Healthcare decisions for individual patients and for public health policies should be informed by the best available research evidence. The practice of evidence-based medicine is the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research and patient's values and expectations. Primary care physicians need evidence for both clinical practice and for public health decision making. The evidence comes from good reviews which is a state-of-the-art synthesis of current evidence on a given research question. Given the explosion of medical literature, and the fact that time is always scarce, review articles play a vital role in decision making in evidence-based medical practice. Given that most clinicians and public health professionals do not have the time to track down all the original articles, critically read them, and obtain the evidence they need for their questions, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines may be their best source of evidence. Systematic reviews aim to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies over a health-related issue, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers. The objective of this article is to introduce the primary care physicians about the concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, outlining why they are important, describing their methods and terminologies used, and thereby helping them with the skills to recognize and understand a reliable review which will be helpful for their day-to-day clinical practice and research activities.

IntroductionDengue is the most extensively spread mosquito-borne disease; endemic in more than 100 countries. Information about dengue disease burden, its prevalence, incidence and geographic distribution is critical in planning appropriate control measures against dengue fever. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of dengue fever in IndiaMethodsWe searched for studies published until 2017 reporting the incidence, the prevalence or case fatality of dengue in India. Our primary outcomes were (a) prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients, (b) seroprevalence in the general population and (c) case fatality ratio among laboratory confirmed dengue patients. We used binomial–normal mixed effects regression model to estimate the pooled proportion of dengue infections. Forest plots were used to display pooled estimates. The metafor package of R software was used to conduct meta-analysis.ResultsOf the 2285 identified articles on dengue, we included 233 in the analysis wherein 180 reported prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection, seven reported seroprevalence as evidenced by IgG or neutralizing antibodies against dengue and 77 reported case fatality. The overall estimate of the prevalence of laboratory confirmed dengue infection among clinically suspected patients was 38.3% (95% CI: 34.8%–41.8%). The pooled estimate of dengue seroprevalence in the general population and CFR among laboratory confirmed patients was 56.9% (95% CI: 37.5–74.4) and 2.6% (95% CI: 2–3.4) respectively. There was significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes (p-values<0.001).ConclusionsIdentified gaps in the understanding of dengue epidemiology in India emphasize the need to initiate community-based cohort studies representing different geographic regions to generate reliable estimates of age-specific incidence of dengue and studies to generate dengue seroprevalence data in the country.

Superficial fungal infections are most common in tropical and subtropical countries. In this study, 297 suspected superficial fungal infection cases were identified among 15,950 patients screened. The collected samples (skin, nail, and hair) were subjected to direct microscopy with potassium hydroxide and cultured on Sabourauds dextrose agar to identify the fungal species. The prevalence of superficial fungal infection was 27.6% (82/297), dermatophytosis was 75.6% (62/82), and non-dermatophytosis was 24.4% (20/82). Among the isolated dermatophytes, Trichophyton rubrum was the commonest species (79%) and Candida (60%) the commonest non-dermatophytic species. Tinea corporis was the commonest (78%) clinical presentation.

The India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) is a multi‐partner initiative, implementing and scaling up a public health hypertension control program across India. A cohort of 21,895 adult hypertension patients in 24 IHCI sentinel site facilities in four Indian states (Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Telangana), registered from January 2018 until June 2019 were assessed at baseline and then followed up for blood pressure (BP) control and antihypertensive medication use. Among all registrations, 11 274 (51%) of the patients returned for a follow‐up visit between July 2019 and September 2019. Among patients returning for follow‐up, 26.3% had BP controlled at registration, and 59.8% had BP controlled at follow‐up (p < .001). The absolute improvement in BP control was more than two times greater in primary care (48.1 percentage point increase) than secondary care facilities (22.9 percentage point increase). Most IHCI patients received prescriptions according to state‐specific treatment protocols. This study demonstrates that a scalable public health hypertension control program can yield substantial BP control improvements, especially in primary care settings. However, high loss to follow‐up limits population health impact; future efforts should focus on improving systems to increase the likelihood that patients will return to the clinic for routine hypertension care.

Background The monitoring framework for evaluating health system response to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) include indicators to assess availability of affordable basic technologies and essential medicines to treat them in both public and private primary care facilities. The Government of India launched the National Program for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS) in 2010 to strengthen health systems. We assessed availability of trained human resources, essential medicines and technologies for diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases as one of the components of the National Noncommunicable Disease Monitoring Survey (NNMS - 2017-18). Methods NNMS was a cross-sectional survey. Health facility survey component covered three public [Primary health centre (PHC), Community health centre (CHC) and District hospital (DH)] and one private primary in each of the 600 primary sampling units (PSUs) selected by stratified multistage random sampling to be nationally representative. Survey teams interviewed medical officers, laboratory technicians, and pharmacists using an adapted World Health Organization (WHO) – Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) tool on handhelds with Open Data Kit (ODK) technology. List of essential medicines and technology was according to WHO - Package of Essential Medicines and Technologies for NCDs (PEN) and NPCDCS guidelines for primary and secondary facilities, respectively. Availability was defined as reported to be generally available within facility premises. Results Total of 537 public and 512 private primary facilities, 386 CHCs and 334 DHs across India were covered. NPCDCS was being implemented in 72.8% of CHCs and 86.8% of DHs. All essential technologies and medicines available to manage three NCDs in primary care varied between 1.1% (95% CI; 0.3–3.3) in rural public to 9.0% (95% CI; 6.2–13.0) in urban private facilities. In NPCDCS implementing districts, 0.4% of CHCs and 14.5% of the DHs were fully equipped. DHs were well staffed, CHCs had deficits in physiotherapist and specialist positions, whereas PHCs reported shortage of nurse-midwives and health assistants. Training under NPCDCS was uniformly poor across all facilities. Conclusion Both private and public primary care facilities and public secondary facilities are currently not adequately prepared to comprehensively address the burden of NCDs in India.