Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed. RESULTS: A total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation. CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

COVID-19 testing in outbreak-free care homes: what are the public health benefits?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 care home outbreaks represent a significant proportion of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in the UK. National testing initially focused on symptomatic care home residents, before extending to asymptomatic cohorts. AIM: The aim was to describe the epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in outbreak free care homes. METHODS: A two-point prevalence survey of COVID-19, in 34 Liverpool care homes, was performed in April and May 2020. Changes in prevalence were analysed. Associations between care home characteristics, reported infection, prevention and control interventions, and COVID-19 status were described and analysed. FINDINGS: No resident developed COVID-19 symptoms during the study. There was no significant difference between: the number of care homes containing at least one test positive resident between the first (17.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-34.5) and second round (14.7%, 95% CI 5.0-31.1) of testing (p>0.99); and the number of residents testing positive between the first (2.1%, 95% CI 1.2-3.4) and second round (1.0%, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) of testing (P=0.11). Care homes providing nursing care (risk ratio (RR) 7.99, 95% CI 1.1-57.3) and employing agency staff (RR 8.4, 95% CI 1.2-60.8) were more likely to contain test positive residents. Closing residents shared space was not associated with residents testing positive (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.4-18.5). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic COVID-19 care homes showed no evidence of disease transmission or development of outbreaks; suggesting that current infection prevention and control measures are effective in preventing transmission. Repeat testing at two to three weeks had limited or no public health benefits over regular daily monitoring of staff and residents for symptoms. These results should inform policies calling for regular testing of asymptomatic residents.

Perspectives From the Foot and Ankle Department at an Academic Orthopedic Hospital During the Surge Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Cases of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus (COVID-19) first emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Since then, the virus has spread globally at a rapid pace. The first case in New York City was reported on March 1, 2020, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. New York City rapidly became the epicenter of the pandemic, with hospitals across the city making a number of changes to accommodate the influx of COVID-19 patients. Here, we describe our experience in adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic as a department consisting of 10 foot and ankle fellowship-trained surgeons with up to 28 years of individual experience in an academic orthopedic hospital. Methods: Information was obtained from direct interviews with surgeons in the Foot and Ankle Service and from our institution’s intranet. Additional information was obtained by viewing twice-weekly livestreams from March 27th, 2020 to May 1st, 2020 held by the Surgeon-In-Chief, which detailed hospital-wide policies and initiatives being implemented in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: On March 17, 2020, all elective surgeries were suspended at our institution, and a list of essential procedures was established. In-person clinical visits were limited to new patients being evaluated for essential procedures and first postoperative visits for returning patients, with all patients receiving pre-visit and on-site screening for COVID-19. All other new patient and follow-up appointments were conducted via telehealth visits. Much of our main hospital was repurposed to accept transfers of both COVID-negative and COVID-positive patients. A postanesthesia care unit and a floor of 9 operating rooms were repurposed as negative-pressure rooms for the care of critical COVID-positive patients on ventilators. An Orthopedic Triage Center (OTC) was established to relieve the patient load in the emergency departments of other hospitals in the city. Conclusion: By changing the way we delivered foot and ankle care and repurposing the roles of our employees and our institution, we have adapted strategies to continue delivering care to our patients. As we transition toward a ‘new normal,’ our goals are to gradually progress toward normal operations while keeping our patients and employees safe. With these gradual steps, we hope to emerge from this pandemic stronger and ready to adapt to the ever-changing needs of our community.

Prevalence of Diabetes and Hypertension and Their Associated Risks for Poor Outcomes in Covid-19 Patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has affected millions of people and may disproportionately affect those with hypertension and diabetes. Because of inadequate methods in published systematic reviews, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and associated risks of poor outcomes in Covid-19 patients are unknown. We searched databases from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, and selected observational peer-reviewed studies in English of patients with Covid-19. Independent reviewers extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence. We included 65 (15 794 participants) observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias. Overall prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-15; n = 12 870; I 2: 89%), and 17% (95% CI, 13-22; n = 12 709; I 2: 95%), respectively. In severe Covid-19, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension were 18% (95% CI, 16-20; n = 1099; I 2: 0%) and 32% (95% CI, 16-54; n = 1078; I 2: 63%), respectively. Unadjusted relative risk for intensive care unit admission and mortality were 1.96 (95% CI, 1.19-3.22; n = 8890; I 2: 80%; P = .008) and 2.78 (95% CI, 1.39-5.58; n = 2058; I 2: 75%; P = .0004) for diabetics; and 2.95 (95% CI, 2.18-3.99; n = 1737; I 2: 0%; P < .001) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.54-3.73; n = 3107; I 2: 66%; P < .001) for hypertensives. Neither diabetes (1.50; 95% CI, 0.90-2.50; n = 1991; I 2: 74%; P = .119) nor hypertension (1.48; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; n = 2023; I 2: 69%; P = .058) was associated with severe Covid-19. In conclusion, the risk of intensive care unit admission and mortality for patients with diabetes or hypertension who developed Covid-19 is increased compared with those without these comorbidities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176582.

A Snapshot of Radiology Training During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the personal and professional lives of radiology trainees. The purpose of this study was to broadly summarize the impact of COVID-19 on radiology trainees and their training programs via data collected during the early pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to radiology chief residents in residencies throughout North America with responses collected between March 20th, 2020 and May 15th, 2020, which coincided with the development of initial COVID-19 peaks in North America. A subset of COVID-19 pandemic questions included resident wellness, imaging opinions, residency infrastructure change, and opinions regarding the Core Exam delay. RESULTS: One hundred forty chief residents from 86 institutions responded to COVID-19-related questions. Nearly all responding programs (99%; 85/86) reported institutional positive cases of COVID-19. Most residents (94%; 132/140) thought laboratory testing provided more value than imaging. Fifty-seven percent of respondents (80/140) would use COVID-19-related terminology when encountering chest CT findings supportive of viral pneumonia in symptomatic patients. There was little reported change in the number of residents on call (no change reported in >80% of programs). Fifty-nine percent of residents (83/140) reported increased stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of programs (93%) had fewer residents on service (80/86 responding programs). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 dramatically affected radiology residencies during the early pandemic period. As we enter future phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, careful thought should also be given to rebuilding the radiology resident experience.

Endocrine Conditions and COVID-19.

COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the WHO and has affected millions of patients around the world. COVID-19 disproportionately affects persons with endocrine conditions, thus putting them at an increased risk for severe disease. We discuss the mechanisms that place persons with endocrine conditions at an additional risk for severe COVID-19 and review the evidence. We also suggest precautions and management of endocrine conditions in the setting of global curfews being imposed and offer practical tips for uninterrupted endocrine care.

Chest CT and Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Critical Review of the Literature to Date.

OBJECTIVE. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Studies in the radiology literature have suggested that CT might be sufficiently sensitive and specific in diagnosing COVID-19 when used in lieu of a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test; however, this suggestion runs counter to current society guidelines. The purpose of this article is to critically review some of the most frequently cited studies on the use of CT for detecting COVID-19. CONCLUSION. To date, the radiology literature on COVID-19 has consisted of limited retrospective studies that do not substantiate the use of CT as a diagnostic test for COVID-19.