Introduction: The increasing utilization of real-world data platforms in medical research necessitates a comprehensive understanding of their methodological strengths and limitations. TriNetX has emerged as a significant platform for exploring large healthcare datasets. This review aims to critically evaluate the methodological framework and limitations of TriNetX, assess the impact of electronic health record coding accuracy on data reliability, and analyze the platform's capacity for generating generalizable real-world evidence in clinical research. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review examining TriNetX's data architecture, quality metrics, and research applications, focusing on data integrity, platform architecture, and the external validity of research findings. Results: The analysis reveals significant methodological considerations. TriNetX's reliance on retrospective data introduces biases such as selection bias and confounding variables. The coding accuracy of electronic health records, which have not been independently validated, is a critical determinant of data reliability. The demographic representation is limited, affecting the generalizability of results. Discussion: Despite its extensive use, TriNetX's effective utilization requires careful consideration of its inherent limitations. The platform's data, predominantly from insured populations in academic and acute care settings, may not fully represent broader demographic groups. Addressing these methodological constraints is crucial for enhancing the reliability and applicability of research findings derived from TriNetX. Conclusions: TriNetX is a valuable resource for healthcare research. However, its limitations must be acknowledged, and future research should focus on standardizing data collection and enhancing data validation processes to mitigate platform-specific biases and improve the quality and applicability of the findings.

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents are becoming the anticoagulation strategy of choice. However, their use in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of > 120 kg or BMI > 40 kg/m²) guarded. This is due to the scarce data supporting their use in this population. As a result, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended against their use in this cohort of patients. New data emerged supporting the use of DOACs in these patients. Hence, we aimed to systematically review the literature exploring the efficacy and safety of these agents compared to warfarin in VTE treatment in morbidly obese patients. A systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE since inception until 01/04/2020. Subsequently, a non-inferiority (NI of 1.75) meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model. Five observational studies (6585 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. DOAC analogs were non-inferior compared to warfarin in reducing the primary efficacy outcome of VTE recurrence (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93–1.23) and the primary safety outcome (major bleeding events) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54–1.17). Our meta-analysis comprising real-world observational data concludes that the use of DOAC analogs in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of > 120 kg or BMI > 40 kg/m²) is non-inferior with regards to efficacy and safety compared to warfarin. This finding helps to resolve the uncertainty associated with the use of DOACs in this cohort. Additionally, it invites for a confirmatory non-inferiority randomized controlled trial testing DOAC vs. Warfarin in this group of patients.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association. DISCUSSION: Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity, mortality, and strained healthcare systems worldwide. Thus, a search for modalities that can expedite and improve the diagnosis and management of this entity is underway. Recent data suggested the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the diagnosis of COVID-19 by detecting an interstitial pattern (B-pattern). Hence, we aimed to pool the proportion of various reported lung abnormalities detected by LUS in symptomatic COVID-19 patients. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until April 25, 2020) and a proportion meta-analysis. We included seven studies examining the role of LUS in 122 COVID-19 patients. The pooled proportion (PP) of B-pattern detected by lung ultrasound (US) was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–1.00 I 2 0%, Q 4.6). The PP of finding pleural line abnormalities was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.13–1.00 I 2 96%, Q 103.9), of pleural thickening was 0.54 (95% 0.11–0.95 I 2 93%, Q 61.1), of subpleural or pulmonary consolidation was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.21–0.58 I 2 72%, Q 17.8), and of pleural effusion was 0.14 (95% CI: 0.00–0.37 I 2 93%, Q 27.3). Our meta-analysis revealed that almost all SARS-CoV-2–infected patients have abnormal lung US. The most common abnormality is interstitial involvement depicted as B-pattern. The finding from our review highlights the potential role of this modality in the triage, diagnosis, and follow-up of COVID-19 patients. A sizable diagnostic accuracy study comparing LUS, computed tomography scan, and COVID-19–specific tests is warranted to further test this finding and to delineate the diagnostic and prognostic yield of each of these modalities.

Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis.Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 25/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, in an exploratory analysis, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared with therapeutic anticoagulation.Results: The review comprised 24 studies and over 2,500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.39; I² 94%], of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63; I² 91%), of deep venous thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32; I² 96%), and of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20; I² 90%). Exploratory analysis of few studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared with therapeutic anticoagulation [odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57; I² 0%].Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages may reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation; however, this is to be ascertained by ongoing randomized controlled trials.