Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review.

BackgroundIn December 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then.AimThis study aims to understand the research gaps related to COVID-19 and propose recommendations for future research.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review of COVID-19, comprehensively searching databases and other sources to identify literature on COVID-19 between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020. We analysed the sources, publication date, type and topic of the retrieved articles/studies.ResultsWe included 249 articles in this scoping review. More than half (59.0%) were conducted in China. Guidance/guidelines and consensuses statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) posted online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 while the topics of molecular studies varied. Nine of 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 infection (R0). Of all identified guidance/guidelines (n = 35), only ten fulfilled the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January.ConclusionThe number of articles on COVID-19 steadily increased before 6 February 2020. However, they lack diversity and are almost non-existent in some study fields, such as clinical research. The findings suggest that evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and public health policies will be improved when more results from clinical research becomes available.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. Methods We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs. Results We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence. Conclusions Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19.

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health. CONCLUSION: This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. WHAT IS NEW: • The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19: An overview of 102 systematic reviews with evidence mapping.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, but there is so far no comprehensive analysis of all known symptoms of the disease. Our study aimed to present a comprehensive picture of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 using an evidence map. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library from their inception to March 16, 2021. We included systematic reviews reporting the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients. We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two individuals independently. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR. We visually presented the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and their prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 102 systematic reviews were included, of which, 68 studies (66.7%) were of high quality, 19 studies (18.6%) of medium quality, and 15 studies (14.7%) of low quality. We identified a total of 74 symptoms including 17 symptoms of the respiratory system, 21 symptoms of the neurological system, 10 symptoms of the gastrointestinal system, 16 cutaneous symptoms, and 10 ocular symptoms. The most common symptoms were fever (67 studies, ranging 16.3%-91.0%, pooled prevalence: 64.6%, 95%CI, 61.3%-67.9%), cough (68 studies, ranging 30.0%-72.2%, pooled prevalence: 53.6%, 95%CI, 52.1%-55.1%), muscle soreness (56 studies, ranging 3.0%-44.0%, pooled prevalence: 18.7%, 95%CI, 16.3%-21.3%), and fatigue (52 studies, ranging 3.3%-58.5%, pooled prevalence: 29.4%, 95%CI, 27.5%-31.3%). The prevalence estimates for COVID-19 symptoms were generally lower in neonates, children and adolescents, and pregnant women than in the general populations. CONCLUSION: At least 74 different clinical manifestations are associated with COVID-19. Fever, cough, muscle soreness, and fatigue are the most common, but attention should also be paid to the rare symptoms that can help in the early diagnosis of the disease.

Geospatial model of COVID-19 spreading and vaccination with event Gillespie algorithm.

We have developed a mathematical model and stochastic numerical simulation for the transmission of COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases that accounts for the geographic distribution of population density, detailed down to the level of location of individuals, and age-structured contact rates. Our analytical framework includes a surrogate model optimization process to rapidly fit the parameters of the model to the observed epidemic curves for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This toolkit (the model, the simulation code, and the optimizer) is a useful tool for policy makers and epidemic response teams, who can use it to forecast epidemic development scenarios in local settings (at the scale of cities to large countries) and design optimal response strategies. The simulation code also enables spatial visualization, where detailed views of epidemic scenarios are displayed directly on maps of population density. The model and simulation also include the vaccination process, which can be tailored to different levels of efficiency and efficacy of different vaccines. We used the developed framework to generate predictions for the spread of COVID-19 in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, and validated them by comparing the calculated number of cases and recoveries with data from local seroprevalence studies.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings: Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation: Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

Risk of COVID-19 Transmission Aboard Aircraft: An Epidemiological Analysis Based on the National Health Information Platform.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission on aircraft. METHODS: We obtained data on all international flights to Lanzhou, China, from June 1, 2020, to August 1, 2020, through the Gansu Province National Health Information Platform and the official website of the Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We then performed the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Three international flights arrived in Lanzhou. The flights had a total of 700 passengers, of whom 405 (57.9%) were male, and 80 (11.4%) were children under the age of 14 years. Twenty-seven (3.9%) passengers were confirmed to have COVID-19. Confirmed patients were primarily male (17, 65.4%) with a median age of 27.0 years. Most confirmed cases were seated in the middle rows of economy class or near public facility areas such as restrooms and galleys. The prevalence of COVID-19 did not differ between passengers sitting in the window, aisle, or middle seats. However, compared with passengers sitting in the same row up to 2 rows behind a confirmed case, passengers seated in the 2 rows in front of a confirmed case were at a slightly higher risk of being infected. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 may be transmitted during a passenger flight, although there is still no direct evidence.

