Background: In this meta-analysis, we aimed to update the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of TXA in the prevention of PPH. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library from inception until December 2022 was conducted. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TXA with a placebo among pregnant women. All relevant outcomes, such as total blood loss, the occurrence of nausea and/or vomiting, and changes in hemoglobin, were combined as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) in the meta-analysis models using STATA 17 MP. Results: We included 59 RCTs (18,649 patients) in this meta-analysis. For cesarean birth, TXA was favored over the placebo in reducing total blood loss (MD= -2.11 mL, 95%CI [-3.09 to -1.14], P < 0.001), and occurrence of nausea or/and vomiting (OR = 1.36, 95%CI [1.07 to 1.74], P = 0.01). For vaginal birth, the prophylactic use of TXA was associated with lower total blood loss, and higher occurrence of nausea and/or vomiting (MD= -0.89 mL, 95%CI [-1.47 to -0.31], OR = 2.36, 95%CI [1.32 to 4.21], P = 0.02), respectively. However, there were no differences between the groups in changes in hemoglobin during vaginal birth (MD = 0.20 g/dl, 95%CI [-0.07 to 0.48], P = 0.15). The overall risk of bias among the included studies varies from low to high risk of bias using ROB-II tool for RCTs. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that TXA administration is effective among women undergoing cesarean birth or vaginal birth in lowering total blood loss and limiting the occurrence of PPH. Further clinical trials are recommended to test its efficacy on high-risk populations.

Introduction: Once the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, the world was waiting for the clue that would be able to cut down the progression of the disease. Vaccines play a crucial role in reducing the disease and saving many people worldwide. However, there are several side effects of these vaccines, like pain, fatigue, fever, and neurological defects like Bell’s palsy. In this systematic review, we presented evidence about the occurrence of Bell’s palsy followed by COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception till October 2022. The quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute, National Institute of Health, and Newcastle-Ottawa. The analysis was conducted on SPSS. Results: Thirty-five records were involved in our study. The results of our cases revealed that most of the patients (62.8%) experienced unilateral facial paralysis. Also, the majority of the cases were reported after the first dose, and most cases were after Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V vaccines, respectively. The patients who were treated with corticosteroids, IVIG, and anti-viral drugs, showed marked recovery afterward. Conclusion: The rate ratio of Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination was 25.3 per 1,000,000. The ratio was higher after the first dose compared to the second dose and was higher among those who took Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine compared to other vaccines. However, this condition was reported in a small number of cases among a large number of vaccinated people worldwide. It is important to note that the benefits of getting vaccinated far outweigh any potential risks.

Background: Unintended perioperative hypothermia is a significant complication for patients undergoing anesthesia. Different measures are routinely undertaken to prevent hypothermia and its consequences. The evidence comparing the impact of self-warming blankets and forced-air warming is scarce. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of self-warming blankets compared to forced-air devices regarding the incidence of perioperative hypothermia. Methods: We searched the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant studies from inception until December 2022. We included comparative studies with patients allocated to undergo warming using a self-warming blanket or forced air warming. All concerned outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences (MDs) in the meta-analysis models using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4). Results: Our results from 8 studies (597 patients) favored self-warming blankets over forced-air devices in terms of core temperature at 120 and 180 minutes after induction of general anesthesia (MD = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14–0.51], P = .0006), (MD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09–1.14], P = .02), respectively. However, the overall effect did not favor either of the 2 groups for the incidence of hypothermia (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% CI [0.18–2.62]). Conclusion: Ultimately, self-warming blankets have a more significant effect than forced-air warming systems in terms of maintaining normothermia of core temperature after induction anesthesia. However, the present evidence is not enough to verify the efficacy of the 2 warming techniques in the incidence of hypothermia. Further studies with large sample sizes are recommended.