Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stress and other psychological factors in pregnant women giving birth during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The onset of mental illness such as depression and anxiety disorders in pregnancy and postpartum period is common. The coronavirus induced disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting public policy responses represent an exceptional situation worldwide and there are hints for adverse psychosocial impact, hence, the study of psychological effects of the pandemic in women during hospitalization for delivery and in the postpartum period is highly relevant. METHODS: Patients who gave birth during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (March to June 2020) at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Würzburg, Germany, were recruited at hospital admission for delivery. Biosamples were collected for analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and various stress hormones and interleukin-6 (IL-6). In addition to sociodemographic and medical obstetric data, survey questionnaires in relation to concerns about and fear of COVID-19, depression, stress, anxiety, loneliness, maternal self-efficacy and the mother-child bonding were administered at T1 (delivery stay) and T2 (3-6 months postpartum). RESULTS: In total, all 94 recruited patients had a moderate concern of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at T1 with a significant rise at T2. This concern correlated with low to low-medium general psychosocial stress levels and stress symptoms, and the women showed a significant increase of active coping from T1 to T2. Anxiety levels were low and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale showed a medium score of 5 with a significant (T1), but only week correlation with the concerns about SARS-CoV-2. In contrast to the overall good maternal bonding without correlation to SARS-CoV-2 concern, the maternal self-efficiency correlated negatively with the obstetric impairment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Obstetric patients` concerns regarding SARS-CoV-2 and the accompanying pandemic increased during the course of the pandemic correlating positively with stress and depression. Of note is the increase in active coping over time and the overall good mother-child-bonding. Maternal self-efficacy was affected in part by the restrictions of the pandemic. Clinical trial registration DRKS00022506.

The global pandemic of COVID-19 (coronavirus induced disease 2019) is challenging our society in many ways. Especially pregnant women are facing extraordinary conditions and worries, like uncertain risks for mother and fetus in case of infection, restricted prenatal classes or restricted visitor regulations in hospitals. Particularly it is known that pregnancy and the postnatal period are presenting a more psychologically vulnerable time in a woman's life. Developing the GeZeCO study, we aimed to focus on the pandemic's effects on mental health of pregnant women during this time. Women giving birth in the department of obstetrics of the University Hospital Würzburg were asked to participate in the study. In total, 94 women completed several questionnaires concerning their mental health postpartum and again after 3 to 6 months. Further, we took blood samples of the women during the delivery stay and registered sociodemographic and obstetric data. Our results showed, that the women's concern relating to COVID-19, as well as the level of depression and anxiety raised during the pandemic. In addition, the self-efficacy of the mothers was affected by the restriction measures. Despite this, the women had at large a good mother­child-bonding and their competence of active coping increased during time. In summary, we did find that the mental health of obstetric patients is impaired by the COVID-19 pandemic. This points out the importance of not only attending to physical health but also taking care of psychological stress and mental health problems of obstetric patients during this exceptional time.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological stress in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The majority of breast cancer patients are severely psychologically affected by breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic procedures. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on public life have additionally caused significant psychological distress for much of the population. It is therefore plausible that breast cancer patients might be particularly susceptible to the additional psychological stress caused by the pandemic, increasing suffering. In this study we therefore aimed to assess the level of psychological distress currently experienced by a defined group of breast cancer patients in our breast cancer centre, compared to distress levels pre-COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Female breast cancer patients of all ages receiving either adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative therapies were recruited for the study. All patients were screened for current or previous COVID-19 infection. The participants completed a self-designed COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire, the Stress and Coping Inventory (SCI), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) Distress Thermometer (DT), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30, and the BR23. RESULTS: Eighty-two breast cancer patients were included. Therapy status and social demographic factors did not have a significant effect on the distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the DT pre and during COVID-19 pandemic did not differ significantly. Using the self-designed COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire, we detected three distinct subgroups demonstrating different levels of concerns in relation to SARS-CoV-2. The subgroup with the highest levels of concern reported significantly decreased life quality, related parameters and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This monocentric study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected psychological health in a subpopulation of breast cancer patients. The application of a self-created "COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire" could potentially be used to help identify breast cancer patients who are susceptible to increased psychological distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may need additional intensive psychological support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID: DRKS00022507 .

Observations and Considerations for Implementing Remote Acoustic Voice Recording and Analysis in Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Remote voice recording and acoustic analysis allow for comprehensive voice assessment and outcome tracking without the requirements of travel to the clinic, in-person visit, or expensive equipment. This paper delineates the process and considerations for implementing remote voice recording and acoustic analysis in a high-volume university voice clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical Focus. METHODS: Acoustic voice recordings were attempted on 108 unique patients over a 6-month period using a remote voice recording phone application. Development of the clinical process including determining normative data in which to compare acoustic results, clinician training, and clinical application is described. The treating Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) were surveyed 2 months after implementation to assess ease of application, identify challenges and assess implementation of potential solutions. RESULTS: Of 108 unique patients, 83 patients were successful in completing the process of synchronous remote acoustic voice recording in conjunction with their SLP clinician. The process of downloading the application, setting up, and obtaining voice recordings was most commonly 10-20 minutes according to the 8 SLPs surveyed. Challenges and helpful techniques were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Remote acoustic voice recordings have allowed SLPs to continue to complete a comprehensive voice evaluation in a telepractice model. Given emerging knowledge about the viability of remote voice recordings, the success in obtaining acoustic data remotely, and the accessibility of a low-cost app for SLPs makes remote voice recordings a viable option to facilitate remote clinical care and research investigation.

Remote Training of SRL Users and Staff in a Global Pandemic.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on training and Shared Resource Laboratory (SRL) operations such as staffing, facility access, and social distancing, has affected facilities around the globe to different degrees based on restrictions set by various geographical and institutional settings. With these restrictions come unique challenges regarding user and staff training and education, for both theory and practice. Most notably, limitations in facility access, occupancy, staffing availability, network restrictions and trainee engagement call for innovative solutions for training when traditional in-person options are not feasible. Through the use of remote access tools and prerecorded educational and training materials, SRLs are able to overcome these obstacles. Here, we focus on readily available technologies and general guidelines that SRLs in different environments can use for remote cytometry training and education, while highlighting key obstacles that still remain. Although SRLs may face initial struggles in transitioning trainings to a virtual format, remote technologies provide unique opportunities to advance current training programs. © 2020 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.