Geospatial model of COVID-19 spreading and vaccination with event Gillespie algorithm

We have developed a mathematical model and stochastic numerical simulation for the transmission of COVID-19 and other similar infectious diseases that accounts for the geographic distribution of population density, detailed down to the level of location of individuals, and age-structured contact rates. Our analytical framework includes a surrogate model optimization process to rapidly fit the parameters of the model to the observed epidemic curves for cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This toolkit (the model, the simulation code, and the optimizer) is a useful tool for policy makers and epidemic response teams, who can use it to forecast epidemic development scenarios in local settings (at the scale of cities to large countries) and design optimal response strategies. The simulation code also enables spatial visualization, where detailed views of epidemic scenarios are displayed directly on maps of population density. The model and simulation also include the vaccination process, which can be tailored to different levels of efficiency and efficacy of different vaccines. We used the developed framework to generate predictions for the spread of COVID-19 in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, and validated them by comparing the calculated number of cases and recoveries with data from local seroprevalence studies.

Estimates of the COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate for 48 African Countries: A Model-Based Analysis

(1) Background: Examine global data from 48 African countries to estimate the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate;(2) Methods: We analyzed time series data on the 135,126 confirmed cases and 3922 deaths from COVID-19 disease outbreak in Africa through 30 May 2020. In a Bayesian prediction model based on the Monte Carlo approach, we adjusted for demographic, economic, biological, and societal variables to account for the untested people;(3) Results: We calculated a total of 1,686,879 COVID-19 infections after correcting for possible risk variables in the Bayesian model, equal to 13 infections per confirmed case. In Africa, the IFR is projected to be 0.23% (95% CI: 0.14–0.33%). The percentages varied by country, ranging from 0.004% in Botswana and the Central African Republic to 1.53% in Nigeria. The projected IFR is twelvefold greater than the WHO’s 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic estimate (0.02%). In four countries: Morocco, Nigeria, Cameroon, and South Africa, the inverse distance weighted interpolation map shows high IFR variability;(4) Conclusions: COVID-19 infection mortality rates can vary significantly between regions, and this might be due to changes in demography, underlying health conditions in the community, healthcare system capacity, positive health seeking behavior, and other variables.

A Comparison of Lung Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Lung ultrasound (LUS) and computed tomography (CT) can both be used for diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the agreement between LUS and CT is unknown. Purpose to compare the agreement of LUS and CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Chinese Biomedicine Literature, and WHO COVID-19 databases to identify studies that compared LUS with CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19. We calculated the pooled overall, positive and negative percent agreements, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the standard receiver operating curve (SROC) for LUS in the diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with CT. Results We identified 1896 records, of which nine studies involving 531 patients were finally included. The pooled overall, positive and negative percentage agreements of LUS for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19 compared with CT were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 43-99%), 96% (95% CI, 80-99%, I2 = 92.15%) and 80% (95%CI, 60-92%, I2 = 92.85%), respectively. DOR was 37.41 (95% CI, 9.43-148.49, I2 = 63.9%), and the area under the SROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The quality of evidence for both specificity and sensitivity was low because of heterogeneity and risk of bias. Conclusion The level of diagnostic agreement between LUS and CT in the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by COVID-19 is high. LUS can be therefore considered as an equally accurate alternative for CT in situations where molecular tests are not available.

Guidelines for the Management of Children and Adolescent with COVID-19: protocol for an update.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a constant threat to people's lives, bringing huge challenges to the global public health and medical service system. In order to ensure the timeliness and reliability of the recommendations in guidelines, the working group of the Rapid Advice Guidelines for Management of Children with COVID-19 decided to update the guideline to incorporate the latest evidence to guide the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent. METHODS: We will update the guidelines, originally developed as a rapid advice guideline, into a standard guideline. We will follow the clinical practice guideline (CPG) update manuals of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). The updated guidelines will also follow the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist and Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp). DISCUSSION: Through systematic search, evaluation and grading of the best available relevant clinical evidence, combined with the experience of frontline clinical experts in the fight against the epidemic and the wishes of patients and their caretakers, we will update our previous rapid advice guidelines into a high-quality, implementable standard guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The standard guideline update has been registered at the International Practice Guidelines Registry Platform (http://guidelines-registry.cn/?lang=en, registration No. IPGRP-2020CN101).

