ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the incidence and aggressiveness of molar pregnancy (MP) and postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Observational study with two separate designs: retrospective multicentre cohort of patients with MP/postmolar GTN and a cross-sectional analysis, with application of a questionnaire. SETTING: Six Brazilian Reference Centres on gestational trophoblastic disease. POPULATION: 2662 patients with MP/postmolar GTN treated from March-December/2015-2020 were retrospectively evaluated and 528 of these patients answered a questionnaire. METHODS: Longitudinal retrospective multicentre study of patients diagnosed with MP/ postmolar GTN at presentation and a cross-sectional analysis, with application of a questionnaire, exclusive to patients treated during the period of study, to assess living and health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of MP/postmolar GTN. RESULTS: Compared with the last 5 pre-pandemic years, MP/postmolar GTN incidence remained stable during 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic). Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for the patient age, showed that during 2020, presentation with MP was more likely to be >10 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.90-3.29, P < 0.001), have a pre-evacuation hCG level ≥100 000 iu/l (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.38-2.28, P < 0.001) and time to the initiation of chemotherapy ≥7 months (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01-3.43, P = 0.047) when compared with 2015-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of MP/postmolar GTN remained stable during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, the pandemic was associated with greater gestational age at MP diagnosis and more protracted delays in initiation of chemotherapy for postmolar GTN.
ABSTRACT
We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess how the top 3 highest circulation newspapers from 25 countries are comparing and presenting COVID-19 epidemiological data to their readers. Of 75 newspapers evaluated, 51(68%) presented at their websites at least one comparison of cases and/or deaths between regions of their country and/or between countries. Quality assessment of the comparisons showed that only a minority of newspapers adjusted the data for population size in case comparisons between regions (37.2%) and between countries (25.6%), and the same was true for death comparisons between regions (27.3%) and between countries (27%). Of those making comparisons, only 13.7% explained the difference in the interpretation of cases and deaths. Of 17 that presented a logarithmic curve, only 29.4% explained its meaning. Although the press plays a key role in conveying correct medical information to the general public, we identified inconsistencies in the reporting of COVID-19 epidemiological data.