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.

A nationwide survey on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and respiratory disease in South Korea.

Background: This study aimed to explore individual prevalence of respiratory symptoms and to describe the Korean population's treatment approaches, preventive health behaviors, and mental health conditions during the pandemic. Methods: We analyzed responses from an online nationwide survey, conducted between February 2021 to May 2021, about people's experiences during the pandemic. Statistical analysis was also performed to see if there were any significant differences in treatment and prevention strategies between different groups of respondents (between those had respiratory symptoms, compared with those who did not, and between those tested positive for COVID-19, compared with those who did not). Results: A total of 2,177 survey respondents completed the survey and, of these, only 142 had experienced symptoms. The most frequently reported respiratory infections related symptoms were runny or blocked nose (47.6%), cough (45.5%), fever (44.1%), sore throat (42.0%), and fatigue (30.1%). More than half of the respondents (53.1%) used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches as means of preventive measures. In terms of preventive behaviors, the more emphasized behaviors were mask-wearing (58.9%) and hand-washing after coming home (42.7%). The majority of the respondents (64.9%) did not show signs of mental health issues. Conclusion: In South Korea, conventional medicine was mainly used for COVID-19 treatment whereas CAM was commonly used as preventive measures. COVID-19 was also found to have less impact on the general population's mental health. The findings of this study may shed light on how the pandemic impacted the general population.

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.

Herbal Medicine Intervention for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Cumulative Meta-Analysis.

Background: Integrative herbal medicine has been reported to have beneficial effects in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim: To compile up-to-date evidence of the benefits and risks of herbal medicine for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. Methods: Eleven databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP), Research Information Service System (RISS), Korean Medical database (KMBase), Korean Association of Medical Journal database (KoreaMed), and OASIS database, were searched from 15 June, 2020, until 28 March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in any language, reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of herbal medicine in patients of all ages with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in this analysis. Data extraction and quality assessments were performed independently. Results: Random-effects meta-analyses showed evidence of favorable effects of treatment with herbal medicine when added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the total effective rate (p = 0.0001), time to remission from fever (p < 0.00001), rate of remission from coughing (p < 0.0001), fatigue (p = 0.02), sputum production (p = 0.004), improvement of manifestations observed on chest computed tomography scans (p < 0.00001), incidence of progression to severe COVID-19 (p = 0.003), all-cause mortality (p = 0.003), time to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test (p < 0.0001), and duration of hospital stay (p = 0.0003). There was no evidence of a difference between herbal medicine added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the rate of remission from symptoms such as a fever, sore throat, nasal congestion and discharge, diarrhea, dry throat, chills, and the rate of conversion to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. There was an unclear risk of bias across the RCTs included in this analysis, indicating that most studies had methodological limitations. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that herbal medicine added to standard treatment has potential benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms but the certainty of evidence was low.

Use of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) has been reported to use for symptom management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this review was to identify the overall usage prevalence of TCIM interventions for COVID-19. Methods: Surveys on the general population and observational studies on the COVID-19 patient chart review were located in the search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in September 2021. Observational studies, such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, cohort studies and hospital-based patient case reviews, published in any language, reporting the usage of TCIM in the patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this review. Data screening and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. To conduct a meta-analysis of the usage prevalence of various TCIM interventions, the effect size of the proportion for each intervention was calculated with the inverse variance method. The main outcome was usage prevalence of TCIM interventions among patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 62 studies were included in this review. The overall TCIM usage prevalence was estimated to be 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.73). The overall prevalence did not differ between the population-based survey (0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.81) and the hospital-based patient case review (0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.73). Statistical heterogeneity and comparatively low quality in reporting were observed, which should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results. Conclusion: Various TCIM interventions were reported to be used with comparatively high frequency. Future international collaborative research might overcome the main limitation of this study, i.e., the heterogeneity of the included data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278452, identifier: CRD42021278452.

