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.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings: Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation: Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

Potentially effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in children: a systematic review.

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3 to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2 to 10.1%) died, and 27.0% (95%CI, 0 to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The efficacy and safety of using potential drugs such as remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19/MIS-C are unclear. WHAT IS NEW: • Overall, the current evidence cannot adequately demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of using remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. • We are calling for the publication of high-quality clinical trials and provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

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.

Risk factors for poor prognosis in children and adolescents with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study provides the first systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the predictors of unfavorable prognosis of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. METHODS: We searched literature databases until July 2021 for studies that investigated risk factors for unfavorable prognosis of children and adolescents with COVID-19. We used random-effects models to estimate the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). FINDINGS: We identified 56 studies comprising 79,104 individuals. Mortality was higher in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) (odds ratio [OR]=58.00, 95% CI 6.39-526.79) and who were admitted to intensive care (OR=12.64, 95% CI 3.42-46.68). Acute respiratry distress syndrme (ARDS) (OR=29.54, 95% CI 12.69-68.78) and acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR=55.02, 95% CI 6.26-483.35) increased the odds to be admitted to intensive care; shortness of breath (OR=16.96, 95% CI 7.66-37.51) increased the need of respiratory support; and neurological diseases (OR=5.16, 95% CI 2.30-11.60), C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≥80 mg/L (OR=11.70, 95% CI 4.37-31.37) and D-dimer level ≥0.5ug/mL (OR=20.40, 95% CI 1.76-236.44) increased the odds of progression to severe or critical disease. INTERPRETATION: Congenital heart disease, chronic pulmonary disease, neurological diseases, obesity, MIS-C, shortness of breath, ARDS, AKI, gastrointestinal symptoms, elevated CRP and D-dimer are associated with unfavourable prognosis in children and adolescents with COVID-19.

Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic negatively affects children's health. Many guidelines have been developed for treating children with COVID-19. The quality of the existing guidelines and the consistency of recommendations remains unknown. Therefore, we aim to review the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for children with COVID-19 systematically. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, guideline-related websites, and Google. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. The consistency of recommendations across the guidelines and their supporting evidence were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty guidelines were included in this study. The mean AGREE II score and mean RIGHT reporting rate of the included guidelines were 37% (range, 22-62%) and 52% (range, 31-89%), respectively. As for methodological quality, no guideline was classified as high, one guideline (5%) moderate, and 19 (95%) low. In terms of reporting quality, one guideline (5%) was rated as high, 12 guidelines (60%) moderate, and seven (35%) low. Among included guidelines, recommendations varied greatly in the use of remdesivir (recommend: 25%, not recommend: 45%, not report: 30%), interferon (recommend: 15%, not recommend: 50%, not report: 35%), glucocorticoids (recommend: 50%, not recommend: 20%, not report: 30%), and intravenous immune globulin (recommend: 35%, not recommend: 30%, not report: 35%). None of the guidelines cited clinical trials from children with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological and reporting quality of guidelines for treating children with COVID-19 was not high. Recommendations were inconsistent across different guidelines. The supporting evidence from children with COVID-19 was very limited.

Associations of hand washing frequency with the incidence of illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is one of the ways to prevent the spread of diseases. Our aim was to explore the relationship between hand washing frequency and the impact on disease, and give recommendations on the number of times to wash hands. METHODS: We searched seven electronic databases from their inception to April 11, 2020, and reference lists of related reviews for all studies on hand washing frequency and disease prevention. The Review Manager 5.3. software was used to conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies, and quality of evidence of the main findings. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical significance between the effect of disease prevention and washing more than 4 times/day compared to not [odds ratio (OR) =0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37 to 1.01]. The results of a case-control study showed that compared with hand washing ≤4 times/day, hand washing 5-10 times/day (OR =0.75, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.91) and hand washing >10 times/day (OR =0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.80) could reduce the risk of disease infection. There was no statistical significance advantage to hand washing more than 10 times/day compared to 5-10 times/day (OR =0.86, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.06). Comparing hand washing ≤10 times/day with hand washing >10 times/day, increased hand washing was a protective factor against infection (OR =0.59, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The more frequently hands were washed, the lower risk of disease. So far however, there is no high-quality evidence indicating the best range of hand washing frequency for disease prevention.

