Operating-Profit-Margin Time Series for Meta Platforms Inc.. Meta Platforms, Inc. engages in the development of products that enable people to connect and share with friends and family through mobile devices, personal computers, virtual reality and mixed reality headsets, augmented reality, and wearables worldwide. It operates through two segments, Family of Apps (FoA) and Reality Labs (RL). The FoA segment offers Facebook, which enables people to build community through feed, reels, stories, groups, marketplace, and other; Instagram that brings people closer through instagram feed, stories, reels, live, and messaging; Messenger, a messaging application for people to connect with friends, family, communities, and businesses across platforms and devices through text, audio, and video calls; Threads, an application for text-based updates and public conversations; and WhatsApp, a messaging application that is used by people and businesses to communicate and transact in a private way. The RL segment provides virtual, augmented, and mixed reality related products comprising consumer hardware, software, and content that help people feel connected, anytime, and anywhere. The company was formerly known as Facebook, Inc. and changed its name to Meta Platforms, Inc. in October 2021. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Menlo Park, California.

Data from 27 randomised controlled trials included in this systematic review was independently extracted by two review authors and entered into a pre-piloted data extraction form. If information was missing, study authors were contacted with up to four follow-up Emails.We calculated standardised effect sizes for intermediate outcomes and distal outcomes. Standardised effect sizes are scale-free and provide comparable information about the magnitude and direction of each effect and can thus be aggregated across studies. For continuous outcome measures, standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated. To adjust for potential bias from small sample sizes, we used Hedges’ g correction for all effect sizes. For outcomes that were measured on a continuous scale in some studies and dichotomised in other studies (e.g. increases in saving amounts), we transformed odds ratios into SMDs and used Hedges’ g correction as described above. Intermediate outcomes included (a) increases in total savings, (b) financial literacy, and (c) savings attitudes, (d) investments in profitable business. It is crucial to account for potential crowd-out effects that can arise from the shifting of resources to the saving device endorsed by the interventions. We have therefore made efforts to focus on total household savings and otherwise sought to aggregate all information on savings held in different places to reach an average effect. Distal outcomes included (a) business profits, (b) food security, (c) investments in and status of health, (d) investments in education and educational attainment, and (e) household poverty measured through assets or expenditure/income.

Dataset for all analyses

ObjectivesWe conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided air enema reduction (FGAR) and ultrasound-guided hydrostatic enema reduction (UGHR) for the treatment of intussusception in pediatric patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on retrospective studies obtained from various databases, including PUBMED, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and VIP Database. The search included publications from January 1, 2003, to March 31, 2023, with the last search done on Jan 15, 2023.ResultsWe included 49 randomized controlled studies and retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 9,391 patients, with 4,841 in the UGHR and 4,550 in the FGAR. Specifically, UGHR exhibited a significantly shorter time to reduction (WMD = -4.183, 95% CI = (-5.402, -2.964), P < 0.001), a higher rate of successful reduction (RR = 1.128, 95% CI = (1.099, 1.157), P < 0.001), and a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.215, 95% CI = (-1.58, -0.85), P < 0.001). Furthermore, UGHR repositioning was associated with a diminished overall complication rate (RR = 0.296, 95% CI = (0.225, 0.389), P < 0.001) and a lowered incidence of perforation (RR = 0.405, 95% CI = (0.244, 0.670), P < 0.001).ConclusionUGHR offers the benefits of being non-radioactive, achieving a shorter reduction time, demonstrating a higher success rate in repositioning in particular, resulting in a reduced length of postoperative hospital stay, and yielding a lower overall incidence of postoperative complications, including a reduced risk of associated perforations.

Summary of key characteristics from the 9 studies included in the meta-analysis.

Descriptions of studies included in the meta-analysis.