Herbal medicine for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread throughout countries, researchers and scientific groups have published a large number of scientific papers examining effective treatments and prevention strategies for COVID-19, including herbal medicine. It has become difficult to navigate the increasing volume of scientific material on the pandemic, and critical appraisal of these outcomes is needed. This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to synthesize evidence from SRs and summarize the effects of herbal medicine interventions in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception up to October 20, 2021. SRs analyzing primary studies of the efficacy of herbal medications for treating COVID-19 were included. Two reviewers selected the studies and retrieved the data independently. The AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included SRs. RESULTS: A total of 21 SRs on herbal medicine treatments for COVID-19 were included. All SRs were published between May 2020 and September 2021. Thirteen of the SRs included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the remaining eight included evidence from nonrandomized trials in addition to RCTs, with a significant overlap identified across the RCTs. Twelve SRs concluded that existing evidence was insufficient to form a definite judgment, nine found that herbal therapy was useful, and none indicated that herbal medicine had no benefit. The AMSTAR 2 tool revealed that the methodological quality of the included SRs was generally low. CONCLUSION: In this overview of SRs, we reviewed herbal medicine-related evidence from 21 SRs that were published after the outbreak of COVID-19. This study shows that while there is considerable evidence demonstrating the advantages of herbal medicine interventions, the quality of the evidence is inadequate to provide solid and accurate judgments about the effectiveness of herbal medicine therapies for COVID-19. Despite the crisis caused by the pandemic, clinical studies and SRs should comply with established methodological standards.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) have been used in clinical practice. In this overview, we summarized the evidence for CAM interventions in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods: For this overview, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2021. Systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness and safety of CAM interventions for COVID-19 patients were located, and the MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the included SRs. Keywords including COVID-19 and CAM interventions were used for locating SRs. For evidence mapping, we created a two-dimensional bubble plot that included the width and strength of the evidence for each CAM intervention and specific outcome. Results: In this overview, we identified 24 SRs (21 for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) medications, two for vitamin D and one for home-based activity). From the included SRs, TCM herbal medications were reported to show good results in decreasing the rate of disease progression (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.20, 0.44]), time to the resolution of fever (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.98, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.17]) and rate of progression to severe COVID-19 cases (RR 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.65]), but the evidence for other interventions did not show effectiveness with certainty. Gastric disturbance was a major adverse event of TCM medications. Conclusion: There is evidence that TCM medications are effective in the symptom management of COVID-19 patients. However, evidence for the effectiveness of most CAM interventions still needs evaluation.

Randomized controlled trials of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine-based interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A bibliometric analysis and review of study designs.

BACKGROUND: To date, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains ongoing and continues to affect millions of people worldwide. In the effort of fighting this pandemic, there has been an increasing interest in the potential of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicines (TCIMs) in engaging COVID-19. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the research trends of TCIMs for COVID-19. METHODS: Six databases were searched on July 15, 2021, to retrieve all the citations on TCIM-focused randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available on COVID-19. Only RCTs that mentioned at least one TCIMs for the treatment and/or management or COVID-19 were eligible. Data such as number and countries of trials conducted, publication journal, research focus, study design, and sample size were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: The resulting 56 articles were authored by 553 unique authors, and included 28 English articles, 19 Chinese articles with English abstracts, and 9 Chinese articles without English abstract. Analyses had shown that China was the dominant country with TCIM related RCT publications, followed by India and the United States. The included articles were published across 24 English journals and 22 Chinese journals with a wide range of impact factors from 0.220 to 56.272. The most commonly studied TCIM modalities included Chinese herbal decoction (n=12) and Chinese patent medicine (n=16). In terms of study designs, TCIM interventions were integrated with standard medicine across the trials with most trials having a small to medium sample size and open-labeled. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis of RCTs demonstrated the research trends and characteristics of TCIM utilized in COVID-19 research. Although there are still many research gaps and limitations for pandemic research, the publication of TCIM-focused RCTs is anticipated to show a continuously increasing trend.

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.

Network Analysis of Herbs Recommended for the Treatment of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to identify the pattern and combination of herbs used in the formulae recommended for treating different stages of COVID-19 using a network analysis approach. METHODS: The herbal formulae recommended by official guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are included in the present analysis. To describe the tendency of herbs to form a "herb pair", we computed the mutual information (MI) value and distance-based mutual information model (DMIM) score. We also performed modularity, degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality analysis. Network analyses were performed and visualized for each disease stage. RESULTS: A total of 142 herbal formulae comprising 416 herbs were analyzed. All possible herbal pairs were examined, and the top frequently used herbal pairs were identified for each disease stage. The herb Glycyrrhizae radix et rhizoma is only identified in one herb pair, even though this herb is identified as one of the herbs with high frequency of use for every disease stage. This suggests that the DMIM score could be used to identify the optimal combination rule of herbal formulae by achieving a balance among the herbs' frequency and relative distance in herbal formulae. CONCLUSION: Our results presented the prescription patterns and herbal combinations of the herbal formulae recommended for the treatment of COVID-19. This study may provide new insights and ideas for clinical research in the future.

