| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Priebe, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Good practice in mental health care for socially marginalized groups in Europe : a qualitative study in 14 countries
- 2012
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; :12, s. 248-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background:Socially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general populationand can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particularchallenge, and evidence on good practice is required. Thisstudy explored the experiences and views of experts in 14European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sexworkers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities.Methods:Two highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed foreach of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to exploreexperiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis.Results:In a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishingoutreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services thatprovide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c)strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination betweendifferent services; and d) disseminating information onservices both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area.Conclusions:Experts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care formarginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information.
|
|
| 4. |
- Priebe, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Mental health-care provision for marginalized groups across Europe: findings from the PROMO study
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Public Health. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1101-1262 .- 1464-360X. ; 23:1, s. 97-103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Providing mental health care to socially marginalized groups is a challenge. There is limited evidence on what form of mental health-care generic (i.e. not targeting a specific social group) and group-specific services provide to socially marginalized groups in Europe. Aim: To describe the characteristics of services providing mental health care for people with mental disorders from socially marginalized groups in European capitals. Methods: In two highly deprived areas in different European capital cities, services providing some form of mental health care for six marginalized groups, i.e. homeless, street sex workers, asylum seekers/refugees, irregular migrants, travelling communities and long-term unemployed, were identified and contacted. Data were obtained on service characteristics, staff and programmes. Results: In 8 capital cities, 516 out of 575 identified services were assessed (90%); 297 services were generic (18–79 per city) and 219 group-specific (13–50). All cities had group-specific services for the homeless, street sex workers and asylum seekers/refugees. Generic services provided more health-care programmes. Group-specific services provided more outreach programmes and social care. There was a substantial overlap in the programmes provided by the two types of services. Conclusions: In deprived areas of European capitals, a considerable number of services provide mental health care to socially marginalized groups. Access to these services often remains difficult. Group-specific services have been widely established, but their role overlaps with that of generic services. More research and conceptual clarity on the function of group-specific services are required.
|
|