Family exposure and the impact of containment measures to children with coronavirus disease 2019 outside Hubei, China: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), China has carried out restrictive disease containment measures across the country. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we collected demographic and epidemiological data of 376 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among children younger than 18 years of age. Using descriptive statistics and odds ratios, we described the odds of exposure outside the family after the implementation of control measures compared to before. RESULTS: Children diagnosed on or after February 4, 2020, had a lower odds of exposure to COVID-19 outside of the family compared to those diagnosed before February 3, 2020 (OR =0.594, 95% CI: 0.391 to 0.904). In the stratified analysis, children aged 0 to 5 years had the lowest odds of exposure outside of the family (OR =0.420, 95% CI: 0.196 to 0.904) compared to the other age groups assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study on the children infected with COVID-19 as well as their exposure within family provided evidence that the implementation of containment measures was effective in reducing the odds of exposure outside of the family, especially for preschool children. Continuation of these efforts, coupled with tailored prevention and health education messaging for younger aged children, may help to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 among children until other therapeutic interventions or vaccines are available.

A cross-sectional study of the epidemic situation on COVID-19 in Gansu Province, China - a big data analysis of the national health information platform.

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then. This study is to explore the patient characteristics and transmission chains of COVID-19 in the population of Gansu province, and support decision-making. METHODS: We collected data from Gansu Province National Health Information Platform. A cross-sectional study was conducted, including patients with COVID-19 confirmed between January 23 and February 6, 2020, and analyzed the gender and age of the patients. We also described the incubation period, consultation time and sources of infection in the cases, and calculated the secondary cases that occurred within Gansu for each imported case. RESULTS: We found thirty-six (53.7%) of the patients were women and thirty-one (46.3%) men, and the median ages were 40 (IQR 31-53) years. Twenty-eight (41.8%) of the 67 cases had a history of direct exposure in Wuhan. Twenty-five (52.2%) cases came from ten families, and we found no clear reports of modes of transmission other than family clusters. The largest number of secondary cases linked to a single source was nine. CONCLUSION: More women than men were diagnosed with COVID-19 in Gansu Province. Although the age range of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Gansu Province covered almost all age groups, most patients with confirmed COVID-19 tend to be middle aged persons. The most common suspected mode of transmission was through family cluster. Gansu and other settings worldwide should continue to strengthen the utilization of big data in epidemic control.

Erratum to rapid advice guidelines for management of children with COVID-19.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-3754.].

A follow-up study of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 from western China.

BACKGROUND: To clarify the characteristic and the duration of positive nucleic acid in children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including asymptomatic children. METHODS: A total of 32 children confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 24 and February 12, 2020 from four provinces in western China were enrolled in this study and followed up until discharge and quarantine 14 days later. RESULTS: Eleven children (34%) were asymptomatic, among whom six children had normal computed tomographic (CT) scan images. Age and gender were not associated with clinical symptoms or the results of CT scan in children infected with SARS-CoV-2. The concentrations of white blood cells and neutrophils were higher in children with asymptomatic infection than in children with clinical symptoms or CT abnormalities. Patients who presented with CT abnormalities had lower D-dimer or lower total bilirubin than those who had normal CT scan but clinical symptoms. All children recovered and no one died or was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The mean duration of positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was 15.4 (SD =7.2) days and similar for both asymptomatic children and children with symptoms or CT abnormalities. We found a significant negative correlation between the lymphocyte count and the duration of positive nucleic acid test. CONCLUSIONS: Children with asymptomatic infection should be quarantined for the same duration as symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The clinical significance and mechanism behind the negative correlation between the number of lymphocytes and the duration of positive SARS-CoV-2 needs further study.

A quality evaluation of guidelines on five different viruses causing public health emergencies of international concern.

This project aims to evaluate the methods and reporting quality of practice guidelines of five different viruses that have caused Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) over 20 past years: the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika virus and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically searched databases, guideline websites and government health agency websites from their inception to February 02, 2020 to extract practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus, SARS-CoV-2 and the diseases they caused. The literature was screened independently by four researchers. Then, fifteen researchers evaluated the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE-II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, for methodological quality) instrument and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare, for reporting quality) statement. Finally, a total of 81 guidelines were included, including 21 SARS-CoV guidelines, 11 Ebola virus (EBOV) guidelines, 9 MERS-CoV guidelines, 10 Zika Virus guidelines and 30 SARS-CoV-2 guidelines. The evaluation of the methodological quality indicated that the mean scores of each domain for guidelines of each virus were all below 60%, the scores for guidelines in the domains of "clarity of presentation" being the highest and in the "editorial independence" lowest. The mean reporting rate of each domain for guidelines of each virus was also less than 60%: the reporting rates for the domain "background" were highest, and for the domain "funding and interests" lowest. The methodological and reporting quality of the practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 guidelines tend to be low. We recommend to follow evidence-based methodology and the RIGHT statement on reporting when developing guidelines.