METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies of any design that reported on the preferred and actual place of care and death of patients with cancer in LMICs. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled prevalences, with 95% CI, with subgroup analyses for region and risk of bias.

RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Of 3,837 patients with cancer, 62% (95% CI, 49 to 75) preferred to die at home; however, the prevalence of actual home death was 37% (95% CI, 13 to 60). Subgroup analyses found that preferences for home as place of death varied from 55% (95% CI, 41 to 69) for Asia to 64% (95% CI, 57 to 71) for South America and 72% (95% CI, 48 to 97) for Africa. The concordance between the preferred and actual place of death was 48% (95% CI, 41 to 55) for South Africa and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) for Malaysia. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of preferred home death included performance status and patients with breast cancer.

METHODS: Relevant articles from the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were screened using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-guided systematic search process. The included studies were in English, published from January 2020 to April 2024, had overall PCS prevalence as one of the outcomes studied, involved a human population with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and undergone assessment at 12 weeks post-COVID infection or beyond. As the primary outcome measured, the pooled prevalence of PCS was estimated from a meta-analysis of the PCS prevalence data extracted from individual studies, which was conducted via the random-effects model. This study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023435280).

RESULTS: Forty eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. 16 were accepted for meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence for PCS worldwide, which was 41.79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.70-43.88%, I2 = 51%, p = 0.03). Based on different assessment or follow-up timepoints after acute COVID-19 infection, PCS prevalence estimated at ≥ 3rd, ≥ 6th, and ≥ 12th months timepoints were each 45.06% (95% CI: 41.25-48.87%), 41.30% (95% CI: 34.37-48.24%), and 41.32% (95% CI: 39.27-43.37%), respectively. Sex-stratified PCS prevalence was estimated at 47.23% (95% CI: 44.03-50.42%) in male and 52.77% (95% CI: 49.58-55.97%) in female. Based on continental regions, pooled PCS prevalence was estimated at 46.28% (95% CI: 39.53%-53.03%) in Europe, 46.29% (95% CI: 35.82%-56.77%) in America, 49.79% (95% CI: 30.05%-69.54%) in Asia, and 42.41% (95% CI: 0.00%-90.06%) in Australia.

METHODS: Adhering the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to October 2024. Nested Knowledge was used for screening and data extraction. Studies reporting quantitative data on the prevalence or mortality of dengue and leptospirosis co-infections were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses, including prevalence and mortality estimation, sensitivity analysis were conducted using R, with heterogeneity evaluated by the I² statistic.

RESULTS: Out of 3,982 records, 14 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a pooled prevalence of dengue and leptospirosis co-infection at 2.33% (95% CI: 1.41-3.46%) across 16,638 participants, with significant heterogeneity (I² = 90%). The prediction interval for co-infection ranged from 0.05 to 7.27%. The pooled mortality rate among co-infected patients was 9.96% (95% CI: 0-53.49%), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 71%). The prediction interval for mortality ranged from 0.00 to 100%. Publication bias was indicated by an LFK index of 2.52.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The screening process yielded 13 studies conducted in various countries and regions. These studies, employing designs such as cross-sectional, cohort, and clinical trials, focused on CKD patients across different stages, including early and late-stage CKD.

RESULTS: The study revealed that musculoskeletal disorders are a considerable concern within the CKD population but are insufficiently explored among ESKD patients. Common musculoskeletal disorders identified include osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia, carpopedal spasm, and chronic musculoskeletal pain syndrome. The prevalence of these disorders varied, with sub-group analysis revealing higher prevalence among hemodialysis patients compared to preand non-dialysis patients. While musculoskeletal pain remains consistent across CKD stages, potential confounding factors, such as palliative care settings and mobility issues warrant careful consideration.