ABSTRACT
Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases" has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management. Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management. Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias" and five SRs as "high quality." Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups. Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.
ABSTRACT
Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases” has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management. Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management. Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias” and five SRs as "high quality.” Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events;39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups. Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 might be a risk factor for various chronic diseases. However, the association between COVID-19 and the risk of incident diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to meta-analyze evidence on the relative risk of incident diabetes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to June 8, 2022. We included cohort studies that provided data on the number, proportion, or relative risk of diabetes after confirming the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the relative risk with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. We converted the relative risk to the absolute risk difference to present the evidence. This study was registered in advance (PROSPERO CRD42022337841). MAIN FINDINGS: Ten articles involving 11 retrospective cohorts with a total of 47.1 million participants proved eligible. We found a 64 % greater risk (RR = 1.64, 95%CI: 1.51 to 1.79) of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls, which could increase the number of diabetes events by 701 (558 more to 865 more) per 10,000 persons. We detected significant subgroup effects for type of diabetes and sex. Type 2 diabetes has a higher relative risk than type 1. Moreover, men may be at a higher risk of overall diabetes than women. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence was found for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is strongly associated with the risk of incident diabetes, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We should be aware of the risk of developing diabetes after COVID-19 and prepare for the associated health problems, given the large and growing number of people infected with COVID-19. However, the body of evidence still needs to be strengthened.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Male , Humans , Female , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/epidemiology , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%);shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs);increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.
ABSTRACT
Coronaviruses (CoV) cause respiratory and intestinal infections. We conducted this bibliometric analysis and systematical review to explore the CoV-related research trends from before COVID-19. We systematically searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) databases for published bibliometric analyses of CoV from database inception to January 24, 2021. The WOS Collection was searched from inception to January 31, 2020, to acquire the CoV-related publications before COVID-19. One-Way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple-comparison tests were used to compare differences. Visualization mapping and keyword cluster graphs were made to illustrate the research topics and hotpots. We included 14,141 CoV-related publications for the bibliometric analysis and 16 (12 articles) CoV-related bibliometric analyses for the systematic review. Both the systematic review and bibliometric analysis showed (1) the number of publications showed two steep upward trajectories in 2003-2004 and in 2012-2014; (2) the research hotpots mainly focused on the mechanism, pathology, epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of the coronavirus in MERS-CoV and SARS-Cov; (3) the USA, and China; the University of Hong Kong; and Yuen KY, came from the University of Hong Kong contributed most; (4) the Journal of Virology had the largest number of CoV related studies. More studies should focus on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the future.
ABSTRACT
In order to standardize the clinical diagnosis and treatment decision-making with traditional Chinese medicine for pa-tients of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) and put the latest clinical study evidence into clinical practice, the international trust-worthy traditional Chinese medicine recommendations( TCM Recs) working group started the compilation of Living Evidence-based Guideline for Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treatment of COVID-19 on the basis of the standards and re-quirements of WHO handbook, GRADE and RIGHT. This proposal mainly introduces the formulation methods and processes of the living guidelines in details, such as the composition of the working group, the collection and identification of clinical issues and out-comes, the production of the living systematic review and the consensus of recommendations. The guidelines will continue to monitor the clinical study evidences of TCM in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, and conduct regular evidence updating, retrieval and screening. When there is new study evidence, the steering committee will evaluate the possibility of the evidence to change clinical practice or previous recommendations, so as to decide whether the recommendations for the guidelines shall be implemented or upda-ted. The main criteria considered in the guideline updating are as follows:(1) There are new high-quality randomized controlled trial(RCT) evidences for TCM uninvolved in the previous edition of the guidelines;(2) as for the TCM involved in the guidelines, living sys-tematic review shows that new evidence may change the direction or strength of the existing recommendations. The specific implementation of the living evidence-based guidelines will take this proposal as the study basis and framework, in order to ensure the standardization of the formulation process and methods. This will be the first exploration of the methodology for living guidelines in the field of TCM.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , China , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Living evidence-based guideline. METHODS: This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS: The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. CONCLUSION: This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drugs, Chinese Herbal , China , Humans , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). CONCLUSION: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Internationality , Research Design/standards , Systematic Reviews as Topic/standards , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019, the controversy over the effectiveness, safety, and enforceability of masks used by the public has been prominent. This study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available high-quality design evidence concerning mask use during the spread of respiratory viruses and find evidence gaps. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinical trial registry, gray literature database, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in April 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. A bubble plot was designed to display information in four dimensions. Finally, twenty-one RCTs and nine SRs met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were of "Low quality" and focused on healthcare workers. Six RCTs reported adverse effects, with one implying that the cloth masks reuse may increase the infection risk. When comparing masks with usual practice, over 70% RCTs and also SRs showed that masks were "beneficial" or "probably beneficial"; however, when comparing N95 respirators with medical masks, 75% of SRs showed "no effect", whereas 50% of RCTs showed "beneficial effect". Overall, the current evidence provided by high-quality designs may be insufficient to deal with a second impact of the pandemic. Masks may be effective in interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses; however, the effect of an N95 respirator or cloth masks versus medical masks is unclear. Additional high-quality studies determining the impact of prolonged mask use on vulnerable populations (such as children and pregnant women), the possible adverse effects (such as skin allergies and shortness of breath) and optimal settings and exposure circumstances for populations to use masks are needed.
