Vaccine hesitancy among communities in ten countries in Asia, Africa, and South America during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccine hesitancy is considered one of the greatest threats to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. Lack of trust in vaccine benefits, along with concerns about side effects of the newly developed COVID-19 vaccine, might significantly contribute to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The objective of this study was to determine the level of vaccine hesitancy among communities in particular their belief in vaccination benefits and perceived risks of new vaccines. An online cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 countries in Asia, Africa, and South America from February to May 2021. Seven items from the WHO SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were used to measure a construct of belief in vaccination benefit, and one item measured perceived riskiness of new vaccines. A logistic regression was used to determine which sociodemographic factors were associated with both vaccine hesitancy constructs. A total of 1,832 respondents were included in the final analysis of which 36.2% (range 5.6-52.2%) and 77.6% (range 38.3-91.2%) of them were classified as vaccine hesitant in terms of beliefs in vaccination benefits and concerns about new vaccines, respectively. Respondents from Pakistan had the highest vaccine hesitancy while those from Chile had the lowest. Being females, Muslim, having a non-healthcare-related job and not receiving a flu vaccination during the past 12 months were associated with poor beliefs of vaccination benefits. Those who were living in rural areas, Muslim, and those who did not received a flu vaccination during the past 12 months had relatively higher beliefs that new vaccines are riskier. High prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in some countries during the COVID-19 pandemic might hamper COVID-19 vaccination programs worldwide. Programs should be developed to promote vaccination in those sociodemographic groups with relatively high vaccine hesitancy.

The Role of Telemedicine in Surgical Specialties During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the current body of evidence on the use of telemedicine in surgical subspecialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a scoping review conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, and EMBASE were systematically searched for any reports discussing telemedicine use in surgery and surgical specialties during the first period (February 2020-August 8, 2020) and second 6-month period (August 9-March 4, 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Of 466 articles screened through full text, 277 articles were included for possible qualitative and/or quantitative data synthesis. The majority of publications in the first 6 months were in orthopedic surgery, followed by general surgery and neurosurgery, whereas in the second 6 months of COVID-19 pandemic, urology and neurosurgery were the most productive, followed by transplant and plastic surgery. Most publications in the first 6 months were opinion papers (80%), which decreased to 33% in the second 6 months. The role of telemedicine in different aspects of surgical care and surgical education was summarized stratifying by specialty. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine has increased access to care of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but whether this practice will continue post-pandemic remains unknown.

A pandemic recap: lessons we have learned.

On January 2020, the WHO Director General declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. The world has faced a worldwide spread crisis and is still dealing with it. The present paper represents a white paper concerning the tough lessons we have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, an international and heterogenous multidisciplinary panel of very differentiated people would like to share global experiences and lessons with all interested and especially those responsible for future healthcare decision making. With the present paper, international and heterogenous multidisciplinary panel of very differentiated people would like to share global experiences and lessons with all interested and especially those responsible for future healthcare decision making.

Performance evaluation of stool DNA methylation tests in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: There is not sufficient evidence about whether stool DNA methylation tests allow prioritizing patients to colonoscopy. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be a wait-list for rescheduling colonoscopies once the mitigation is lifted. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of stool DNA methylation tests in detecting colorectal cancer. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE via Ovid were searched. Studies reporting the accuracy (Sackett phase 2 or 3) of stool DNA methylation tests to detect sporadic colorectal cancer were included. The DerSimonian-Laird method with random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-six studies totaling 16 149 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of all single genes and combinations was 62.7% (57.7%, 67.4%) and 91% (89.5%, 92.2%), respectively. Combinations of genes provided higher sensitivity compared to single genes (80.8% [75.1%, 85.4%] vs. 57.8% [52.3%, 63.1%]) with no significant decrease in specificity (87.8% [84.1%, 90.7%] vs. 92.1% [90.4%, 93.5%]). The most accurate single gene was found to be SDC2 with a sensitivity of 83.1% (72.6%, 90.2%) and a specificity of 91.2% (88.6%, 93.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Stool DNA methylation tests have high specificity (92%) with relatively lower sensitivity (81%). Combining genes increases sensitivity compared to single gene tests. The single most accurate gene is SDC2, which should be considered for further research.

