Validation of the Peruvian Spanish Version of the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-6 Scale to Measure Viral Anxiety of Medical Students During COVID-19.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has created academic problems for Peruvian medical students leading to anxiety and depression. Hence, validated scales, such as the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-6 items (SAVE-6), are required to identify and propose interventions to improve mental health. We aimed to perform a psychometric validation of the Peruvian version of SAVE-6 on medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lima, Peru, in 2022. Methods: A total of 260 medical students at National University of San Marcos (UNMSM) participated in an online survey in January 2022. We collected sociodemographic characteristics and classified psychiatric symptoms using SAVE-6, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 items (GAD-7) scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9). We performed confirmatory and parallel factor analysis to examine the validity of the Peruvian Spanish version of SAVE-6. Results: We explored the reliability and validity of SAVE-6 and SAVE-6 after excluding item 5, since factor loading of item 5 is too low. Both scales showed good internal consistencies (Cronbach's α = 0.780 and.82 and McDonald's Ω = 0.792 and.829, respectively). Furthermore, SAVE-6 after excluding item 5 showed good convergent validity with GAD-7 (r = 0.224, p <.001) and PHQ-9 (r = 0.217, p <.001). Consequently, instead of the full SAVE-6, SAVE-6 excluding item 5 proved to be reliable and valid enough to assess the anxiety of Peruvian medical students during the pandemic. Conclusion: The Peruvian Spanish SAVE-6 scale excluding item 5, rather than the full SAVE-6, can be applied to measure viral anxiety of medical students in Peru with good validity and reliability.

Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.

Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and Its Associated Unfavorable Outcomes in Patients With Acute Respiratory Syndromes Due to Coronaviruses Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Only 3 types of coronavirus cause aggressive respiratory disease in humans (MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov-1, and SARS-Cov-2). It has been reported higher infection rates and severe manifestations (ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and death) in patients with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (DM). For this reason, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of diabetes comorbidity and its associated unfavorable health outcomes in patients with acute respiratory syndromes for coronavirus disease according to virus types. METHODS: Systematic review of literature in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scielo until April of 2020. We included cohort and cross-sectional studies with no restriction by language or geographical zone. The selection and extraction were undertaken by 2 reviewers, independently. The study quality was evaluated with Loney's instrument and data were synthesized by random effects model meta-analysis. The heterogeneity was quantified using an I 2 statistic. Funnel plot, Egger, and Begg tests were used to evaluate publication biases, and subgroups and sensitivity analyses were performed. Finally, we used the GRADE approach to assess the evidence certainty (PROSPERO: CRD42020178049). RESULTS: We conducted the pooled analysis of 28 studies (n = 5960). The prevalence analysis according to virus type were 451.9 diabetes cases per 1000 infected patients (95% CI: 356.74-548.78; I 2 = 89.71%) in MERS-Cov; 90.38 per 1000 (95% CI: 67.17-118.38) in SARS-Cov-1; and 100.42 per 1000 (95% CI: 77.85, 125.26 I 2 = 67.94%) in SARS-Cov-2. The mortality rate were 36%, 6%, 10% and for MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov-1, and SARS-Cov-2, respectively. Due to the high risk of bias (75% of studies had very low quality), high heterogeneity (I 2 higher than 60%), and publication bias (for MERS-Cov studies), we down rate the certainty to very low. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DM in patients with acute respiratory syndrome due to coronaviruses is high, predominantly with MERS-Cov infection. The unfavorable health outcomes are frequent in this subset of patients. Well-powered and population-based studies are needed, including detailed DM clinical profile (such as glycemic control, DM complications, and treatment regimens), comorbidities, and SARS-Cov-2 evolution to reevaluate the worldwide prevalence of this comorbidity and to typify clinical phenotypes with differential risk within the subpopulation of DM patients.