Search

Objective: Vaccine hesitancy is a relevant driver of backslides in immunization rates globally. Myths and misinformation are key contributors to vaccine hesitancy. We aimed to investigate associations between beliefs in popular vaccine myths and vaccine incompleteness., Methods: In this survey, participants were asked questions on current vaccination status; barriers and motivations for vaccination; and beliefs regarding popular myths: the measles vaccine causes autism in children; acquiring the disease is preferable to facing vaccine side effects; and natural immunity developed from getting the disease is better than the immunity elicited by vaccination. We assessed the effect of failing to disagree with the myths on current vaccination status., Results: Of 4305 participants, 933 (22 %) were partially vaccinated and 61 (1 %) were fully unvaccinated; 403 (10 %) failed to disagree with the autism myth; 411 (10 %) failed to disagree with the side effects myth; and 904 (22 %) failed to disagree with the natural immunity myth. Failing to disagree with the myths was significantly associated with vaccine incompleteness., Conclusion: Vaccine-related myths are associated with both partial and total vaccine incompleteness in Brazil., Practice Implications: Strategies to improve adherence to vaccination recommendations should include interventions to limit the spread or elucidate vaccine-related myths and misconceptions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding progestogen supplementation for threatened and recurrent miscarriage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of progestogens for these patients., Material and Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials up to October 6, 2023 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen supplementation to placebo or no treatment for pregnant women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach., Results: Of 15 RCTs (6616 pregnancies) reporting on threatened or recurrent miscarriage, 12 (5610 pregnancies) reported on threatened miscarriage with or without a prior history of miscarriage. Results indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.10, absolute increase 3.1%, moderate certainty). Of these RCTs, three (1973 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage with a prior history of miscarriage indicated that progesterone possibly increases live births (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.16, absolute increase 4.4%; low certainty), while four (2540 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage and no prior miscarriage left the effect very uncertain (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10, absolute increase 1.7%; very low certainty). Three trials reporting on 1006 patients with a history of two or more prior miscarriages indicated progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19, absolute increase 5.7%, moderate certainty). Six RCTs that reported on 2979 patients with at least one prior miscarriage indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13, absolute increase 5.0%; moderate certainty). Progesterone probably has little or no effect on congenital anomalies (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48, absolute increase 0.1%; moderate certainty), and other serious adverse pregnancy events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.83-1.40, absolute increase 0.2%, moderate certainty)., Conclusions: In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events. It remains possible that the benefit is restricted to those with prior miscarriages., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Objectives: Sialendoscopy is a minimally invasive procedure used to diagnose and treat obstructive salivary gland diseases. Previous studies in the topic have shown mixed results. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sialendoscopy through previous systematic reviews for different outcomes of several diseases. We also aimed to assess studies' methodological quality and heterogeneity., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs and Cochrane Library. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses that used sialendoscopy to treat both lithiasic and alithiasic salivary glands diseases. Data extraction included studies' characteristics and results. We assessed studies' methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool., Results: 13 studies were included in the review, being 9 in adult populations and 4 in pediatric populations. Sialendoscopy proved to be effective at the treatment of different lithiasic and other obstructive diseases, but with important heterogeneity. The technique was also considered highly safe in most studies. However, studies had a critically low quality of evidence., Conclusions: Most studies demonstrated high efficacy and safety of sialendoscopy, but with critically low quality of evidence. We still lack randomized studies in this field, and future systematic reviews on the topic should follow current guidelines to improve conduction and reporting., (Copyright © 2023 Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Published by Elsevier España S.L.U. All rights reserved.)