ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Severe COVID-19 patients were prone to develop venous thromboembolism. Unfortunately, to date, there is no evidence of any effective medications for thromboembolism in COVID-19. The management of the disease relies on symptomatic and supportive treatments, giving rise to a variety of guidelines. However, the quality of methodology and clinical recommendations remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, websites of international organizations and medical societies, and gray literature databases. Four well-trained appraisers independently evaluated the quality of eligible guidelines and extracted recommendations using well-recognized guideline appraisal tools. Furthermore, recommendations were extracted and reclassified according to a composite grading system. RESULTS: The search identified 23 guidelines that offered 108 recommendations. Guidelines scored average on AGREE II criteria, with Scope and Purpose and Clarity of Presentation highest. Only five (22%) guidelines provided high-quality recommendations. The existed clinical recommendations were inconsistent in terms of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of thromboembolic disease to some extent. CONCLUSION: Current guidelines for COVID-19 thromboembolism are generally of low quality, and clinical recommendations on thromboembolism are principally supported by insufficient evidence. There is still an urgent need for more well-designed clinical trials as evidence to prevent adverse events and improve prognosis during COVID-19 treatment.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. RESULTS: A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance. DESIGN AND METHOD: Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched. RESULTS: A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines' methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198410.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Guidelines as Topic/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The pandemic of COVID-19 poses a challenge to global healthcare. The mortality rates of severe cases range from 8.1% to 38%, and it is particularly important to identify risk factors that aggravate the disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using 7 databases to identify studies reporting on clinical characteristics, comorbidities and complications in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. All the observational studies were included. We performed a random or fixed effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). Measure of heterogeneity was estimated by Cochran's Q statistic, I index and P value. RESULTS: A total of 4881 cases from 25 studies related to COVID-19 were included. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (severe: 33.4%, 95% CI: 25.4%-41.4%; non-severe 21.6%, 95% CI: 9.9%-33.3%), followed by diabetes (severe: 14.4%, 95% CI: 11.5%-17.3%; non-severe: 8.5%, 95% CI: 6.1%-11.0%). The prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury and shock were all higher in severe cases, with 41.1% (95% CI: 14.1%-68.2%), 16.4% (95% CI: 3.4%-29.5%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 5.5%-34.4%), rather than 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6%-5.5%), 2.2% (95% CI: 0.1%-4.2%) and 4.1% (95% CI: -4.8%-13.1%) in non-severe patients, respectively. The death rate was higher in severe cases (30.3%, 95% CI: 13.8%-46.8%) than non-severe cases (1.5%, 95% CI: 0.1%-2.8%). CONCLUSION: Hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases may be risk factors for severe COVID-19.