Background: Remimazolam is a new ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine. Remimazolam has been approved for procedural sedation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020. However, prior trials and the participants they enrolled were limited.Aim: In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effectiveness and adverse events (AEs) of remimazolam during procedural sedation.Materials and Methods: The study protocol was registered (doi: 10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0043), and six databases were searched. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for judging the certainty of evidence (CoE).Results: A total of five randomized controlled trials with 1,248 participants were included. Compared with the use of midazolam, the utilization of remimazolam resulted in an increase in procedure success rate [odds ratio (OR) = 9.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.35–34.57], a reduction in the application of rescue medication (OR = 13.58, 95% CI: 3.46–53.28), a decrease in time to recovery [minutes, weighted mean difference (WMD) = −5.70, 95% CI: −8.68 to −2.72], and a better cognitive recovery of Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (WMD = 5.22, 95% CI: 2.88–7.55). No difference was found in completion of procedure (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.72–3.90) with inconclusive in TSA. Despite no difference of total AEs (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.24–1.50), more detailed analysis of AEs remained inconclusive in TSA. The GRADE assessment demonstrated low to very low CoE.Conclusion: Our analysis suggested that remimazolam may be a better choice for procedural sedation than midazolam. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to conclusively establish its safety.

In pre-hospital settings, efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging; therefore, the application of mechanical CPR devices continues to increase. However, the evidence of the benefits of using mechanical CPR devices in pre-hospital settings for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is controversial. This meta-analysis compared the effects of mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage on clinical outcomes after OHCA. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until October 2021. Studies comparing mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage for survival outcomes of adult OHCA were eligible. Data abstraction, quality assessment, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation were conducted. Seven randomized controlled and 15 observational studies were included. Compared to manual CPR, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR showed a positive effect in achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to admission. No difference was found in survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological status, with inconclusive results in TSA. In conclusion, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices may benefit adult OHCA in achieving ROSC and survival to admission. With low certainty of evidence, more well-designed large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

Background: Identifying the genetic causes of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and epilepsy is crucial for effective treatment and genetic counseling. Our objective was to determine the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray (CMA) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods—including targeted sequencing (TS), whole-exome sequencing (WES), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS)—in individuals with NDDs or epilepsy. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through August 31, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We included studies with ≥ 10 patients (probands) diagnosed with an NDD or epilepsy who underwent CMA, TS, WES, WGS, or WES reanalysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool diagnostic yield percentages. Subgroup analyses were conducted by test modality, disorder subtype, and clinical features. Results: A total of 416 studies (124,937 participants) met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significantly higher diagnostic yields with NGS methods compared to CMA (31.1% vs 14.8% in NDD cohorts; 28.7% vs 13.3% in epilepsy cohorts). Within NGS, WES had a higher yield than targeted gene panels (35.3% vs. 23.2% for NDDs; 34.2% vs. 24.0% for epilepsy). Diagnostic yields increased over time in more recent studies. Patients with certain clinical features had particularly high yields: NDDs with dysmorphic features (54.7%), syndromic presentations (37.6%), or co-occurring epilepsy (35.6%), and epilepsy with early onset (32.3%), epileptic encephalopathy (34.7%), or drug-resistant seizures (25.4%). Quality assessment using NOS revealed that the majority of included studies were of good to very good methodological quality. Conclusions: Despite substantial between-study heterogeneity and variability in study designs that may limit the certainty of our pooled estimates, and potential publication bias, our results demonstrate that NGS-based tests—particularly WES and WGS—provide markedly higher diagnostic yields in patients with NDDs or epilepsy compared to CMA, supporting their use as first-line genetic tests. Patients with dysmorphism, syndromic NDD, early-onset or refractory epilepsy, and epileptic encephalopathy achieve above-average diagnostic yields, highlighting the value of comprehensive genetic testing in these subgroups. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024555664.

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: We searched four databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared FMT with a control intervention in patients with IBS. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was chosen for appraisal. Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted. Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). Results: We included 12 RCTs with a total of 615 participants. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference between the FMT and control groups in terms of clinical responses (relative risk [RR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–2.33) and changes in IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) scores (standardised mean difference [SMD] = − 0.31, 95% CI − 0.72 to 0.09) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) scores (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI − 0.09 to 0.69). Subgroup analysis revealed that in studies with low RoB and using endoscopy, nasojejunal tube and rectal enema delivery, FMT led to a significant improvement in clinical responses and changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL scores. TSA suggested that the current evidence is inconclusive and that the CoE is very low. Conclusion: This study suggests that patients with IBS may benefit from FMT especially when it is administered via endoscopy, nasojejunal tube or rectal enema. However, the certainty of evidence is very low. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of FMT for IBS treatment. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211002.

Crude secondary attack rate (SAR) of COVID-19 in Taiwan was 0.84% using nationwide contact-tracing data till April 8, 2020. The random-effect Bayesian metaanalysis yielded 95% credible intervals of 0.42%-1.69% and 0.08%-8.32%, respectively, for estimated SAR pooling from 15 case series and for predicted SAR in the future if pandemic continues.