This article describes updates of the meta-analysis command metan and options that have been added since the command's original publication (Bradburn, Deeks, and Altman, metan-an alternative meta-analysis command, Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, vol. 8, pp. 86-100). These include version 9 graphics with flexible display options, the ability to meta-analyze precalculated effect estimates, and the ability to analyze subgroups by using the by() option. Changes to the output, saved variables, and saved results are also described.

Background The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes. Methods This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status. Findings Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17–43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32–3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08–1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47–8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69–3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29–4·16] and 1·43 [1·04–1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low. Interpretation This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant. Funding Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovati...

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is characterised by the presence of immune responses to previously acquired Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection without clinical evidence of active tuberculosis (TB). Here we report evidence based guidelines from the World Health Organization for a public health approach to the management of LTBI in high risk individuals in countries with high or middle upper income and TB incidence of <100 per 100 000 per year. The guidelines strongly recommend systematic testing and treatment of LTBI in people living with HIV, adult and child contacts of pulmonary TB cases, patients initiating anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment, patients receiving dialysis, patients preparing for organ or haematological transplantation, and patients with silicosis. In prisoners, healthcare workers, immigrants from high TB burden countries, homeless persons and illicit drug users, systematic testing and treatment of LTBI is conditionally recommended, according to TB epidemiology and resource availability. Either commercial interferon gamma release assays or Mantoux tuberculin skin testing could be used to test for LTBI. Chest radiography should be performed before LTBI treatment to rule out active TB disease. Recommended treatment regimens for LTBI include: 6 or 9 month isoniazid; 12 week rifapentine plus isoniazid; 3–4 month isoniazid plus rifampicin; or 3–4 month rifampicin alone.

Objectives To determine whether BCG vaccination protects against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection as assessed by interferon γ release assays (IGRA) in children.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches of electronic databases 1950 to November 2013, checking of reference lists, hand searching of journals, and contact with experts. Setting Community congregate settings and households.Inclusion criteria Vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged under 16 with known recent exposure to patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Children were screened for infection with M tuberculosis with interferon γ release assays. Data extractionStudy results relating to diagnostic accuracy were extracted and risk estimates were combined with random effects meta-analysis. ResultsThe primary analysis included 14 studies and 3855 participants. The estimated overall risk ratio was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.92), indicating a protective efficacy of 19% against infection among vaccinated children after exposure compared with unvaccinated children. The observed protection was similar when estimated with the two types of interferon γ release assays (ELISpot or QuantiFERON). Restriction of the analysis to the six studies (n=1745) with information on progression to active tuberculosis at the time of screening showed protection against infection of 27% (risk ratio 0.73, 0.61 to 0.87) compared with 71% (0.29, 0.15 to 0.58) against active tuberculosis. Among those infected, protection against progression to disease was 58% (0.42, 0.23 to 0.77). Conclusions BCG protects against M tuberculosis infection as well as progression from infection to disease.Trial registration PROSPERO registration No CRD42011001698 (www. crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). IntroductionBCG vaccine has been the subject of numerous efficacy trials and epidemiological studies conducted over several decades. These trials indicate that BCG has 60-80% protective efficacy against severe forms of tuberculosis in children, particularly meningitis, 1 2 and its efficacy against pulmonary diseases varies geographically.3-5 BCG does not seem to protect against disease when it is given to people already infected or sensitised to environmental mycobacteria, which could explain the geographical variation.6-8 Until recently it was not possible to establish whether the protective effect of BCG vaccination against disease was from its action in preventing acquisition of infection or limited to prevention of progression from infection to clinical disease.The scarcity of evidence on whether the vaccine is effective against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection was because of limitations of the tuberculin skin test. This test cannot distinguish a positive response caused by M tuberculosis infection from that caused by BCG vaccination or non-tuberculous In this systematic review we examined the evidence for the protective effect of BCG against M tuberculosis infection, as opposed to against disease, in settings where children can be presumed to have been exposed to M tu...