Background: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine's efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials. Methods:We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration. Results:We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on allcause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56-0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I 2 = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I 2 = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I 2 = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75-1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49, for allcause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14, for all-cause mortality).Interpretation: Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.

BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies.MethodsWe searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce.ResultsThe searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis.ConclusionThere is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMycoplasma genitalium is a common cause of non-gonococcal non-chlamydial urethritis and cervicitis. Testing of asymptomatic populations has been proposed, but prevalence in asymptomatic populations is not well established. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of M. genitalium in the general population, pregnant women, men who have sex with men (MSM), commercial sex workers (CSWs) and clinic-based samples.MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, IndMED, African Index Medicus and LILACS from 1 January 1991 to 12 July 2016 without language restrictions. We included studies with 500 participants or more. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies and extracted data. We examined forest plots and conducted random-effects meta-analysis to estimate prevalence, if appropriate. Between-study heterogeneity was examined using the I2 statistic and meta-regression.ResultsOf 3316 screened records, 63 were included. In randomly selected samples from the general population, the summary prevalence was 1.3% (95% CI 1.0% to 1.8%, I2 41.5%, three studies, 9091 people) in countries with higher levels of development and 3.9% (95% CI 2.2 to 6.7, I2 89.2%, three studies, 3809 people) in countries with lower levels. Prevalence was similar in women and men (P=0.47). In clinic based samples, prevalence estimates were higher, except in asymptomatic patients (0.8%, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4, I2 0.0%, three studies, 2889 people). Summary prevalence estimates were, in the following groups: pregnant women 0.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.4%, I2 0%, four studies, 3472 people), MSM in the community 3.2% (95% CI 2.1 to 5.1, I2 78.3%, five studies, 3012 people) and female CSWs in the community 15.9% (95% CI 13.5 to 18.9, I2 79.9%, four studies, 4006 people).DiscussionThis systematic review can inform testing guidelines for M. genitalium. The low estimated prevalence of M. genitalium in the general population, pregnant women and asymptomatic attenders at clinics does not support expansion of testing to these groups.Registration numbersPROSPERO: CRD42015020420

BackgroundIntravaginal practices are commonly used by women to manage their vaginal health and sexual life. These practices could, however, affect intravaginal mucosal integrity. The objectives of this study were to examine evidence for associations between: intravaginal practices and acquisition of HIV infection; intravaginal practices and vaginal infections; and vaginal infections and HIV acquisition.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies, searching 15 electronic databases of journals and abstracts from two international conferences to 31st January 2008. Relevant articles were selected and data extracted in duplicate. Results were examined visually in forest plots and combined using random effects meta-analysis where appropriate. Of 2120 unique references we included 22 publications from 15 different studies in sub-Saharan Africa and the USA. Seven publications from five studies examined a range of intravaginal practices and HIV infection. No specific vaginal practices showed a protective effect against HIV or vaginal infections. Insertion of products for sex was associated with HIV in unadjusted analyses; only one study gave an adjusted estimate, which showed no association (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.71, 1.67). HIV incidence was higher in women reporting intravaginal cleansing but confidence intervals were wide and heterogeneity high (adjusted hazard ratio 1.88, 95%CI 0.53, 6.69, I2 83.2%). HIV incidence was higher in women with bacterial vaginosis (adjusted effect 1.57, 95%CI 1.26, 1.94, I2 19.0%) and Trichomonas vaginalis (adjusted effect 1.64, 95%CI 1.28, 2.09, I2 0.0%).Conclusions/SignificanceA pathway linking intravaginal cleaning practices with vaginal infections that increase susceptibility to HIV infection is plausible but conclusive evidence is lacking. Intravaginal practices do not appear to protect women from vaginal infections or HIV and some might be harmful.