Introduction: To date, COVID‐19 has claimed 4.9 million lives. Diabetes has been identified as an independent risk factor of serious outcomes in people with COVID‐19 infection. Whether that holds true across world regions uniformly has not been previously assessed.Methods: This study offers the first umbrella systematic review and meta‐analysis to analyse the collective and geographically stratified mortality, ICU admission, ventilation requirement, illness severity and discharge rate amongst patients with diabetes. Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CAB Abstracts, PsychInfo and Web of Science) and 3 additional sources (SSRN's eLibrary, Research Square and MedRxiv) were searched from inception to 30 August 2021. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between diabetes and one or more COVID‐19 hospitalization outcomes, were included. This meta‐analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021278579. Abbreviated MeSH terms used for search were as follows: (Diabetes) AND (2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease), adapted per database requirements. Exclusion criteria exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) none of the primary or secondary outcomes of meta‐analysis reported, (2) no confirmed COVID‐19 infection (laboratory or clinical) and (3) no unexposed population (solely patients with diabetes included). Quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) whilst quality of evidence by the GRADE framework. Studies that were clinically homogeneous were pooled. Summative data and heterogeneity were generated by the Cochrane platform RevMan (V. 5.4).Results: Overall, 158 observational studies were included, with a total of 270,212 of participants, median age 59 [53–65 IQR] of who 56.5% were male. A total of 22 studies originated from EU, 90 from Far East, 16 from Middle East and 30 from America. Data were synthesized with mixed heterogeneity across outcomes. Pooled results highlighted those patients with diabetes were at a higher risk of COVID‐19‐related mortality, OR 1.87 [95%CI 1.61, 2.17]. ICU admissions increased across all studies for patients with diabetes, OR 1.59 [95%CI 1.15, 2.18], a result that was mainly skewed by Far East‐originating studies, OR 1.94 [95%CI 1.51, 2.49]. Ventilation requirements were also increased amongst patients with diabetes worldwide, OR 1.44 [95%CI 1.20, 1.73] as well as their presentation with severe or critical condition, OR 2.88 [95%CI 2.29, 3.63]. HbA1C levels under <70 mmol and metformin use constituted protective factors in view of COVID‐19 mortality, whilst the inverse was true for concurrent insulin use.Conclusions: Whilst diabetes constitutes a poor prognosticator for various COVID‐19 infection outcomes, variability across world regions is significant and may skew overall trends.

Over the last decade, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has been increasingly used in contemporary fertility units. Despite the rapid increase in FET, there is still insufficient evidence to recommend an optimized protocol for endometrial preparation especially in patients with lower progesterone (P4) levels. Previous studies have concluded that P4 levels <10 ng/mL are associated with poorer pregnancy outcomes than those reported with high levels of circulating P4. To identify whether rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 can salvage adverse outcomes associated with low P4 levels, resulting in outcomes comparable to patients with adequate progesterone. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and prospectively registered under the PROSPERO database (CRD42022357125). Six databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Global Health, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, and Google Scholar) and 2 additional sources were searched from inception to August 29, 2022. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between rescue progesterone and one or more pregnancy outcomes, were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Summative and subgroup data as well as heterogeneity were generated by the Cochrane platform RevMan (V. 5.4). To compare ongoing pregnancy rate as primary outcome and clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate as secondary outcomes between patients with low (<10 ng/mL) receiving rescue progesterone vs. those with adequate levels of P4 (≥10 ng/mL). Overall, 7 observational studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 5927 patients of median age 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 31.55, 37.13). Overall, patient group comparison, namely those with low P4 that received a rescue dose and those with adequate P4 levels, did not yield significant differences for either the primary or secondary outcomes. For ongoing clinical pregnancy, patients with low P4 receiving the rescue dose vs. those with adequate P4 levels was odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.24; P = .86, I²: 41%), whereas for miscarriage events, OR was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.17; P = .80, I²: 0). Equally, for clinical pregnancy, OR was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.06; P = .24; I²: 33%), and for live birth, OR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.09; P = .33; I²: 43%). Subgroup analysis on the basis or rescue administration route successfully explained summative heterogeneity. Rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 results in ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were comparable to those of patients with adequate P4 levels. However, robust randomized controlled trials assessing rescue treatment in women with low P4 are needed to confirm these findings. Rescue P4 in patients with low circulating P4 around embryo transfer day may result in reproductive outcomes comparable to those with adequate P4 levels. CRD42022357125 (PROSPERO).

