Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

Vaccine confidence among those living with allergy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): A scoping review.

Background: Reports of allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, coupled with an "infodemic" of misinformation, carry the potential to undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. However, no attempts have been made to comprehensively synthesize the literature on how allergic disease and fear of allergic reactions to the vaccines contribute to hesitancy. Objectives: Our aim was to review the academic and gray literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic reactions. Methods: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a search strategy developed by content and methodologic experts. No restrictions were applied regarding COVID-19 vaccine type, country of study, or patient age. Eligible articles were restricted to 10 languages. Results: Of the 1385 unique records retrieved from our search, 60 articles (4.3%) were included. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were rare but slightly more common in individuals with a history of allergic disease. A fifth of the studies (13 of 60 [22%]) discussed vaccine hesitancy due to possibility of an allergic reaction. Additionally, the present review identified research on details of vaccine-related anaphylaxis (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 12.4 and 5 cases per million doses, respectively) and allergic reactions (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 489 and 528 cases per million doses, respectively). Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among individuals living with allergy and among those with no history of allergic disease may be affected by fear of an allergic reaction. Despite the low incidence of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, fear of such reactions is one of the most commonly cited concerns reported in the literature.

vACcine COnfidence amongst those living with alleRgy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Reports of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines have been documented, which may also contribute to hesitancy. Despite the low likelihood that the COVID-19 vaccine will trigger an allergic reaction, we and others have reported that families with allergy remain vaccine hesitant due to concerns of COVID-19-vaccine-triggered anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To present our scoping review protocol, that will inform a forthcoming living scoping review in which we will investigate the peer-reviewed and grey literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic disease and/or allergic reactions following a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Informed by Arksey and O'Malley framework for methodological review, we have developed a search strategy with content and methodological experts, and which has undergone Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies review. A search of four scientific databases, as well as gray literature, will be performed without restriction to articles by type of COVID-19 vaccine, or country of study, and will include publications in the ten languages our team can handle. Bi-monthly search alerts based on the search strategy will be generated. RESULTS: The first search will result in a stand alone peer reviewed scoping review. Bi-monthly updates will be posted on a pre-print server. Depending on the volume of literature, these updates will be synthesized and submitted for peer-review at 6 and/or 12 months. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst individuals with allergy persists, despite very low risk of serious adverse reactions. Our living scoping review, which includes multiple forms of knowledge translation, will be a rigorous way to address hesitancy.

Interventions to improve early cancer diagnosis of symptomatic individuals: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. DESIGN: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021. ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised findings graphically and descriptively. RESULTS: From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Antiviral drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg - 10 days) ranked best, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.

Remdesivir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In view of many unanswered clinical questions regarding treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir, we systematically identified, critically appraised and summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched relevant databases/websites (up to September 2020) and selected English-language RCT publications of remdesivir for COVID-19. We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model in addition to trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the efficacy outcomes: all-cause mortality, viral burden and clinical progression. Safety outcomes were diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included five RCTs (7540 participants) from 7237 citations. Most (80%) were of an unclear to high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement with remdesivir (100 mg, 10 days) regarding all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, CI 0.82-1.07; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs; 7143 patients), clinical progression (RR 1.08, CI 0.99-1.18; I2 = 70.4%; 3 RCTs; 1692 patients), or diarrhoea (RR 0.82, CI 0.40-1.66; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). Nausea occurred more often with remdesivir (RR 2.77, CI 1.28-6.03; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). TSA showed that the required information size was not reached for firm conclusions to be drawn. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence. Until then, remdesivir should remain an experimental drug for COVID-19.

Operational Considerations for Physical Therapy During COVID-19: A Rapid Review.

OBJECTIVE: Physical therapists play an important role in responding to pandemic and physical disaster situations. Existing literature can provide guidance to health care leadership teams to appropriately and safely leverage physical therapy resources and skill sets during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to provide a review of the pandemic and physical disaster management literature to summarize physical therapy-specific operational considerations to assist hospital-based leadership teams in planning and response efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted over a 4-week time frame (April-May 2020). The review team included 3 physical therapist clinician researchers, a health librarian, and a member of the physical therapy leadership team. The initial search strategy identified 303 articles, 80 of which were retained for full-text screening. Twenty articles were included in the review. RESULTS: Five main categories of operational considerations for physical therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified: (1) organizational actions, (2) staffing considerations, (3) physical therapist roles, (4) physical resources, and (5) other considerations. Additional relevant information from physical therapists' experiences in physical disaster situations was also summarized. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented within this review can be used to inform facility-based and regional planning efforts during the current COVID-19 pandemic and in general preparedness planning. IMPACT: Physical therapists have an important role to play in response efforts related to major events that impact health and wellness, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence-informed, facility-based, and regional planning during the current COVID-19 pandemic will help physical therapists enhance their role in treating patients in physical therapy and rehabilitation settings.