RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Widespread use of respiratory protection masks has become a critical component of public health response. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review synthesises the evidence on the acute physiological, cognitive and psychological impacts associated with different types of masks and provides an evidence map of research gaps. METHODS: A comprehensive search from 2000 to 2023 was conducted across multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, Scopus and PubMed). An umbrella systematic overview was conducted for physiological outcomes using existing systematic reviews. We conducted de novo systematic reviews for cognitive and psychological outcomes. Pairs of independent reviewers determined eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty at an outcome level was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The search resulted in 13 370 potential citations, leading to the inclusion of nine systematic reviews for physiological outcomes (87 primary studies) and 10 primary studies for cognitive and psychological outcomes (3815 participants), with the majority of participants being healthy adults. Studies evaluating physiological outcomes demonstrated that various types of masks have little to no significant difference in heart rate (surgical mask (mean difference (MD): 0.96 (-1.01 to 2.93)), N95 mask (MD: 1.63 (-2.79 to 6.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.94 (-6.39 to 4.52))) or respiratory rate during rest or exercise (surgical mask (MD: -1.35 (-3.00 to 0.29)), N95 mask (MD: 0.10 (-3.10 to 3.29)) and cloth mask (MD: -2.57 (-6.44 to 1.29)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Mask use may be associated with very small changes in minute ventilation (surgical mask (MD: -13.9 (-20.30 to -7.53)) and N95 mask (MD: -16.3 (-28.7 to -3.9))), tidal volume (surgical mask (MD: -0.14 (-0.23 to -0.05)) and N95 mask (MD: -0.10 (-0.33 to 0.13))), oxygen saturation (surgical mask (MD: -0.59% (-0.87 to -0.30)), N95 mask (MD: -0.35% (-0.75 to 0.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.50% (-1.23; 0.24))), carbon dioxide partial pressure (surgical mask (standardised MD (SMD): 1.17 (0.70 to 1.64)) and N95 mask (SMD: 0.43 (0.08 to 0.79))) and exercise performance (surgical mask (SMD: -0.12 (-0.39 to 0.15)), N95 mask (SMD: -0.42 (-0.76 to -0.08)) and cloth mask (SMD: -0.26 (-0.54 to 0.02)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Studies evaluating cognitive outcomes showed mixed results. Some studies reported reduced mental workload, and others showed no significant effect or decreased performance. The impact on attention, errors and reaction time was variable. These studies were small and at moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of mask use on psychological outcomes (claustrophobia, depression and anxiety) as these studies were small, non-longitudinal and at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This evidence map provides a comprehensive insight into the multifaceted impact of respiratory protection mask use, and highlights the limited certainty in the available body of evidence. This evidence map supports the development of future research agenda.
RESUMO
Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate and expedite systematic reviews, although the approach to integrate LLMs in the review process is unclear. This study evaluates GPT-4 agreement with human reviewers in assessing the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and proposes a framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews. The case study demonstrated that raw per cent agreement was the highest for the ROBINS-I domain of 'Classification of Intervention'. Kendall agreement coefficient was highest for the domains of 'Participant Selection', 'Missing Data' and 'Measurement of Outcomes', suggesting moderate agreement in these domains. Raw agreement about the overall risk of bias across domains was 61% (Kendall coefficient=0.35). The proposed framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews consists of four domains: rationale for LLM use, protocol (task definition, model selection, prompt engineering, data entry methods, human role and success metrics), execution (iterative revisions to the protocol) and reporting. We identify five basic task types relevant to systematic reviews: selection, extraction, judgement, analysis and narration. Considering the agreement level with a human reviewer in the case study, pairing artificial intelligence with an independent human reviewer remains required.
RESUMO
Among 210 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) with del(5q), molecular information was available at diagnosis or at least 3 months before leukaemic transformation in 146 cases. Multivariate analysis identified therapy-related setting (p = 0.02; HR 2.3) and TP53 variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥22% (p < 0.01; HR 2.8), but not SF3B1 mutation (p = 0.65), as independent risk factors for survival. Median survival was 11.7 versus 4 years (5/10-year survival 73%/52% vs. 42%/14%) in the absence (N = 112) versus presence (N = 34) of ≥1 risk factors; leukaemia-free survival was affected by TP53 VAF ≥22% (p < 0.01). Such information might inform treatment decision-making in MDS-del(5q) regarding allogeneic stem cell transplant.
Assuntos
Síndromes Mielodisplásicas , Humanos , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/genética , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/terapia , Síndromes Mielodisplásicas/diagnóstico , Frequência do Gene , Mutação , Prognóstico , Deleção Cromossômica , Cromossomos Humanos Par 5/genética , Proteína Supressora de Tumor p53/genéticaRESUMO
We surveyed the performance of ponatinib, as salvage therapy, in a real-world setting of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP). Among 55 consecutive patients (median age 49 years) with relapsed/refractory CML-CP, 35 (64%) had failed ≥3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), 35 (64%) were pre-treated with nilotinib, and 14 (28%) harbored ABL1T315I. At start of ponatinib (median dose 30 mg/day), 40 patients were already in complete hematologic (CHR), 4 in complete cytogenetic (CCyR), 3 in major molecular (MMR) remission, while 8 had not achieved CHR (NR). Ponatinib improved the depth of response in 13 (33%), 3 (75%), 2 (66%), and 4 (50%) patients with CHR, CCyR, MMR, and NR, respectively (p = 0.02). At a median follow-up of 42 months, 13 (23%) deaths, 5 (9%) blast transformations, and 25 (45%) allogeneic transplants were recorded. Five/10-year post-ponatinib survival was 77%/58% with no significant difference when patients were stratified by allogeneic transplant (p = 0.94), ponatinib-induced deeper response (p = 0.28), or a post-ponatinib ≥CCyR vs CHR remission state (p = 0.25). ABL1T315I was detrimental to survival (p = 0.04) but did not appear to affect response. Prior exposure to nilotinib was associated with higher risk of arterial occlusive events (AOEs; 11% vs 0%; age-adjusted p = 0.04). Ponatinib starting/maintenance dose (45 vs 15 mg/day) did not influence either treatment response or AOEs. Our observations support the use of a lower starting/maintenance dose for ponatinib in relapsed/refractory CML-CP but a survival advantage for deeper responses was not apparent and treatment might not overcome the detrimental impact of ABL1T315I on survival. The association between prior exposure to nilotinib and a higher risk of post-ponatinib AOEs requires further validation.