An Umbrella Review With Meta-Analysis of Chest Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations for Trauma Patient Management.

Background: RT-PCR testing is the standard for diagnosis of COVID-19, although it has its suboptimal sensitivity. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been proposed as an additional tool with diagnostic value, and several reports from primary and secondary studies that assessed its diagnostic accuracy are already available. To inform recommendations and practice regarding the use of chest CT in the in the trauma setting, we sought to identify, appraise, and summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT for diagnosis of COVID-19, and its application in emergency trauma surgery patients; overcoming limitations of previous reports regarding chest CT accuracy and discussing important considerations regarding its role in this setting. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review using Living Overview of Evidence platform for COVID-19, which performs regular automated searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and more than 30 other sources. The review was conducted following the JBI methodology for systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of the evidence is reported (registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020198267). Results: Thirty studies that fulfilled selection criteria were included; 19 primary studies provided estimates of sensitivity (0.91, 95%CI = [0.88-0.93]) and specificity (0.73, 95%CI = [0.61; 0.82]) of chest CT for COVID-19. No correlation was found between sensitivities and specificities (ρ = 0.22, IC95% [-0.33; 0.66]). Diagnostic odds ratio was estimated at: DOR = 27.5, 95%CI (14.7; 48.5). Evidence for sensitivity estimates was graded as MODERATE, and for specificity estimates it was graded as LOW. Conclusion: The value of chest CT appears to be that of an additional screening tool that can easily detect PCR false negatives, which are reportedly highly frequent. Upon the absence of PCR testing and impossibility to perform RT-PCR in trauma patients, chest CT can serve as a substitute with increased value and easy implementation. Systematic Review Registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42020198267].

Chest Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Emergency Trauma Surgery Patients Who Require Urgent Care During the Pandemic: Protocol for an Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Many health care facilities in low- and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate surgical health care services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect health care workers from viral exposure and ensure the continuity of specialized care for patients. Among these measures, the timely diagnosis of COVID-19 is paramount to ensure the use of protective measures and isolation of patients to prevent transmission to health care personnel caring for patients with an unknown COVID-19 status or contact during the pandemic. Besides molecular and antibody tests, chest computed tomography (CT) has been assessed as a potential tool to aid in the screening or diagnosis of COVID-19 and could be valuable in the emergency care setting. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for an umbrella review that aims to identify and summarize the available literature on the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 in trauma surgery patients requiring urgent care. The objective is to inform future recommendations on emergency care for this category of patients. METHODS: We will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and over 30 other sources. The search results will be presented according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis). This review will preferentially consider systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, as well as individual studies of such design, if not included in the systematic reviews, that assessed the sensitivity and specificity of chest CT in emergency trauma surgery patients. Critical appraisal of the included studies for risk of bias will be conducted. Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction tool. Findings will be summarized narratively, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to grade the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in October 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021. The plan for dissemination is to publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our results at conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting health care workers from infection is essential. Up-to-date information on the efficacy of diagnostic tests for detecting COVID-19 is essential. This review will serve an important role as a thorough summary to inform evidence-based recommendations on establishing effective policy and clinical guideline recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020198267; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=198267. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/25207.

Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among health care workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Health care facilities in low- and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced to adhere to current COVID-19 prevention recommendations. Recommendations for surgical emergency trauma care measures need to be adequately informed by available evidence and adapt to particular settings. To inform future recommendations, we set to summarize the effects of different personal protective equipment (PPE) on the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for trauma surgery patients. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review using Living Overview of Evidence platform for COVID-19, which performs regular automated searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and more than 30 other sources. Systematic reviews of experimental and observational studies assessing the efficacy of PPE were included. Indirect evidence from other health care settings was also considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR II tool (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews, Ottawa, ON, Canada), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of the evidence is reported (registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020198267). RESULTS: Eighteen studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were included. There is high certainty that the use of N95 respirators and surgical masks is associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 when compared with no mask use. In moderate- to high-risk environments, N95 respirators are associated with a further reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection compared with surgical masks. Eye protection also reduces the risk of contagion in this setting. Decontamination of masks and respirators with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, vaporous hydrogen peroxide, or dry heat is effective and does not affect PPE performance or fit. CONCLUSION: The use of PPE drastically reduces the risk of COVID-19 compared with no mask use in health care workers. N95 and equivalent respirators provide more protection than surgical masks. Decontamination and reuse appear feasible to overcome PPE shortages and enhance the allocation of limited resources. These effects are applicable to emergency trauma care and should inform future recommendations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, level II.

Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: an umbrella review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Many healthcare facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced and may lack optimal organisation and governance, especially concerning surgical health systems. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate these already strained surgical healthcare services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from viral exposure and ensure the continuity of specialised care for patients. The objective of this broad evidence synthesis is to identify and summarise the available literature regarding the efficacy of different personal protective equipment (PPE) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for patients undergoing trauma surgery in low-resource environments. METHODS: We will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and over 30 other sources. The search results will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. This review will preferentially consider systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as well as individual studies of such designs, evaluating the effect of different PPE on the risk of COVID-19 infection in HCWs involved in emergency trauma surgery. Critical appraisal of eligible studies for methodological quality will be conducted. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool in Covidence. Studies will, when possible, be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using JBI SUMARI. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed and a summary of findings will be created. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198267.

Implementation and Usefulness of Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Identify and summarize the available literature on the acceleration in the use of telemedicine in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an aim to provide justification and guidance for its implementation to overcome the limitations associated with the pandemic worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review through different search strategies in MEDLINE and Google Scholar to identify the available literature reporting data on implementation and usefulness of various modalities of telemedicine during the current pandemic. We summarized the included studies according to field and mode of implementation in a narrative way. RESULTS: We included 45 studies that fulfilled selection criteria. About 38% of the studies were conducted in the United States of America (USA), followed by 15.5% in India and 15.5% in China. Most studies (73%) were cross-sectional studies based on historical records. All publications were written in English with the exception of 1 studied published in Spanish. The majority of reports focused on use of telemedicine for outpatient care, followed by in-hospital care. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has promoted the use of telemedicine, a tool that has transformed the provision of medical services. Several modes of implementation are useful to overcome difficulties for patient care during the pandemic. Its benefits are specific to different fields of medical practice. Such benefits, along with the guidance and reported experiences should invite health systems to work for an effective and comprehensive implementation of telemedicine in various fields.