Background and Objectives: Besides corticosteroids, clinicians found that vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) has a potential effect on vestibular neuritis (VN) improvement. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of both corticosteroid therapy (CT) compared to VRT, and each group compared to their combination (CT vs. (CT+VRT) and VRT vs. (CT + VRT). Materials and Methods: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the administration of at least CT and VRT for VN. The outcome of interest was VN’s subjective and objective improvement parameters. Results: Four RCTs involving a total of 182 patients with VN were eligible for systematic review and meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) of canal paresis (objective parameter) in the CT group is significantly lower than in the VRT group after a 1 month follow-up (8.31; 95% CI: 0.29, −16.32; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Meanwhile, the WMD of Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (subjective parameter) in the VRT group is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 1 month follow-up (−3.95; 95% CI: −7.69, −0.21; p = 0.04; fixed effect). Similarly, the WMD of DHI in the combination group (CT+VRT) is significantly lower than in the CT group after a 3 month follow-up (3.15; 95% CI: 1.50, 4.80; p = 0.0002; fixed effect). However, there is no significant difference in all outcomes after 12 months of follow-ups in all groups (CT vs. VRT, CT vs. combination, and VRT vs. combination). Conclusions: This study indicates that CT enhances the earlier canal paresis improvement, as the objective parameter, while VRT gives the earlier DHI score improvement, as the subjective parameter. However, their long-term efficacy does not appear to be different. VRT has to be offered as the primary option for patients with VN, and corticosteroids can be added to provide better recovery in the absence of its contraindication. However, whether to choose VRT, CT, or its combination should be tailored to the patient’s condition. Future studies are still needed to revisit this issue, due to the small number of trials in this field. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021220615).
Vaccination is significant to control, mitigate, and recover from the destructive effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The incidence of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination has been increasing and growing public concern; however, little is known about it. This study aimed to systematically review myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. We included studies containing individual patient data of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination published between January 1, 2020 and September 7, 2022 and excluded review articles. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisals were used for risk of bias assessment. Descriptive and analytic statistics were performed. A total of 121 reports and 43 case series from five databases were included. We identified 396 published cases of myocarditis and observed that the majority of cases was male patients, happened following the second dose of mRNA vaccine administration, and experienced chest pain as a symptom. Previous COVID-19 infection was significantly associated (p < 0.01; OR, 5.74; 95% CI, 2.42–13.64) with the risk of myocarditis following the administration of the first dose, indicating that its primary mechanism is immune-mediated. Moreover, 63 histopathology examinations were dominated by non-infective subtypes. Electrocardiography and cardiac marker combination is a sensitive screening modality. However, cardiac magnetic resonance is a significant noninvasive examination to confirm myocarditis. Endomyocardial biopsy may be considered in confusing and severe cases. Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination is relatively benign, with a median length of hospitalization of 5 days, intensive care unit admission of <12%, and mortality of <2%. The majority was treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine, and steroids. Surprisingly, deceased cases had characteristics of being female, older age, non-chest pain symptoms, first-dose vaccination, left ventricular ejection fraction of <30%, fulminant myocarditis, and eosinophil infiltrate histopathology.
BACKGROUND: Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax are frequent causes of malaria. Although they are blood parasites, their biological characteristics are dissimilar, and their species-related consequences on hematological parameters have not been widely investigated. They might be valuable to distinguish both species infection, notably for an endemic region with limited diagnostic resources. AIM: This study aimed to know the species-specific effect on hematological parameters and its correlation to the parasite density in P. vivax- and P. falciparum-infected patients attending Merauke General Hospital, Papua, Indonesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Malaria patients confirmed by blood film microscopy from January 1 to July 31, 2019, were recruited, and their hematological parameters were measured using Sysmex XN-1000 instrument. All obtained data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: From 100 malaria-positive patients, 87 patients, consisting of 57 P. vivax and 30 P. falciparum patients, met criteria. Anemia and parasite density >50,000 parasites/μL were significantly higher in P. falciparum than P. vivax patients (p < 0.05) though hemoglobin concentration and parasite density were insignificantly different. Interestingly, basophil count was significantly higher in P. falciparum compared to P. vivax patients (p = 0.04). The eosinophil count was significantly higher in P. vivax (p = 0.01) than P. falciparum patients and indicated a significant positive correlation (p = 0.04, r = +0.28) with the parasite density. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences between basophil and eosinophil count between P. vivax and P. falciparum infections. Eosinophil count showed a significant positive correlation with parasite density.
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
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.