Importance: Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed.Objective: To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC.Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022.Study Selection: Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs. Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation of AOs were assessed.Results: A total of 10 observational studies including 3083 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-60] years; median [range] follow-up, 39.0 [22.5-80.5] months) with reported AOs were assessed and homogenized in 4 distinct Likert response groups (excellent, very good, satisfactory, and bad). Overall network incoherence was low (χ²₂ = 0.35; P = .83). Overall, panel and software modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs. Specifically, for excellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I² = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I² = 95%), while the BCCT.core to panel ratio of ORs was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.88; I² = 88%).Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients scored AOs higher than both expert panels and computer software. Standardization and supplementation of expert panel and software AO tools with racially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive PROMs is needed to improve clinical evaluation of the journey of patients with BC and to prioritize components of therapeutic outcomes.

Background: Of the 200 million patients worldwide affected by peripheral arterial disease (PAD), 4% will inevitably require major limb amputation. Previous systematic reviews presented a conflicting body of evidence in terms of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family member effects upon PAD natural progression. Despite that, modulation of intrinsic angiogenesis mechanisms targeting the VEGF family members still confers an attractive therapeutic target. The aim of the present study was to evaluate current evidence of VEGF modulation in the context of PAD. Methods: This is a systematic literature review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered under PROSPERO database [CRD42021285988]. Independent literature search was performed up to April 1, 2022, on six databases. A total of 22 eligible studies were identified [N: 3, interventional patient studies; N: 19, animal studies]. Animal studies were appraised by the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, while human participant studies were assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Overall, quality of evidence was deemed fair for both animal and human studies. Main study outcomes were percentage change of injured vessel lumen stenosis and neointimal area formation upon VEGF modulation (inhibition or activation) in comparison with control group. Findings: Nineteen animal models and three human participant studies were included in the systematic review and assessed separately. Positive modulation of VEGF-A in animal models resulted in a median decrease of 65.58% [95% CI 45.2; 71.87] in lumen stenosis [14 studies]. Furthermore, positive modulation of VEGF-A was found to reduce neointimal area proliferation by a median decrease of 63.41% [95% CI 41.6; 79.59] [14 studies]. Median end of study duration was 28 days [range: 14–84 days]. Data were insufficient to assess these outcomes with respect to VEGF-B or VEGF-C modulation. The limited number of available human studies presented inadequate outcome assessment despite their overall fair NOS grading. Interpretation: VEGF-A-positive modulation decreases lumen stenosis and neointimal hyperplasia in PAD simulation animal models. Previously identified variability among outcomes was found to strongly stem from the variability of experimental designs. Clinical applicability and safety profile of VEGF-A in the context of PAD remain to be defined by a robust and uniformly designed body of further animal model-based experiments.

Prior studies have explored the links between congenital anomalies and assisted reproduction techniques, among other factors. However, it remains unclear whether a particular technique harbors an inherent risk of major congenital anomalies, either cumulatively or in an organ-specific manner. A meta-analysis was conducted using relevant studies from inception to February 2023 using six databases and two appropriate registers. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using sub-group analysis, using study weight, risk of bias and geographical location of original studies. Neonates conceived through assisted reproduction appear to have a higher risk of major congenital anomalies compared to naturally conceived neonates, OR 0.67 [95% CI 0.59, 0.76], I-2 = 97%, p < 0.00001, with neonates conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) at a 9% higher chance of being affected in comparison to neonates conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The increase in cardiac, gastrointestinal (GI), and neurological congenital anomalies appears to be independent of the assisted reproduction technique, while urogenital and musculoskeletal (MSK) anomalies were found to be increased in ICSI compared with IVF, OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98]; p = 0.03, I-2 = 0%, and OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.49, 0.85]; p = 0.002, I-2 = 80%, respectively. Neonates conceived using assisted reproduction techniques appear to be at higher risk of major congenital anomalies, with a higher risk attributable to conception using ICSI. The increase in cardiac, neurological, and GI congenital anomalies does not appear to be technique-specific, while the opposite held true for urogenital and MSK anomalies.