIF and apoptosis. In vivo study showed that kidney-specific overexpression of Pax2-3aFoxO1 significantly reduced the expression of p-STAT1 with resultant renal functional impairment, retarding renal TIF and apoptosis in diabetic mice. Meanwhile, We observed that FoxO1-KD in HK-2 cells aggravated the expression of p-STAT1, leading to activation of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and intrinsic apoptotic pathway. Conversely, EMT and apoptosis were significantly attenuated in HK-2 cells with 3aFoxO1-KI under hyperglycemic conditions. Interpretation: Taken together, these data suggest that the protection role of FoxO1 against renal TIF and apoptosis in DKD is likely in part to target STAT1 signaling, which may be a promising strategy for longterm treatment of DKD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.