Background: This study was designed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (I-MRA) imaging with those of arthroscopy and each other. Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 2020. All patients who tested positive for labrum lesions during that year were included in the study. The patients underwent conservative treatment for 6 weeks. In the event of no response to conservative treatment, MRI and I-MRA imaging were conducted, and the patients underwent arthroscopy to determine their ultimate diagnosis and treatment plan. Imaging results were assessed at a 1-week interval by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist. Image interpretation results and arthroscopy were recorded in the data collection form. Results: Overall, 35 patients comprised the study. Based on the kappa coefficient, the results indicate that the results of both imaging methods are in agreement with the arthroscopic findings, but the I-MRA consensus rate is higher than that of MRI (0.612±0.157 and 0.749±0.101 vs. 0.449±0.160 and 0.603±0.113). The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy of MRI in detecting labrum tears were 77.77%, 75.00%, 91.30%, 50.00%, and 77.14%, respectively, and those of I-MRA were 88.88%, 75.00%, 92.30%, 66.66%, and 85.71%. Conclusions Here, I-MRA showed higher diagnostic value than MRI for labral tears. Therefore, it is recommended that I-MRA be used instead of MRI if there is an indication for potential labrum lesions.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.

Background: The use of remdesivir in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been studied. The present systematic review and analysis aimed to assess its effectiveness in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, medRxiv, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify relevant articles published up to April 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane assessment tool. Data analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software ver. 3.0. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, involving a total of 574 SOTRs. The findings indicated no significant differences in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.39), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.10–4.79), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.44–2.18), or need for oxygen therapy (OR, 3.73; 95% CI, 0.75–18.34) between the groups that received remdesivir and those that did not. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of intensive care unit admissions between the two groups (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24–4.57). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that remdesivir offers no clinical benefits to SOTRs infected with COVID-19. Additional high-quality research is required to assess the potential clinical advantages of remdesivir for SOTRs with COVID-19.