ABSTRACT
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).
ABSTRACT
It has been reported that the transmission of COVID-19 can be influenced by the variation of environmental factors due to the seasonal cycle. However, its underlying mechanism in the current and onward transmission pattern remains unclear owing to the limited data and difficulties in separating the impacts of social distancing. Understanding the role of seasonality in the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic is imperative in formulating public health interventions. Here, the seasonal signals of the COVID-19 time series are extracted using the EEMD method, and a modified Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered (SEIR) model incorporated with seasonal factors is introduced to quantify its impact on the current COVID-19 pandemic. Seasonal signals decomposed via the EEMD method indicate that infectivity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 are both higher in colder climates. The quantitative simulation shows that the cold season in the Southern Hemisphere countries caused a 59.71 ± 8.72% increase of the total infections, while the warm season in the Northern Hemisphere countries contributed to a 46.38 ± 29.10% reduction. COVID-19 seasonality is more pronounced at higher latitudes, where larger seasonal amplitudes of environmental indicators are observed. Seasonality alone is not sufficient to curb the virus transmission to an extent that intervention measures are no longer needed, but health care capacity should be scaled up in preparation for new surges in COVID-19 cases in the upcoming cold season. Our study highlights the necessity of considering seasonal factors when formulating intervention strategies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , SeasonsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplant recipients are at increased susceptibility to many viral infections leading to justifiable anxiety about the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed literature searches from multiple resources in April and August 2020 for relevant English and Chinese literature. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction of reports that included at least 20 kidney transplant recipients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and completed outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies had sufficient data, which we have summarized. Studies were predominantly descriptive and came from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Quality assessment demonstrated limitations in selection of comparison groups and controlling for additional factors. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data early from Spain, 46% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplantation died. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate was discontinued in most patients. CONCLUSION: Given the rapid global spread of COVID-19, reliable evidence is needed to inform public health policies. Hospitalized kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of death in early reports but interpretation of these data requires caution, as studies were susceptible to period effects. Reassuringly, the quality of observational data is improving. Detailed and comprehensive data collection through linked registries will be necessary to conduct accurate analyses of risk factors for adverse outcomes, not least given the risks of stopping imunosuppression. This report highlights the early mortality excess in transplant recipients but medium- and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and merit careful investigation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Without adequate reporting of research, valuable time and resources are wasted. In the same vein, adequate reporting of practice guidelines to optimise patient care is equally important. Our study examines the quality of reporting of published WHO guidelines, over time, using the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare) reporting checklist. METHODS: We examined English-language guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee from inception of the committee in 2007 until 31 December 2017. Pairs of independent, trained reviewers assessed the reporting quality of these guidelines. Descriptive data were summarised with frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: We included 182 eligible guidelines. Overall, 25 out of the 34 RIGHT items were reported in 75% or more of the WHO guidelines. The reporting rates improved over time. Further, 90% of the guidelines reported document type in the title. The identification of evidence, the rationale for recommendations and the review process were reported in more than 80% of guidelines. The certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was assessed in 81% of the guidelines assessed. While 82% of guidelines reported funding sources, only 25% mentioned the role of funders. CONCLUSIONS: WHO guidelines provide adequate reporting of many of the RIGHT items and reporting has improved over time. WHO guidelines compare favourably to guidelines produced by other organisations. However, reporting can be further improved in a number of areas.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is usually used as supportive therapy, but the treatment of COVID-19 by IVIG is controversial. This rapid review aims to explore the clinical effectiveness and safety of IVIG in the treatment of children with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature on the use of IVIG in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), including both adults and children. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence and reported the main findings descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 1,519 articles were identified by initial literature search, and finally six studies met our inclusion criteria, included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), four case series and one case report involving 198 patients. One case series showed the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was not improved by IVIG. One case report showed high-dose IVIG could improve the outcome of COVID-19 adults. Three observational studies showed inconsistent results of the effect of IVIG on SARS patients. One RCT showed that IVIG did not reduce mortality or the incidence of nosocomial infection in adults with severe SARS. The quality of evidence was between low and very low. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy or safety of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19.