Meta-IMU: A R Shiny App to Conduct Meta-Analysis in Systematic Review and Umbrella Reviews Many tools exist for conducting meta-analyses in systematic reviews, but they are often expensive or difficult for beginners to use. This challenge arises because most tools either fail to address all aspects of meta-analysis comprehensively or lack sufficient guidance for navigating their features. To address these limitations, we developed Meta-IMU, a free R-based Shiny application tailored specifically for beginners. Unlike many existing tools that focus solely on standard systematic reviews, Meta-IMU supports both systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, offering a more versatile approach. To ensure accessibility, Meta-IMU includes built-in instructional videos that guide users step by step, from navigating the application to interpreting the results produced. This guidance ensures users can confidently perform analyses without prior expertise. Meta-IMU encompasses a comprehensive range of features covering key aspects of meta-analysis, such as defining review questions, developing search terms, retrieving studies from various databases, assessing risk of bias, creating tables and plots, analysing small-study effects, performing meta-regression and subgroup analyses, conducting sensitivity analyses, assessing the certainty of evidence, summarizing findings, and generating PRISMA checklist reports. By integrating these functionalities into a single platform, Meta-IMU provides a user-friendly, all-in-one solution. In summary, Meta-IMU is a comprehensive, free application designed to simplify the process of meta-analysis for both systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, making advanced analytical techniques accessible to researchers at any level of experience.

Background/Aims: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is closely associated with diabetes. The cumulative impact of both diseases synergistically increases risk of adverse events. However, present population analysis is predominantly conducted with reference to non-NAFLD individuals and has not yet examined the impact of prediabetes. Hence, we sought to conduct a retrospective analysis on the impact of diabetic status in NAFLD patients, referencing non-diabetic NAFLD individuals. Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2018 was used. Hepatic steatosis was defined with United States Fatty Liver Index (US-FLI) and FLI at a cut-off of 30 and 60 respectively, in absence of substantial alcohol use. A multivariate generalized linear model was used for risk ratios of binary outcomes while survival analysis was conducted with Cox regression and Fine Gray model for competing risk. Results: Of 32,234 patients, 28.92% were identified to have NAFLD. 36.04%, 38.32% and 25.63% were non-diabetic, prediabetic and diabetic respectively. Diabetic NAFLD significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, chronic kidney disease, all-cause and CVD mortality compared to non-diabetic NAFLD. However, prediabetic NAFLD only significantly increased the risk of CVD and did not result in a higher risk of mortality. Conclusions Given the increased risk of adverse outcomes, this study highlights the importance of regular diabetes screening in NAFLD and adoption of prompt lifestyle modifications to reduce disease progression. Facing high cardiovascular burden, prediabetic and diabetic NAFLD individuals can benefit from early cardiovascular referrals to reduce risk of CVD events and mortality.

INTRODUCTIONNovel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have at least equivalent efficacy compared to standard anticoagulants with similar bleeding risk. Optimal management strategies for bleeding complications associated with NOACs are currently unestablished.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA working group comprising haematologists and vascular medicine specialists representing the major institutions in Singapore was convened to produce this consensus recommendation. A Medline and EMBASE search was conducted for articles related to the 3 available NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban), bleeding and its management. Additional information was obtained from the product monographs and bibliographic search of articles identified.

RESULTSThe NOACs still has substantial interactions with a number of drugs for which concomitant administration should best be avoided. As they are renally excreted, albeit to different degrees, NOACs should not be prescribed to patients with creatinine clearance of <30 mLs/min. Meticulous consideration of risk versus benefits should be exercised before starting a patient on a NOAC. In patients presenting with bleeding, risk stratification of the severity of bleeding as well as identification of the source of bleeding should be performed. In life-threatening bleeds, recombinant activated factor VIIa and prothrombin complex may be considered although their effectiveness is currently unsupported by firm clinical evidence. The NOACs have varying effect on the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time which has to be interpreted with caution. Routine monitoring of drug level is not usually required.

CONCLUSIONNOACs are an important advancement in antithrombotic management and careful patient selection and monitoring will permit optimisation of their potential and limit bleeding events.

Administration, Oral ; Anticoagulants ; therapeutic use ; Benzimidazoles ; Consensus ; Dabigatran ; Hemorrhage ; prevention & control ; Humans ; Singapore ; Thiophenes