ABSTRACT
In December 2019, a new disease caused by a coronavirus was first identified in China and quickly spread across the world, causing a large number of deaths. Quarantine has been implemented in many countries as a measure to prevent the spread of the disease. The impact of this situation on drug use and mental health is still poorly understood. Therefore, this cross-sectional study sought to assess possible associations between quarantine, the use of psychoactive substances, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. The assessment instruments used were the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale; and an adaptation of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The sample consisted of 2398 participants who met the following inclusion criteria: being in quarantine, aged 18 years or older, and living in Brazil. There was a decrease in the frequency of use of practically all drugs investigated in the evaluated sample. However, some factors were associated with less variations in the frequency of substance use before and during quarantine. These factors were being male, single, and having an occupation different from homemaker.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a scoping review of the meta-analyses published regarding about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evaluating their main characteristics, publication trends and methodological quality. METHODS: A bibliometric search was performed in PubMed®, Scopus and Web of Science, focusing on meta-analyses about COVID-2019 disease. Bibliometric and descriptive data for the included articles were extracted and the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 348 meta-analyses were considered eligible. The first meta-analysis about COVID-19 disease was published on February 26, 2020, and the number of meta-analyses has grown rapidly since then. Most of them were published in infectious disease and virology journals. The greatest number come from China, followed by the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom. On average, these meta-analyses included 23 studies and 15,200 participants. Overall quality was remarkably low, and only 8.9% of them could be considered as of high confidence level. CONCLUSION: Although well-designed meta-analyses about COVID-19 disease have already been published, the majority are of low quality. Thus, all stakeholders playing a role in COVID-19 deseases, including policy makers, researchers, publishers and journals, should prioritize well-designed meta-analyses, performed only when the background information seem suitable, and discouraging those of low quality or that use suboptimal methods.