Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non‐healthcare‐related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Crowdsourcing the identification of studies for COVID-19-related Cochrane Rapid Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Utilisation of crowdsourcing within evidence synthesis has increased over the last decade. Crowdsourcing platform Cochrane Crowd has engaged a global community of 22,000 people from 170 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic presented an opportunity to engage the community and keep up with the exponential output of COVID-19 research. AIMS: To test whether a crowd could accurately assess study eligibility for reviews under time constraints. OUTCOME MEASURES: time taken to complete each task, time to produce required training modules, crowd sensitivity, specificity and crowd consensus. METHODS: We created four crowd tasks, corresponding to four Cochrane COVID-19 Rapid Reviews. The search results of each were uploaded and an interactive training module was developed for each task. Contributors who had participated in another COVID-19 task were invited to participate. Each task was live for 48-h. The final inclusion and exclusion decisions made by the core author team were used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Across all four reviews 14,299 records were screened by 101 crowd contributors. The crowd completed each screening task within 48-h for three reviews and in 52 h for one. Sensitivity ranged from 94% to 100%. Four studies, out of a total of 109, were incorrectly rejected by the crowd. However, their absence ultimately would not have altered the conclusions of the reviews. Crowd consensus ranged from 71% to 92% across the four reviews. CONCLUSION: Crowdsourcing can play a valuable role in study identification and offers willing contributors the opportunity to help identify COVID-19 research for rapid evidence syntheses.

Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men.

BACKGROUND: Varicoceles are associated with male subfertility; however, the mechanisms by which varicoceles affect fertility have yet to be satisfactorily explained. Several treatment options exist, including surgical or radiological treatment, however the safest and most efficient treatment remains unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical and radiological treatment of varicoceles on live birth rate, adverse events, pregnancy rate, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life amongst couples where the adult male has a varicocele, and the female partner of childbearing age has no fertility problems. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 4 April 2020: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they were relevant to the clinical question posed and compared different forms of surgical ligation, different forms of radiological treatments, surgical treatment compared to radiological treatment, or one of these aforementioned treatment forms compared to non-surgical methods, delayed treatment, or no treatment. We extracted data if the studies reported on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, varicocele recurrence, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of abstracts and full-text publications, alongside data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, were done dually using the Covidence software. When we had sufficient data, we calculated random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses; otherwise, we reported results narratively. We used the I2 statistic to analyse statistical heterogeneity. We planned to use funnel plots to assess publication bias in meta-analyses with at least 10 included studies. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1897 citations after de-duplicating the search results. We excluded 1773 during title and abstract screening. From the 113 new full texts assessed in addition to the 10 studies (11 references) included in the previous version of this review, we included 38 new studies, resulting in a total of 48 studies (59 references) in the review providing data for 5384 participants. Two studies (three references) are ongoing studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Treatment versus non-surgical, non-radiological, delayed, or no treatment Two studies comparing surgical or radiological treatment versus no treatment reported on live birth with differing directions of effect. As a result, we are uncertain whether surgical or radiological treatment improves live birth rates when compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 26.93; 2 RCTs, N = 204; I2 = 74%, very low-certainty evidence). Treatment may improve pregnancy rates compared to delayed or no treatment (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.26; 13 RCTs, N = 1193; I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with no or delayed treatment have a 21% chance of pregnancy, whilst the pregnancy rate after surgical or radiological treatment is between 22% and 48%. We identified no evidence on adverse events, varicocele recurrence, or quality of life for this comparison. Surgical versus radiological treatment We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on live birth and on the following adverse events: hydrocele formation, pain, epididymitis, haematoma, and suture granuloma. We are uncertain about the effect of surgical versus radiological treatment on pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70; 5 RCTs, N = 456, low-certainty evidence) and varicocele recurrence (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, N = 380, low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on quality of life for this comparison. Surgery versus other surgical treatment We identified 19 studies comparing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment to any other surgical treatment. Microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates slightly compared to other surgical treatments (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36; 12 RCTs, N = 1473, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that couples with microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment have a 10% to 14% chance of pregnancy after treatment, whilst the pregnancy rate in couples after other surgical treatments is 10%. This procedure also probably reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29, 0.79; 14 RCTs, N = 1565, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that 0.4% to 1.1% of men undergoing microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment experience recurrent varicocele, whilst 1.4% of men undergoing other surgical treatments do. Results for the following adverse events were inconclusive: hydrocele formation, haematoma, abdominal distension, testicular atrophy, wound infection, scrotal pain, and oedema. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Nine studies compared open inguinal surgical treatment to retroperitoneal surgical treatment. Due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations, we identified neither treatment type as superior or inferior to the other regarding adverse events, pregnancy rates, or varicocele recurrence. We identified no evidence on live birth or quality of life for this comparison. Radiological versus other radiological treatment One study compared two types of radiological treatment (sclerotherapy versus embolisation) and reported 13% varicocele recurrence in both groups. Due to the broad confidence interval, no valid conclusion could be drawn (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 RCT, N = 30, very low-certainty evidence). We identified no evidence on live birth, adverse events, pregnancy, or quality of life for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence, it remains uncertain whether any treatment (surgical or radiological) compared to no treatment in subfertile men may be of benefit on live birth rates; however, treatment may improve the chances for pregnancy. The evidence was also insufficient to determine whether surgical treatment was superior to radiological treatment. However, microscopic subinguinal surgical treatment probably improves pregnancy rates and reduces the risk of varicocele recurrence compared to other surgical treatments. High-quality, head-to-head comparative RCTs focusing on live birth rate and also assessing adverse events and quality of life are warranted.

[Rapid Reviews in the Time of COVID-19 - Experiences of the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19 and Proposal for a Standardized Procedure]. / Rapid Reviews in Zeiten von COVID-19 ­ Erfahrungen im Zuge des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 und Vorschlag eines standardisierten Vorgehens.

AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many health-related questions require rapid answers. In the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19, founded by representatives of several scientific societies in March 2020, rapid reviews are often conducted to generate evidence-based answers that are useful for policy makers. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the practical experience with rapid reviews in the context of the Competence Network Public Health. Methods for high-quality and practicable implementation of rapid reviews were developed, which are particularly helpful for rapid evidence generation based on observational studies. METHODS: Using the 8-step approach proposed by Tricco et al. [1], we describe the acute challenges that have arisen in the Public Health Competence Network COVID-19 while conducting rapid reviews on public health-related issues related to the COVID-19-pandemic. The 8 steps are: 1. conceptualization of the research question, 2. literature search, 3. title/abstract and full text screening, 4. data extraction, 5. risk of bias assessment, 6. evidence synthesis, 7. dissemination, 8. update. We develop a methodological approach for conducting rapid reviews by expert consensus of the members (n=42 as of 01/28/2021) of the Rapid Reviews Working Group in the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19. RESULTS: A standardized approach is presented that closely follows the approach of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and takes into account the special requirements of etiological - but often also ecological - observational studies on COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach for conducting rapid reviews can form an important basis for evidence-based policy advice - certainly beyond questions related to COVID-19. Flexible and rapid funding concepts should be made available for the short-term realization of methodologically high-quality rapid reviews on emerging questions. Scientific cooperation in conducting rapid reviews needs to be expanded, and more methodologically high-quality approaches such as prospective meta-analyses should be used.

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. METHODS: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. RESULTS: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.