BackgroundChildhood obesity is a global public health issue, and the status of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as instruction manuals for the management of childhood obesity remains unclear. This study aims to identify and apprise the methodological and reporting quality of CPGs focused on childhood obesity and provide an overview of key recommendations.MethodsDatabases and websites reporting guidelines were searched from January, 2018 to September, 2023. The methodological quality was graded using the AGREE II, and RIGHT was used to assess the reporting completeness.ResultsAmong the six included CPGs, two were rated as high quality and considered "Recommended" and three were reported no less than 80%. CPGs included 184 recommendations cover diagnosis, assessment and management of complications, interventions and prevention. The diagnostic criteria for children with obesity over 2 years of age are based on normative BMI percentiles, depending on sex and age. CPGs recommended the delivery of multi-component behavior-changed interventions included controlling diet and increasing physical activity. Pharmacological interventions and bariatric surgery are considered as complementary therapies.ConclusionCPGs for childhood obesity should emphasize the impact of psychological factors and consider the provision of interventions from multiple settings, and could consider the role of complementary alternative therapies.ImpactSix guidelines have been published in the past 5 years focusing children obesity.Recommendations covered diagnosis, multiple intervention and prevention.Guidelines should focus on the role of complementary alternative therapies.Guidelines should emphasize the impact of psychological factors.Guidelines should consider the provision of interventions from multiple settings.

Background: COVID-19 might be a risk factor for various chronic diseases. However, the association between COVID-19 and the risk of incident diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to meta-analyze evidence on the relative risk of incident diabetes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to June 8, 2022. We included cohort studies that provided data on the number, proportion, or relative risk of diabetes after confirming the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the relative risk with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. We converted the relative risk to the absolute risk difference to present the evidence. This study was registered in advance (PROSPERO CRD42022337841). Main findings: Ten articles involving 11 retrospective cohorts with a total of 47.1 million participants proved eligible. We found a 64 % greater risk (RR = 1.64, 95%CI: 1.51 to 1.79) of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls, which could increase the number of diabetes events by 701 (558 more to 865 more) per 10,000 persons. We detected significant subgroup effects for type of diabetes and sex. Type 2 diabetes has a higher relative risk than type 1. Moreover, men may be at a higher risk of overall diabetes than women. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence was found for publication bias. Conclusions: COVID-19 is strongly associated with the risk of incident diabetes, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We should be aware of the risk of developing diabetes after COVID-19 and prepare for the associated health problems, given the large and growing number of people infected with COVID-19. However, the body of evidence still needs to be strengthened.

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a serious pregnancy complication that affects approximately 1% of pregnancies worldwide. Objective: To determine whether the use of ondansetron during pregnancy is associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Search strategy: PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, CNKI, CBM, WANFANG, and were searched for citations published in any language from inception to 15 December 2021. Selection criteria: Eligible studies included any observational study. Data collection and analysis: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as indicators to examine the association between ondansetron and abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Main results: Twenty articles from 1,558 citations were included. Our preliminary analysis showed that compared with the unexposed group, the use of ondansetron during pregnancy may be associated with an increased incidence of cardiac defects (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), neural tube defects (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18), and chest cleft (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37). Further sensitivity analysis showed no significant association between ondansetron and cardiac defects (OR = 1.15,95% CI: 0.94-1.40) or neural tube defects (OR = 0.87,95% CI: 0.46-1.66). When controversial studies were eliminated, the results for the chest defects disappeared. Simultaneously, we found that the use of ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of miscarriage (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.89). Ondansetron was not associated with orofacial clefts (OR = 1.09,95% CI: 0.95-1.25), spinal limb defects (OR = 1.14,95% CI: 0.89-1.46), urinary tract deformities (OR = 1.06,95% CI: 0.97-1.15), any congenital malformations (OR = 1.03,95% CI: 0.98-1.09), stillbirth (OR = 0.97,95% CI: 0.83-1.15), preterm birth (OR = 1.22,95% CI: 0.80-1.85), neonatal asphyxia (OR = 1.05,95% CI: 0.72-1.54), or neonatal development (OR = 1.18,95% CI: 0.96-1.44) in our primary analysis. Conclusion: In our analysis, using ondansetron during pregnancy was not associated with abnormal pregnancy outcomes. Although our study did not find sufficient evidence of ondansetron and adverse pregnancy outcomes, future studies including the exposure period and dose of ondansetron, as well as controlling for disease status, may be useful to truly elucidate the potential risks and benefits of ondansetron.

BACKGROUND In recent years, intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been increasingly used for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of IORT for the treatment of rectal cancer are still controversial. AIM To evaluate the value of IORT for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and conference abstracts and included randomized controlled trials and observational studies on IORT vs non-IORT for rectal cancer. Dichotomous variables were evaluated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI was used as a summary statistic of survival outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS In this study, 3 randomized controlled studies and 12 observational studies were included with a total of 1460 patients, who are mainly residents of Europe, the United States, and Asia. Our results did not show significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.60-1.06; P = 0.126); 5-year disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.73-1.22; P = 0.650); abscess (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.67-1.80; P = 0.713), fistulae (OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.33-1.89; P = 0.600); wound complication (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 0.62-2.36; P = 0.575); anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.59-2.02; P = 0.775); and neurogenic bladder dysfunction (OR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.31-1.55; P = 0.369). However, the meta-analysis of 5-year local control was significantly different (OR = 3.07, 95%CI = 1.66-5.66; P = 0.000). CONCLUSION The advantage of IORT is mainly reflected in 5-year local control, but it is not statistically significant for 5-year overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, and complications.