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.

Estimating the restraint of SARS-CoV-2 spread using a conventional medical air-cleaning device: Based on an experiment in a typical dental clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES: Droplets or aerosols loaded with SARS-CoV-2 can be released during breathing, coughing, or sneezing from COVID-19-infected persons. To investigate whether the most commonly applied air-cleaning device in dental clinics, the oral spray suction machine (OSSM), can provide protection to healthcare providers working in clinics against exposure to bioaerosols during dental treatment. METHOD: In this study, we measured and characterized the temporal and spatial variations in bioaerosol concentration and deposition with and without the use of the OSSM using an experimental design in a dental clinic setting. Serratia marcescens (a bacterium) and ΦX174 phage (a virus) were used as tracers. The air sampling points were sampled using an Anderson six-stage sampler, and the surface-deposition sampling points were sampled using the natural sedimentation method. The Computational Fluid Dynamics method was adopted to simulate and visualize the effect of the OSSM on the concentration spatial distribution. RESULTS: During dental treatment, the peak exposure concentration increased by up to 2-3 orders of magnitude (PFU/m3) for healthcare workers. Meanwhile, OSSM could lower the mean bioaerosol exposure concentration from 58.84 PFU/m3 to 4.10 PFU/m3 for a healthcare worker, thereby inhibiting droplet and airborne transmission. In terms of deposition, OSSM significantly reduced the bioaerosol surface concentration from 28.1 PFU/m3 to 2.5 PFU/m3 for a surface, effectively preventing fomite transmission. CONCLUSION: The use of OSSM showed the potential to restraint the spread of bioaerosols in clinical settings. Our study demonstrates that OSSM use in dental clinics can reduce the exposure concentrations of bioaerosols for healthcare workers during dental treatment and is beneficial for minimizing the risk of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

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.

Did patients with COVID-19 receive timely treatment in the early epidemic?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed a significant difference in case fatality rate between different regions at the early stage of the epidemic. In addition to the well-known factors such as age structure, detection efficiency, and race, there was also a possibility that medical resource shortage caused the increase of the case fatality rate in some regions. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang of identified articles were searched through 29 June 2020. Cohort studies and case series with duration information on COVID-19 patients were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a standardized data collection form and assessed the risk of bias. Data were synthesized through description and analysis methods including a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 109 articles were retrieved. The time interval from onset to the first medical visit of COVID-19 patients in China was 3.38±1.55 days (corresponding intervals in Hubei province, non-Hubei provinces, Wuhan, Hubei provinces without Wuhan were 4.22±1.13, 3.10±1.57, 4.20±0.97, and 4.34±1.72 days, respectively). The time interval from onset to the hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in China was 8.35±6.83 days (same corresponding intervals were 12.94±7.43, 4.17±1.45, 14.86±7.12, and 5.36±1.19 days, respectively), and when it was outside China, this interval was 5.27±1.19 days. DISCUSSION: In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, patients with COVID-19 did not receive timely treatment, resulting in a higher case fatality rate in Hubei province, partly due to the relatively insufficient and unequal medical resources. This research suggested that additional deaths caused by the out-of-control epidemic can be avoided if prevention and control work is carried out at the early stage of the epidemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020195606.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

AIM: To identify the safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published studies and ongoing clinical studies related to the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children or adolescents (aged < 18 years). Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched on 23 July 2021. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched to identify ongoing studies. RESULTS: Eight published studies with a total of 2852 children and adolescents and 28 ongoing clinical studies were included. Of the eight published studies, two were RCTs, two case series, and four case reports. The investigated COVID-19 vaccines had good safety profiles in children and adolescents. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and chest pain were the most common adverse events. A limited number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The RCTs showed that the immune response to BNT162b2 in adolescents aged 12-15 years was non-inferior to that in young people aged 16-25 years, while with 3 µg CoronaVac injection the immune response was stronger than with 1.5 µg. The efficacy of BNT162b2 was 100% (95% CI: 75.3 to 100), based on one RCT. Of the 28 ongoing clinical studies, twenty-three were interventional studies. The interventional studies were being conducted in fifteen countries, among them, China (10, 43.5%) and United States(9, 39.1%) had the highest number of ongoing trials. BNT162b2 was the most commonly studied vaccine in the ongoing trials. CONCLUSION: Two COVID-19 vaccines have potential protective effects in children and adolescents, but awareness is needed to monitor possible adverse effects after injection. Clinical studies of the COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents with longer follow-up time, larger sample size, and a greater variety of vaccines are still urgently needed.

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.

Epidemiological characteristics of 147 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Chengdu

Objective: Analysis of the epidemiological characteristics and trend of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were conducted in Chengdu.

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.

Development of Rapid Advice Guidelines for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 with Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either "strong" or "weak" recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.

Natural and human environment interactively drive spread pattern of COVID-19: A city-level modeling study in China.

A novel Coronavirus COVID-19 has caused high morbidity and mortality in China and worldwide. A few studies have explored the impact of climate change or human activity on the disease incidence in China or a city. The integrated study concerning environment impact on the emerging disease is rarely reported. Therefore, based on the two-stage modeling study, we investigate the effect of both natural and human environment on COVID-19 incidence at a city level. Besides, the interactive effect of different factors on COVID-19 incidence is analyzed using Geodetector; the impact of effective factors and interaction terms on COVID-19 is simulated with Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) models. The results find that mean temperature (MeanT), destination proportion in population flow from Wuhan (WH), migration scale (MS), and WH*MeanT, are generally promoting for COVID-19 incidence before Wuhan's shutdown (T1); the WH and MeanT play a determinant role in the disease spread in T1. The effect of environment on COVID-19 incidence after Wuhan's shutdown (T2) includes more factors (including mean DEM, relative humidity, precipitation (Pre), travel intensity within a city (TC), and their interactive terms) than T1, and their effect shows distinct spatial heterogeneity. Interestingly, the dividing line of positive-negative effect of MeanT and Pre on COVID-19 incidence is 8.5°C and 1 mm, respectively. In T2, WH has weak impact, but the MS has the strongest effect. The COVID-19 incidence in T2 without quarantine is also modeled using the developed GWR model, and the modeled incidence shows an obvious increase for 75.6% cities compared with reported incidence in T2 especially for some mega cities. This evidences national quarantine and traffic control take determinant role in controlling the disease spread. The study indicates that both natural environment and human factors integratedly affect the spread pattern of COVID-19 in China.

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.

Chest computed tomography for the diagnosis of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a massive impact on the whole world. Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the diagnosis of this novel pneumonia. This study aims to understand the role of CT for the diagnosis and the main imaging manifestations of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis on studies about the use of chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We comprehensively searched databases and preprint servers on chest CT for patients with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2020. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of chest CT imaging. We also conducted subgroup analyses and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 103 studies with 5,673 patients were included. Using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results as reference, a meta-analysis based on 64 studies estimated the sensitivity of chest CT imaging in COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). If case reports were excluded, the sensitivity in case series was 96% (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The sensitivity of CT scan in confirmed patients under 18 years old was only 66% (95% CI, 0.15-1.00). The most common imaging manifestation was ground-glass opacities (GGO) which was found in 75% (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) of the patients. The pooled probability of bilateral involvement was 84% (95% CI, 0.81-0.88). The most commonly involved lobes were the right lower lobe (84%, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) and left lower lobe (81%, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). The quality of evidence was low across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that chest CT scan had a high sensitivity in diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, CT can potentially be used to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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.