Conectar
Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the healthcare field are crucial in meeting the healthcare needs of a progressively diverse society. In fact, a diverse healthcare workforce enables culturally sensitive care, promotes health equity and enhances the understanding of various needs and patients’ viewpoints, potentially resulting in more effective patient treatment and improved patient outcomes. Despite this, information on the effectiveness of policies or programmes promoting EDI in health institutions is scarce. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects and outcomes of EDI programmes in healthcare institutions.
We will conduct Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of studies on EDI programmes and describe their effects and outcomes in healthcare institutions. We will search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Selected studies will include randomised control trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cross-sectional studies published either in English or French. Quality appraisal of studies and a narrative synthesis of extracted data will be conducted as well as a meta-analysis if possible. The quality of evidence in this review will be assessed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
We anticipate that this systematic review will reveal information on the effect of EDI programmes and their outcomes in healthcare institutions. We expect this information will provide insights that will lead to improvements in designing EDI policies and programmes in healthcare institutions.
No ethical clearance is required for this study as no primary data will be collected. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication. In addition to this, the results of the study will also be disseminated through conference presentations to inform the research and clinical practice.
This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number CRD42024502781.
We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.
We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.
We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).
The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.
CRD42022369850.
The combination of hyaluronic acid and iodine (Hyodine) has sparked interest in wound care and could have valuable applications in treating burn injuries. We aimed to provide valuable insight into the potential advantages, limitations, and implications of using Hyodine in burn wound management. We studied 25 male rats to assess the clinical outcomes and wound-healing effects of Hyodine. Each rat received a deep second-degree burn wound on their back using metal stamps. Subsequently, the rats were then randomly split into two groups. The first group was treated with a layer of Hyodine gel, while the second group received Vaseline. The burn sites were photographed on days 1, 7, 14, and 21 using a digital camera. After excision of the burn wounds, histopathology slides were stained and evaluated in terms of the degree of epithelialization, angiogenesis, inflammatory cells' infiltration, and collagen amount and arrangement. Despite a non-significant difference regarding the extent of burn wound area between intervention and control groups in the first day of experiment, the rats that were treated with Vaseline showed a significant decrease compared to those who received Hyodine in the second and third weeks (p = 0.02). On the other hand, epithelialization, pathology score, and collagen synthesis were significantly different between days 7, 14, and 21 of each group. However, collagen arrangement and neovascularization were only significantly different between days 7, 14, and 21 in Hyodine group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively). The Hyodine gel may offer beneficial outcomes in patients with a burn wound. Based on our findings, despite a non-significant difference in the extent of burn wound area, using Hyodine revealed a significant improvement in different histopathological variables including neovascularization, and collagen arrangement.
by Samar Fatima, Madiha Ismail, Taymmia Ejaz, Zarnain Shah, Summaya Fatima, Mohammad Shahzaib, Hassan Masood Jafri
ObjectiveThere is a lack of estimates regarding the at-risk population associated with long COVID in Pakistan due to the absence of prospective longitudinal studies. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of long COVID and its association with disease severity and vaccination status of the patient.
Design and data sourcesThis prospective cohort study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital and recruited patients aged > 18 years who were admitted between February 1 and June 7, 2021. During this time, 901 individuals were admitted, after excluding patients with missing data, a total of 481 confirmed cases were enrolled.
ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 56.9±14.3 years. Among patients with known vaccination status (n = 474), 19%(n = 90) and 19.2%(n = 91) were fully and partially vaccinated, respectively. Severe/critical disease was present in 64%(n = 312). The mortality rate following discharge was 4.58%(n = 22). Around 18.9%(n = 91) of the population required readmission to the hospital, with respiratory failure (31.8%, n = 29) as the leading cause. Long COVID symptoms were present in 29.9%(n = 144), and these symptoms were more prevalent in the severe/critical (35.5%, n = 111) and unvaccinated (37.9%, n = 105) cohort. The most prominent symptoms were fatigue (26.2%, n = 126) and shortness of breath (24.1%, n = 116), followed by cough (15.2%, n = 73). Vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated patients had lower readmissions (13.8% vs. 21.51%) and post-COVID pulmonary complications (15.4% vs. 24.2%). On multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, co-morbidity, and disease severity, lack of vaccination was found to be an independent predictor of long COVID with an Odds ratio of 2.42(95% CI 1.52–3.84). Fully and partially vaccinated patients had 62% and 56% reduced risk of developing long COVID respectively.
ConclusionsThis study reports that the patients continued to have debilitating symptoms related to long COVID, one year after discharge, and most of its effects were observed in patients with severe/critical disease and unvaccinated patients.
FreshRSS 