Guidelines for the Management of Children and Adolescent with COVID-19: protocol for an update.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a constant threat to people's lives, bringing huge challenges to the global public health and medical service system. In order to ensure the timeliness and reliability of the recommendations in guidelines, the working group of the Rapid Advice Guidelines for Management of Children with COVID-19 decided to update the guideline to incorporate the latest evidence to guide the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent. METHODS: We will update the guidelines, originally developed as a rapid advice guideline, into a standard guideline. We will follow the clinical practice guideline (CPG) update manuals of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Spanish National Health System (SNHS). The updated guidelines will also follow the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist and Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp). DISCUSSION: Through systematic search, evaluation and grading of the best available relevant clinical evidence, combined with the experience of frontline clinical experts in the fight against the epidemic and the wishes of patients and their caretakers, we will update our previous rapid advice guidelines into a high-quality, implementable standard guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in children and adolescent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The standard guideline update has been registered at the International Practice Guidelines Registry Platform (http://guidelines-registry.cn/?lang=en, registration No. IPGRP-2020CN101).

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.

Potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents in children with coronavirus disease 2019: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak presents a new, life-threatening disease. Our aim was to assess the potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 in children. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) from their inception to March 31, 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials and cohort studies of interventions with antiviral agents for children (less than 18 years of age) with COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 6,008 patients were included. There was no direct evidence and all of evidence were indirect. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate to high in general. The effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19 is uncertain: For adults with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir had no effect on mortality [risk ratio (RR) =0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45 to 1.30]. Arbidol and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had no benefit on probability of negative PCR test (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.73; RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18) respectively. For adults with SARS, interferon was associated with reduced corticosteroid dose [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.14 g; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.07] but had no effect on mortality (RR =0.72; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.88); ribavirin did not reduce mortality (RR =0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.06) and was associated with high risk of severe adverse reactions; and oseltamivir had no effect on mortality (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.38). Ribavirin combined with interferon was also not effective in adults with MERS and associated with adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence showing the effectiveness of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19, and the clinical efficacy of existing antiviral agents is still uncertain. We do not suggest clinical routine use of antivirals for COVID-19 in children, with the exception of clinical trials.

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. METHODS: We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. RESULTS: We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

Application of telemedicine during the coronavirus disease epidemics: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, early prevention and control of the epidemic is extremely important. Telemedicine, which includes medical advice given over telephone, Internet, mobile phone applications or other similar ways, may be an efficient way to reduce transmission and pressure on medical institutions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases for literature on the use of telemedicine for COVID-19, SARS and MERS from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We included studies about the content of the consultation (such as symptoms, therapy and prevention, policy, public service), screening of suspected cases, the provision of advice given to those people who may have symptoms or contact history. We conducted meta-analyses on the main outcomes of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 2,041 articles were identified after removing duplicates. After reading the full texts, we finally included nine studies. People were most concerned about symptoms (64.2%), epidemic situation and public problems (14.5%), and psychological problems (10.3%) during COVID-19 epidemic. During the SARS epidemic, the proportions of people asking for consultation for symptoms, prevention and therapy, and psychological problems were 35.0%, 22.0%, and 23.0%, respectively. Two studies demonstrated that telemedicine can be used to screen the suspected patients and give advice. One study emphasized the limited possibilities to follow up people calling hotlines and difficulties in identifying all suspect cases. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine services should focus on the issues that the public is most concerned about, such as the symptoms, prevention and treatment of the disease, and provide reasonable advice to patients with symptoms or people with epidemic history.

Clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines on COVID-19 published so far include recommendations for patients regardless of age. Clinicians need a more accurate understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched studies reporting clinical characteristics in children with COVID-19 published until March 31, 2020. We screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. We combined some of the outcomes (symptoms) in a single-arm meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 49 studies, including 25 case reports, 23 case series and one cohort study, with a total of 1,667 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. Eighty-three percent of the children were within family clusters of cases, and 19% had no symptoms. At least 7% with digestive symptoms. The main symptoms of children were fever [48%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39%, 56%] and cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%, 48%). The lymphocyte count was below normal level in only 15% (95% CI: 8%, 22%) of children which is different from adult patients. 66% (95% CI: 55%, 77%) of children had abnormal findings in CT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most children with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, and many children are asymptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in children. Vomiting and diarrhea were not common in children. The lymphocyte count is usually within the normal range in children.

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.

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.