| 1. |
- Lee, San, et al.
(author)
-
Impact of data extraction errors in meta-analyses on the association between depression and peripheral inflammatory biomarkers : an umbrella review
- 2023
-
In: Psychological Medicine. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0033-2917 .- 1469-8978. ; 53:5, s. 2017-2030
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that alterations in inflammatory biomarkers are important in depression. However, previous meta-analyses disagree on these associations, and errors in data extraction may account for these discrepancies.METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 14 January 2020. Meta-analyses of observational studies examining the association between depression and levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin 1-β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were eligible. Errors were classified as follows: incorrect sample sizes, incorrectly used standard deviation, incorrect participant inclusion, calculation error, or analysis with insufficient data. We determined their impact on the results after correction thereof.RESULTS: Errors were noted in 14 of the 15 meta-analyses included. Across 521 primary studies, 118 (22.6%) showed the following errors: incorrect sample sizes (20 studies, 16.9%), incorrect use of standard deviation (35 studies, 29.7%), incorrect participant inclusion (7 studies, 5.9%), calculation errors (33 studies, 28.0%), and analysis with insufficient data (23 studies, 19.5%). After correcting these errors, 11 (29.7%) out of 37 pooled effect sizes changed by a magnitude of more than 0.1, ranging from 0.11 to 1.15. The updated meta-analyses showed that elevated levels of TNF- α, IL-6, CRP, but not IL-1β, are associated with depression.CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that data extraction errors in meta-analyses can impact findings. Efforts to reduce such errors are important in studies of the association between depression and peripheral inflammatory biomarkers, for which high heterogeneity and conflicting results have been continuously reported.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kim, Jae Han, et al.
(author)
-
Environmental Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Biomarkers for Postpartum Depressive Symptoms : An Umbrella Review
- 2022
-
In: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. - : Elsevier. - 0149-7634 .- 1873-7528. ; 140
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We performed an umbrella review on environmental risk/protective factors and biomarkers for postpartum depressive symptoms to establish a hierarchy of evidence. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until 12 January 2021. We included systematic reviews providing meta-analyses related to our research objectives. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by GRADE. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021230784). We identified 30 articles, which included 45 environmental risk/protective factors (154594 cases, 7302273 population) and 9 biomarkers (2018 cases, 16757 population). The credibility of evidence was convincing (class I) for antenatal anxiety (OR 2.49, 1.91-3.25) and psychological violence (OR 1.93, 1.54-2.42); and highly suggestive (class II) for intimate partner violence experience (OR 2.86, 2.12-3.87), intimate partner violence during pregnancy (RR 2.81, 2.11-3.74), smoking during pregnancy (OR 2.39, 1.78-3.2), history of premenstrual syndrome (OR 2.2, 1.81-2.68), any type of violence experience (OR 2.04, 1.72-2.41), primiparity compared to multiparity (RR 1.76, 1.59-1.96), and unintended pregnancy (OR 1.53, 1.35-1.75).
|
|
| 3. |
- Lee, Keum Hwa, et al.
(author)
-
Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 9:8
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- (1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model,p= 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model,p< 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877,p< 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kim, Jong Yeob, et al.
(author)
-
Association between autism spectrum disorder and inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
In: Autism Research. - : WILEY. - 1939-3792 .- 1939-3806. ; 15:2, s. 340-352
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are frequently diagnosed with co-occurring medical conditions including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To investigate the association, we conducted a systematic review registered in PROSPERO (ID:CRD42021236263) with a random-effects meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo (last search on January 25, 2021), and manually searched relevant publications. We included observational studies measuring the association between ASD and IBD. The primary outcome was the association (odds ratio, OR) between ASD and later development of IBD. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by quality, confounding adjustment, and study design. We performed meta-regression analyses and assessed heterogeneity, publication bias, and quality of studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Overall, we included six studies consisting of eight datasets, including over 11 million participants. We found that ASD was significantly associated with subsequent incident IBD (any IBD, OR = 1.66, 95% confidence interval[CI] = 1.25-2.21, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.91, 95%CI = 1.41-2.6, p < 0.001; Crohns disease, OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.15-1.88, p = 0.002). ASD and IBD were also associated regardless of temporal sequence of diagnosis (any IBD, OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.28-1.93, p < 0.001; ulcerative colitis, OR = 1.7, 95%CI = 1.36-2.12, p < 0.001; Crohns disease, OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.12-1.69, p = 0.003). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Meta-regression did not identify any significant moderators. Publication bias was not detected. Quality was high in four datasets and medium in four. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need to screen for IBD in individuals with ASD, and future research should identify who, among those with ASD, has the highest risk of IBD, and elucidate the shared biological mechanisms between ASD and IBD.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(author)
-
Comparative safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to influenza vaccines: A pharmacovigilance analysis using WHO international database
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 94:3, s. 1085-1095
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kim, Tai Lim, et al.
(author)
-
Tea Consumption and Risk of Cancer: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
- 2020
-
In: ADVANCES IN NUTRITION. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2161-8313. ; 11:6, s. 1437-1452
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Tea is one of the most widely consumed beverages, but its association with cancer risk remains controversial and unclear. We performed an umbrella review to clarify and determine the associations between tea consumption and various types of cancer by summarizing and recalculating the existing meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of observational studies reporting associations between tea consumption and cancer risk were searched on PubMed and Embase. Associations found to be statistically significant were further classified into levels of evidence (convincing, suggestive, or weak), based on P value, between-study heterogeneity, prediction intervals, and small study effects. Sixty-four observational studies (case-control or cohort) corresponding to 154 effect sizes on the incidence of 25 types of cancer were included. Forty-three (27.9%) results in 15 different types of cancer were statistically significant. When combining all studies on the same type of cancer, 19 results in 11 different types of cancer showed significant associations with lower risk of gastrointestinal tract organ cancer (oral, gastric, colorectal, biliary tract, and liver cancer), breast cancer, and gynecological cancer (endometrial and ovarian cancer) as well as leukemia, lung cancer, and thyroid cancer. Only the reduced risk of oral cancer in tea-consuming populations (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.72; P value < 10(-6)) was supported by convincing evidence. Suggestive evidence was found for 6 results on biliary tract, breast, endometrial, liver, and oral cancer.To summarize, tea consumption was shown to have protective effects on some types of cancer, particularly oral cancer. More well-designed prospective studies are needed with consideration of other factors that can cause biases.
|
|