Protocol for a Systematic Review Assessing Surgery versus Primary Endocrine Therapy in Operable Breast Cancer. Prep for Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In COVID-19 pandemic epicenters cancer care was severely impacted. All elective and semi-elective procedures, as well as select urgent cases, were postponed in order to preserve resources and protect patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Structured decision making for breast cancer treatment resulted in deferment of surgery with initiation of endocrine therapy. Moreover, the waitlist for elective breast cancer procedures after mitigation is a challenge for prioritization. OBJECTIVE AND SIGNIFICANCE: We aim to summarize the current body of evidence, comparatively evaluate oncological outcomes of surgery versus primary endocrine therapy (PET), and determine whether PET is a viable long-term alternative to surgery in the context of crisis management strategy for early, operable hormone receptor positive (HRP) breast cancer. PET could potentially be an acceptable bridging or maintenance therapy in select patients during pandemic crisis or for those choosing to forgo surgery in the treatment of breast cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The database search includes PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (via Ovid). This systematic review includes women 18 years or older undergoing one of two interventions for HRP breast cancer: surgery (with or without endocrine therapy post-surgery) or solely PET. Studies comparing one of the two interventions of interest to a non-relevant intervention and studies reporting only descriptive data will not be included in the quantitative synthesis of data. After selection of eligible studies based on title and abstract, these studies will be further screened through full text articles by two independent reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator. Eligible studies will be critically appraised at the study level for methodological quality. Cochrane methodology will be utilized for meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require an institutional review board approval given its summary design nature. Findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Current state and future perspectives of telemedicine use in surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The biggest concerns in the current pandemic are enormous workload pressure, psychological distress, caregiver burnout, and, even worse, transmission of the virus among healthcare workers. One of the potentially beneficial tools in reducing the above-mentioned risks for overwhelming the healthcare system is telemedicine. Although the role of telemedicine and related interventions as a crisis management tool has increased, the current state of the implementation of telemedicine in surgery and surgical subspecialties has not been adequately evaluated. OBJECTIVE AND SIGNIFICANCE: The objective of this review is to screen the literature, extract expert opinions, qualitative, and quantitative data on the current use and future directions in the implementation of telemedicine in surgery and surgical subspecialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings would potentially help in understanding the challenges and future directions of telemedicine use in surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases to be searched include PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (via Ovid). In addition, ClinicalTrials.gov and medRxiv.org will be searched for any ongoing and/or unpublished studies. The reference lists of articles included in the review will be screened to assess the sensitivity of the search. Literature search, quality assessment, followed by data extraction will be performed by two independent researchers. The findings of the data synthesis will be reported in diagrams, tables, and text. This review will consider reports that include expert opinions, qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of telemedicine in surgery and surgical subspecialties (including patients with surgical disease of any age) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, future perspectives reported based either on the evidence provided by the data or on expert opinions will be considered. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require an institutional review board approval given its summary design nature. Findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO does not currently accept registrations for scoping reviews, literature reviews or mapping reviews.

Emergency Colorectal Surgery in a COVID-19 Pandemic Epicenter.

Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a considerable risk during emergency colorectal surgery in a pandemic epicenter. It is well known that the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is through respiratory droplets. However, little is known about shedding of the virus in bodily fluids and associated risks. Although the current moratorium on elective surgery addresses multiple ongoing concerns, including the management of precious resources as well as unknown exposure risks, surgeons undeniably must face and mitigate risks related to exposure to patient airway management-related aerosols, bodily fluids, surgical smoke, contaminated insufflation, and specimen handling in emergency colorectal surgery. Given the significant concern of airborne transmission, the authors recommend conventional, in lieu of laparoscopic, access in emergency colorectal surgery in a COVID-19 pandemic epicenter.