ABSTRACT
The present study explores characteristics of the top 100 most-cited articles on loneliness. A systematic search was carried out using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection to collect studies on loneliness from inception to June 1, 2022. The initial search resulted in 6,250 search results, which included articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials, and letters. Two authors independently screened the literature and extracted the data. The study supervisor removed any discrepancies. Top 100 papers (articles and reviews) on loneliness published in English were extracted. Data analysis and visualization were performed on Excel, Web of Science (WoS) Data Analyzer, and VOSviewer 1.6.16. The total number of citations of the 100 top-cited articles was 42,044, ranging from 203 to 2,201 per article. All of the studies were published from 1989 to 2021, and the years with the highest number of top-cited articles published were 2003 and 2008. Most publications were from the following journals: Computers in Human Behavior, Developmental Psychology, Psychological Science, Psychology, and Aging (n=4 each). The most cited article was titled "UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure" by Russell, DW, in the Journal of Personality Assessment. The most productive institute was the University of Chicago. The two most productive authors were Cacioppo, JT, and Hawkley, LC. Of the 100 top-cited publications, 87 were original articles and 13 were reviews. The top three WoS categories were psychology multidisciplinary, gerontology, and psychiatry. In total, 37 author keywords were elicited and further clubbed into eight distinct clusters. The study provides new insight into loneliness research, which may help doctors, researchers, and stakeholders achieve a more comprehensive understanding of trends and influential contributions to the field and highlight under-researched areas, which could be the basis for future investigation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of baricitinib alone or in combination with other therapies as a treatment for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Systematic literature search was conducted in the WHO COVID-19 coronavirus disease database to find clinical studies on use of baricitinib for treatment of COVID-19 between December 1, 2019 and September 30, 2021. Two independent set of reviewers identified the eligible studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, relevant data was extracted and a qualitative synthesis of evidence performed. The risk of bias was evaluated with validated tools. RESULTS: A total of 267 articles were found to be eligible after primary screening of titles and abstracts. Following assessment of full texts, 19 studies were finally included for this systematic review, out of which 16 are observational, and 3 are interventional studies. Collating the results from these observational and interventional studies, baricitinib used as add-on to standard therapy, either alone or in combination with other drugs, was found to have favorable outcomes in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Furthermore, ongoing trials indicate that the drug is being extensively studied across the world for its safety and efficacy in COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib significantly improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and further evidence will establish the drug as a standard treatment among such patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: India has seen more than 43 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 2022, with a recovery rate of 98.8%, resulting in a large section of the population including the healthcare workers (HCWs), susceptible to develop post COVID sequelae. This study was carried out to assess the nature and prevalence of medical sequelae following COVID-19 infection, and risk factors, if any. Methods: This was an observational, multicenter cross-sectional study conducted at eight tertiary care centers. The consenting participants were HCWs between 12 and 52 weeks post discharge after COVID-19 infection. Data on demographics, medical history, clinical features of COVID-19 and various symptoms of COVID sequelae was collected through specific questionnaire. Finding: Mean age of the 679 eligible participants was 31.49 ± 9.54 years. The overall prevalence of COVID sequelae was 30.34%, with fatigue (11.5%) being the most common followed by insomnia (8.5%), difficulty in breathing during activity (6%) and pain in joints (5%). The odds of having any sequelae were significantly higher among participants who had moderate to severe COVID-19 (OR 6.51; 95% CI 3.46-12.23) and lower among males (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.76). Besides these, other predictors for having sequelae were age (≥45 years), presence of any comorbidity (especially hypertension and asthma), category of HCW (non-doctors vs doctors) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Interpretation: Approximately one-third of the participants experienced COVID sequelae. Severity of COVID illness, female gender, advanced age, co-morbidity were significant risk factors for COVID sequelae. Funding: This work is a part of Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR)- Rational Use of Medicines network. No additional financial support was received from ICMR to carry out the work, for study materials, medical writing, and APC.
ABSTRACT
The COVID 19 pandemic unleashed an unprecedented crisis for the Indian economy. This paper turns to the Indian stock market to answer this questions that whether there were indications of economic consequences in India even before the lockdown, and how has the Indian stock market reacted to the policies of lockdown, liquidity, and fiscal initiatives. Results reveal that stock markets were showing signs of oncoming disturbances beforehand, possibly due to the interconnectedness of global stock markets. As markets adjusted, later interventions by the government did not make a statistically significant impact.