No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0–25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0–156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.

Background With approximately 8 hours of one’s waking day spent at work, occupational tasks and environments are important influencers on an individual’s physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviours. Little research has compared device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic outcomes between occupational groups. Objective To compare device-measured movement (sedentary time [ST], light intensity physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [MVPA], and steps) across occupations. The secondary objective was to examine whether cardiometabolic and fitness outcomes differed by occupation. Methods Five bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included working age, employed adults from high-income countries, and reported on device-measured movement within occupations. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses and narrative syntheses. Results The review includes 132 unique studies with data from 15,619 participants. Working adults spent ~ 60% of their working and waking time engaged in sedentary behaviour; a very small proportion (~ 4%) of the day included MVPA. On average, workers accumulated 8124 steps/day. Office and call center workers’ steps/day were among the lowest, while those of postal delivery workers were highest. Office workers had the greatest ST and the lowest time in LPA both at work and during wakeful time. However, office workers had the greatest minutes sent in MVPA during wakeful hours. Laborers had the lowest ST and spent a significantly greater proportion of their work time in LPA and MVPA. Healthcare and protective services workers had higher levels of LPA at work compared to other occupations. Workers in driving-based occupations tended to have a higher body mass index and blood pressure. Conclusion This review identifies that occupational and wakeful time PA and ST differed between occupations. Future studies are needed to assess whether patterns differ by age and sex, describe leisure-time movement and movement patterns, and the relationship with cardiometabolic health. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017070448 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-019-0790-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundSmall studies have implicated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) as a predictor of cardiovascular events; however, these findings have been inconsistent.We sought out to examine the potential role of PAI-1 as a marker for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).MethodsWe systematically reviewed all indexed studies examining the association between PAI-1 and MACE (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident) or restenosis. EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched through October 2016 to identify relevant studies, supplemented by letters to authors and review of citations. Studies reporting the results of PAI-1 antigen and/or activity levels in association with MACE in human subjects were included.ResultsOf 5961 articles screened, we identified 38 articles published between 1991 to 2016 that reported PAI-1 levels in 11,557 patients. In studies that examined PAI-1 antigen and activity levels, 15.1% and 29.6% of patients experienced MACE, respectively. Patients with MACE had higher PAI-1 antigen levels with a mean difference of 6.11 ng/mL (95% CI, 3.27-8.96). This finding was similar among patients with and without known coronary artery disease. Comparatively, studies that stratified by PAI-1 activity levels were not associated with MACE. In contrast, studies of coronary restenosis suggest PAI-1 antigen and activity levels are negatively associated with MACE.ConclusionsElevated plasma PAI-1 antigen levels are associated with MACE. Definitive studies are needed to ascertain if PAI-1 acts simply as a marker of risk or if it is indeed a bona fide therapeutic target.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-018-0166-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract