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.

METHOD: Based on a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021256352), we searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge/Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and APA PsycINFO up to 16th November 2021, with no language/type of document restrictions. We included observational studies reporting at least one measure of vision in people of any age meeting DSM/ICD criteria for ADHD and in people without ADHD; or the prevalence of ADHD in people with and without vision disorders. Study quality was assessed with the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Random effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: We included 42 studies in the narrative synthesis and 35 studies in the meta-analyses (3,250,905 participants). We found meta-analytic evidence of increased risk of astigmatism (OR = 1.79 [CI: 1.50, 2.14]), hyperopia and hypermetropia (OR = 1.79 [CI: 1.66, 1.94]), strabismus (OR = 1.93 [CI: 1.75, 2.12]), unspecified vision problems (OR = 1.94 [CI: 1.38, 2.73]) and reduced near point of convergence (OR = 5.02 [CI: 1.78, 14.11]); increased lag (Hedge's g = 0.63 [CI: 0.30, 0.96]) and variability (Hedge's g = 0.40 [CI: 0.17, 0.64]) of the accommodative response; and increased self-reported vision problems (Hedge's g = 0.63 [CI: 0.44, 0.82]) in people with ADHD compared to those without ADHD (with no significant heterogeneity). We also found meta-analytic evidence of no differences between people with and without ADHD on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (Hedge's g = -0.19 [CI: -0.41, 0.02]) and refractive error (Hedge's g = 0.08 [CI: -0.26, 0.42]) (with no significant heterogeneity).

DISCUSSION: ADHD is associated with some self-reported and objectively ascertained functional vision problems, but not with structural alterations of the eye. Further studies should clarify the causal relationship, if any, between ADHD and problems of vision.