Corrigendum to "Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine" [Integr Med Res 2020; 9: 100484].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100484.].

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. METHODS: We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of rapid reviews geared towards providing time sensitive answers for clinical and policy decision-makers. Rapid reviews (RRs) strike a balance between rigour and rapidity to minimise bias and optimise transparency within specified constraints. Methods: This review article appraised the methods and reporting standards of a convenience sample of RR protocols and RRs of COVID-19 clinical management questions, published in the first six-months of 2020. Inclusion criteria were all RR protocols evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) registered on PROSPERO, and all RRs indexed on PubMed or published on the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service. A purpose-specific 9-item reporting checklist reflecting recommended minimum requirements for RRs was applied. Findings were synthesised and narrated in the context of methodological considerations for conducting and reporting RRs of TCIM. Results: Included studies were five RR protocols of TCIM and 16 RRs, of which five considered TCIM. Wide variations in RR methods were proposed or applied, as were the reporting standards. All five RRs that evaluated TCIM had the lowest reporting standards that limited reproducibility and transparency. Despite accepted recommendations, most RRs did not publish a protocol. Conclusions: We propose that specific research disciplines, such as TCIM, have a uniqueness that may lead to unacceptable outputs if minimum methodological standards are not applied. The recommended minimum requirements will optimise the credibility of rapid reviews of TCIM and limit the risk of prematurely disregarding a potentially effective intervention.

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

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

Herbal medicine for the management of COVID-19 during the medical observation period: A review of guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Medical observation period is a period of 14 days after any exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurred. This review aimed to summarize and analyze the herbs and herbal formulae recommended by available guidelines. METHODS: A total of 14 sources were searched for potential guidelines that provide herbal medicine treatment for the medical observation period of COVID-19. We summarized and analyzed the recommended herbal formulae and performed a network analysis to identify the relationship between herbs. RESULTS: We found 9 guidelines that provide herbal formula for medical observation based on clinical manifestation. There are 12 herbal formulae with a total of 53 herbs recommended by the guidelines. The result of our network analysis showed that the herb Citri Reticulatae Pericarpium (Chen Pi) strongly paired with the herb Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma (Gan Cao). CONCLUSION: This review briefly summarized the usage of herbal medicine for the medical observation period of COVID-19 and may serve as a reference for future studies. More research is needed in the future to provide evidence on the usage of herbal medicine in various phases of COVID-10.

Supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Supportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases. METHODS: An umbrella review of supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults [odds ratio/relative risk (OR/RR) ranging from 0.71 to 1.28], but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

Effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids to treat COVID-19: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are widely used in the treatment of various pulmonary inflammatory diseases, but they are also often accompanied by significant adverse reactions. Published guidelines point out that low dose and short duration systemic glucocorticoid therapy may be considered for patients with rapidly progressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while the evidence is still limited. METHODS: We comprehensively searched electronic databases and supplemented the screening by conducting a manual search. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids in children and adults with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and conducted meta-analyses of the main indicators that were identified in the studies. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 studies, including one RCT and 22 cohort studies, with a total of 13,815 patients. In adults with COVID-19, the use of systemic glucocorticoid did not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) =2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 to 5.75, I2=90.9%] or the duration of lung inflammation [weighted mean difference (WMD) =-1 days, 95% CI: -2.91 to 0.91], while a significant reduction was found in the duration of fever (WMD =-3.23 days, 95% CI: -3.56 to -2.90). In patients with SARS, glucocorticoids also did not reduce the mortality (RR =1.52, 95% CI: 0.89 to 2.60, I2=84.6%), duration of fever (WMD =0.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88 to 4.52, I2=97.9%) or duration of lung inflammation absorption (WMD =0.95 days, 95% CI: -7.57 to 9.48, I2=94.6%). The use of systemic glucocorticoid therapy prolonged the duration of hospital stay in all patients (COVID-19, SARS and MERS). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid therapy was found to reduce the duration of fever, but not mortality, duration of hospitalization or lung inflammation absorption. Long-term use of high-dose glucocorticoids increased the risk of adverse reactions such as coinfections, so routine use of systemic glucocorticoids for patients with COVID-19 cannot be recommend.