Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review.

BackgroundIn December 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then.AimThis study aims to understand the research gaps related to COVID-19 and propose recommendations for future research.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review of COVID-19, comprehensively searching databases and other sources to identify literature on COVID-19 between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020. We analysed the sources, publication date, type and topic of the retrieved articles/studies.ResultsWe included 249 articles in this scoping review. More than half (59.0%) were conducted in China. Guidance/guidelines and consensuses statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) posted online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 while the topics of molecular studies varied. Nine of 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 infection (R0). Of all identified guidance/guidelines (n = 35), only ten fulfilled the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January.ConclusionThe number of articles on COVID-19 steadily increased before 6 February 2020. However, they lack diversity and are almost non-existent in some study fields, such as clinical research. The findings suggest that evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and public health policies will be improved when more results from clinical research becomes available.

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.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19: An overview of 102 systematic reviews with evidence mapping.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, but there is so far no comprehensive analysis of all known symptoms of the disease. Our study aimed to present a comprehensive picture of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 using an evidence map. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library from their inception to March 16, 2021. We included systematic reviews reporting the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients. We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two individuals independently. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR. We visually presented the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and their prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 102 systematic reviews were included, of which, 68 studies (66.7%) were of high quality, 19 studies (18.6%) of medium quality, and 15 studies (14.7%) of low quality. We identified a total of 74 symptoms including 17 symptoms of the respiratory system, 21 symptoms of the neurological system, 10 symptoms of the gastrointestinal system, 16 cutaneous symptoms, and 10 ocular symptoms. The most common symptoms were fever (67 studies, ranging 16.3%-91.0%, pooled prevalence: 64.6%, 95%CI, 61.3%-67.9%), cough (68 studies, ranging 30.0%-72.2%, pooled prevalence: 53.6%, 95%CI, 52.1%-55.1%), muscle soreness (56 studies, ranging 3.0%-44.0%, pooled prevalence: 18.7%, 95%CI, 16.3%-21.3%), and fatigue (52 studies, ranging 3.3%-58.5%, pooled prevalence: 29.4%, 95%CI, 27.5%-31.3%). The prevalence estimates for COVID-19 symptoms were generally lower in neonates, children and adolescents, and pregnant women than in the general populations. CONCLUSION: At least 74 different clinical manifestations are associated with COVID-19. Fever, cough, muscle soreness, and fatigue are the most common, but attention should also be paid to the rare symptoms that can help in the early diagnosis of the disease.

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. METHODS: We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Supportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases. METHODS: An umbrella review of supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults [odds ratio/relative risk (OR/RR) ranging from 0.71 to 1.28], but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

Chest computed tomography for the diagnosis of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a massive impact on the whole world. Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the diagnosis of this novel pneumonia. This study aims to understand the role of CT for the diagnosis and the main imaging manifestations of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis on studies about the use of chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We comprehensively searched databases and preprint servers on chest CT for patients with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2020. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of chest CT imaging. We also conducted subgroup analyses and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 103 studies with 5,673 patients were included. Using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results as reference, a meta-analysis based on 64 studies estimated the sensitivity of chest CT imaging in COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). If case reports were excluded, the sensitivity in case series was 96% (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The sensitivity of CT scan in confirmed patients under 18 years old was only 66% (95% CI, 0.15-1.00). The most common imaging manifestation was ground-glass opacities (GGO) which was found in 75% (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) of the patients. The pooled probability of bilateral involvement was 84% (95% CI, 0.81-0.88). The most commonly involved lobes were the right lower lobe (84%, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) and left lower lobe (81%, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). The quality of evidence was low across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that chest CT scan had a high sensitivity in diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, CT can potentially be used to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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.

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.