Dataset Information

Methodological Considerations on COVID-19 Mortality in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with cancer are at risk for severe COVID-19. Previous studies examining mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19 have produced inconclusive results. Several published meta-analyses have aimed to estimate this association; however, because of methodological limitations in study selection and data aggregation, these studies do not reliably estimate the independent association between cancer and COVID-19 mortality. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether cancer is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 mortality.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed to identify studies that compared COVID-19 mortality in adult patients with and without cancer. Selection criteria included polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19, multivariate adjustment and/or matching for mortality risk estimates, and inclusion of hospitalized noncancer controls. Adjusted odds ratios and/or hazard ratios for mortality based on cancer status were extracted. Odds ratio and hazard ratio estimates were pooled using a random effects model.

Results

The analysis included 42 studies comprising 129 840 patients: 8612 cancer patients and 121 228 noncancer patients. Of these studies, 18 showed a null difference in survival between cancer and noncancer patients with COVID-19, and 24 studies showed statistically significantly worse survival in cancer patients with COVID-19. Meta-analysis revealed an increased risk of mortality in patients with cancer compared with noncancer patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval = 1.55 to 2.41; hazard ratio = 1.54, 95% confidence interval = 1.29 to 1.84).

Conclusion

We conclude that cancer is an independent risk factor for mortality in unvaccinated patients admitted for or diagnosed with COVID-19 during hospitalization.

SUBMITTER: Zewde MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9619849 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological Considerations on COVID-19 Mortality in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zewde Makda Getachew MG Alpert Naomi N Taioli Emanuela E

JNCI cancer spectrum 20220901 5

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with cancer are at risk for severe COVID-19. Previous studies examining mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19 have produced inconclusive results. Several published meta-analyses have aimed to estimate this association; however, because of methodological limitations in study selection and data aggregation, these studies do not reliably estimate the independent association between cancer and COVID-19 mortality. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis ...[more]

PMID: 36047915

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk of fatal outcomes. This meta-analysis quantifies the prevalence of mortality among (1) diabetic and (2) non-diabetic, and (3) the prevalence of DM, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsPublished studies were retrieved from four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and medRxiv) and appraised critically utilizing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tool. Meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. The measures of heterogeneity were ascertained by I- squared (I 2 ) and Chi-squared (Chi 2 ) tests statistics. Predictors of heterogeneity were quantified using meta-regression models.ResultsOf the reviewed 475 publications, 22 studies (chiefly case series (59.09 %)), sourcing data of 45,775 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were deemed eligible. The weighted prevalence of mortality in hospitlized COVID-19 patients with DM (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 15.0-26.0; I 2 , 96.8 %) was 82 % (1.82-time) higher than that in non-DM patients (11.0 %, 95 % CI: 5.0-16.0; I 2 , 99.3 %). The prevalence of mortality among DM patients was highest in Europe (28.0 %; 95 % CI: 14.0-44.0) followed by the United States (20.0 %, 95 % CI: 11.0-32.0) and Asia (17.0 %, 95 % CI: 8.0-28.0). Sample size and severity of the COVID-19 were associated (p < 0.05) with variability in the prevalence of mortality. The weighted prevalence of DM among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 20 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 15-25, I 2 , 99.3 %). Overall, the quality of the studies was fair.ConclusionsHospitalized COVID-19 patients were appreciably burdened with a high prevalence of DM. DM contributed to the increased risk of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to non-DM patients, particularly among critically ill patients. Registration: PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42020196589).Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00779-2.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic puts perioperative providers and staff at risk of viral exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) during aerosol-generating procedures, particularly in asymptomatic carriers.However, the perioperative risk for adverse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients remain uncertain and the topic of debate. The current study was designed to determine the postoperative mortality in COVID-19 patients based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global published peer-reviewed literature.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline; Science direct and LILACS from December 29, 2019, to August15, 2020, without language restriction. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of mortality were included while case reports and reviews were excluded. The data from each study were extracted with two independent authors with a customized format excel sheet and the disagreements were resolved by the third author. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using a standardized critical appraisal Tool adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute.ResultsA total of 715 articles were identified from different databases and 45 articles were selected for evaluation after the successive screening. Twenty-three articles with 2947 participants were included. The meta-analysis revealed a very high global rate of postoperative mortality among COVID-19 patients of 20% (95% CI: 15 to 26) and a postoperative ICU admission rate of 15% (95% confidence interval (CI):10 to 21).ConclusionThe unexpected high postoperative mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of 20% in the global literature mandates further scrutiny in assuring appropriate surgical indications and perioperative surgical safety measures in this vulnerable cohort of patients.RegistrationThis systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in Prospero's international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020203362) on August 10, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most common form of interpersonal violence and a major public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed to an increase in IPV experiences. To evaluate changes in IPV prevalence during the pandemic, it is important to consider studies' methodological characteristics such as the assessment tools used, samples addressed, or administration modes (e.g., face-to-face, telephone or online interviews), since they may influence disclosure and were likely affected by pandemic-imposed mobility restrictions.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of empirical studies addressing IPV against women, men, or both, during the COVID-19 period. We searched six electronic databases until December 2021, including articles in English, German, Spanish, French or Portuguese languages. We extracted and synthesised characteristics of studies related to sampling (clinical, community, convenience), type assessment tool (standardised questionnaire, specifically created questions), method of administration (online, telephone, face-to-face), and estimates of different forms of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological). IPV estimates were pooled stratified by study characteristics using random-effects models.ResultsOf 3581 publications, we included 103 studies. Fifty-five studies used a standardized instrument (or some adaptations) to assess IPV, with the World Health Organisation Questionnaire and the Revised Conflicts Tactics Scales being the most frequent. For 34 studies, the authors created specific questions to assess IPV. Sixty-one studies were conducted online, 16 contacted participants face-to-face and 11 by telephone. The pooled prevalence estimate for any type of violence against women (VAW) was 21% (95% Confidence Interval, 95%CI = 18%-23%). The pooled estimate observed for studies assessing VAW using the telephone was 19% (95%CI = 10%-28%). For online studies it was 16% (95%CI = 13%-19%), and for face-to-face studies, it was 38% (95%CI = 28%-49%). According to the type of sample, a pooled estimate of 17% (95%CI = 9%-25%) was observed for studies on VAW using a clinical sample. This value was 21% (95%CI = 18%-24%) and 22% (95%CI = 16%-28%) for studies assessing VAW using a convenience sample and a general population or community sample, respectively. According to the type of instrument, studies on VAW using a standardized tool revealed a pooled estimate of 21% (95%CI = 18%-25%), and an estimate of 17% (95%CI = 13%-21%) was found for studies using specifically created questions.ConclusionsDuring the pandemic, IPV prevalence studies showed great methodological variation. Most studies were conducted online, reflecting adaptation to pandemic measures implemented worldwide. Prevalence estimates were higher in face-to-face studies and in studies using a standardized tool. However, estimates of the different forms of IPV during the pandemic do not suggest a marked change in prevalence compared to pre-pandemic global prevalence estimates, suggesting that one in five women experienced IPV during this period.

Dataset Information

Methodological Considerations on COVID-19 Mortality in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Methodological Considerations on COVID-19 Mortality in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets