Although gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common medical complaint, there is currently no consensus on the global prevalence of GORD. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on GORD prevalence and risk factors at a global level. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were systematically searched, without language restrictions, for studies on the prevalence and risk factors of GORD. Data were pooled using a random effects model (95% confidence interval), and the odds ratio and relative risk for each risk factor were calculated. Out of 34,355 search results, 96 records reporting the results from 102 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, representing 37 countries and all regions of the UN geoscheme. The global pooled prevalence of GORD was 13.98% and varied greatly according to region (12.88% in Latin America and the Caribbean to 19.55% in North America) and country (4.16% in China to 22.40% in Turkey). Using the United Nations 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects, the estimated number of individuals suffering from GORD globally is 1.03 billion. Multiple risk factors associated with a significant increase in the risk of GORD were also identified. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that although a substantial proportion (13.98%) of the global population suffers from GORD, there are significant variations between regions and countries. Risk factors for GORD were also identified which may allow clinicians to recognise individuals most at risk.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to viral pneumonitis is one of the main causes of high mortality in COVID-19 patients. We systematically reviewed ARDS-associated mortality ...

Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0–10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%) and 27% (95% CI 17–40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.

: Since the onset of the pandemic, prescribing antimicrobials has become a common practice to treat patients infected with COVID-19.: A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic ...