What Are the Unmet Supportive Care Needs of People Affected by Cancer: An Umbrella Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this umbrella systematic review was to critically synthesize unmet supportive care needs of people affected by cancer. DATA SOURCES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) umbrella review method provided an overall examination of the body of evidence that was available in relation to the unmet supportive care needs among people living with cancer. All qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews were included irrespective of review design. Electronic databases were searched using a wide range of search terms. All records were managed using the software package Endnote X21 and uploaded to Covidence systematic review software. Duplication of records were removed. A preselection eligibility criterion was applied to all records. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers, and a meta-level narrative synthesis conducted. CONCLUSION: A total 30 systematic reviews were included representing a total of 666 publications globally. Irrespective of the type of cancer there were many commonalities in relation to the reported experiences of unmet supportive care needs, which therefore enables the development of targeted future clinical trials, clinical guidelines, and policy contribution. In descending order of frequency, the highest unmet supportive care needs were related to psychological/emotional (30 out of 30), health system/information (29 out of 30), interpersonal/intimacy (21 out of 30), social (20 out of 30), physical (19 out of 30), family (18 out of 30), practical (16 out of 30), daily living (10 out of 30), spiritual needs (8 out of 30), patient-clinician communication (8 out of 30), and cognitive needs (5 out of 30). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: This umbrella review has underscored fundamental shortcomings in care delivery irrespective of the patient population and the type of cancer. People with cancer are continually reporting that their needs are not being met across many supportive care domains. It is time for change within the health care system and to full leverage multidisciplinary person-centered models of care to optimize recovery and survivorship experiences. In the meantime, policy makers and cancer care clinicians are encouraged to reflect on these findings to address individualized care needs.

Exploring the Effects of Volunteering on the Social, Mental, and Physical Health and Well-being of Volunteers: An Umbrella Review.

Volunteering provides unique benefits to organisations, recipients, and potentially the volunteers themselves. This umbrella review examined the benefits of volunteering and their potential moderators. Eleven databases were searched for systematic reviews on the social, mental, physical, or general health benefits of volunteering, published up to July 2022. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality and overlap of included primary studies was calculated. Twenty-eight reviews were included; participants were mainly older adults based in the USA. Although overlap between reviews was low, quality was generally poor. Benefits were found in all three domains, with reduced mortality and increased functioning exerting the largest effects. Older age, reflection, religious volunteering, and altruistic motivations increased benefits most consistently. Referral of social prescribing clients to volunteering is recommended. Limitations include the need to align results to research conducted after the COVID-19 pandemic. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022349703). Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11266-023-00573-z.

Recovery from Work: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Work is a fundamental condition of human life, but it can become dysfunctional because in certain situations it may lead to undesirable and harmful consequences. In this context, recovery from work (recovery) is conceived as a counterpoint to the straining processes to which the employee is exposed in the workplace. Among the different recovery strategies adopted by workers, those carried out outside working hours are especially relevant. Scientific interest in this filed is evidenced by the publication of numerous systematic reviews in recent years. The aim of this study is to shed light and provide evidence on the results of the systematic reviews carried out to date. Thus, it was conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on work recovery outside working hours. To this end, a systematic search of potentially relevant documents was implemented in six databases, both thematic and multidisciplinary. Eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses that met the established inclusion criteria were retrieved. The content analysis of the selected papers enabled us to identify different approaches to the study of external work recovery: (a) time period;(b) work characteristics;(c) recovery experiences;(d) recovery activities;(e) processes that hinder effective recovery;and (f) variables proxy to the recovery process. Likewise, the main considered substantive occupational and psychosocial variables were systematized. It is discussed the scarce attention paid in the reviewed studies to possible cultural differences that could potentially influence the recovery process. Furthermore, no research has made special reference to the COVID-19 pandemic in work recovery, nor to the potential influence of new emerging work realities such as teleworking or co-working.

Vitamin D3 and COVID-19 Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: The immune system (innate and adaptive) is influenced by vitamin D3, which affects gene expression and inflammatory pathways. An umbrella review was conducted to evaluate the power and accuracy of data connecting vitamin D3 to the outcomes of COVID-19 infection and to appraise the proof provided by published meta-analyses. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 31 May 2022. Meta-analyses of prospective or retrospective observational studies and randomized trials were included. Evidence of association was graded according to the established criteria: strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant. RESULTS: From 74 publications, 27 meta-analyses described five associations between vitamin D3 levels and supplementation and COVID-19 outcomes. Low levels of vitamin D3 were significantly associated with severity (highly suggestive evidence; OR = 1.97 [95% CI, 1.55-2.51], p < 0.01; I2 = 77%, p < 0.01) and mortality risk due to COVID-19 disease (OR = 1.83 [95% CI, 1.55-2.16], p < 0.01; I2 = 50%, p < 0.01). Vitamin D3 supplementation, after a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, was associated with significantly reduced infection severity (e.g., ICU admission) and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review of the available evidence suggests that insufficient vitamin D3 may increase COVID-19 infection risk, severity, and mortality, in addition to showing a highly suggestive association between vitamin D3 supplementation and reduced severity and mortality among infected patients.

A hidden pandemic? An umbrella review of global evidence on mental health in the time of COVID-19.

Background: The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain a public health concern. High quality synthesis of extensive global literature is needed to quantify this impact and identify factors associated with adverse outcomes. Methods: We conducted a rigorous umbrella review with meta-review and present (a) pooled prevalence of probable depression, anxiety, stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress, (b) standardised mean difference in probable depression and anxiety pre-versus-during the pandemic period, and (c) comprehensive narrative synthesis of factors associated with poorer outcomes. Databases searched included Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE dated to March 2022. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, published post-November 2019, reporting data in English on mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: Three hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included, 158 of which incorporated meta-analyses. Meta-review prevalence of anxiety symptoms ranged from 24.4% (95%CI: 18-31%, I 2: 99.98%) for general populations to 41.1% (95%CI: 23-61%, I 2: 99.65%) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of depressive symptoms ranged from 22.9% (95%CI: 17-30%, I 2: 99.99%) for general populations to 32.5% (95%CI: 17-52%, I 2: 99.35) in vulnerable populations. Prevalence of stress, psychological distress and PTSD/PTSS symptoms were 39.1% (95%CI: 34-44%; I 2: 99.91%), 44.2% (95%CI: 32-58%; I 2: 99.95%), and 18.8% (95%CI: 15-23%; I 2: 99.87%), respectively. Meta-review comparing pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 prevalence of probable depression and probable anxiety revealed standard mean differences of 0.20 (95%CI = 0.07-0.33) and 0.29 (95%CI = 0.12-0.45), respectively. Conclusion: This is the first meta-review to synthesise the longitudinal mental health impacts of the pandemic. Findings show that probable depression and anxiety were significantly higher than pre-COVID-19, and provide some evidence that that adolescents, pregnant and postpartum people, and those hospitalised with COVID-19 experienced heightened adverse mental health. Policymakers can modify future pandemic responses accordingly to mitigate the impact of such measures on public mental health.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 mortality in people with pre-existing mental disorders: an umbrella review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious health risk, especially in vulnerable populations. Even before the pandemic, people with mental disorders had worse physical health outcomes compared to the general population. This umbrella review investigated whether having a pre-pandemic mental disorder was associated with worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol available on the Open Science Framework platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE All, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science up to the 6th of October 2021 for systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental disorders. The following outcomes were considered: risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk of severe illness, COVID-19 related mortality risk, risk of long-term physical symptoms after COVID-19. For meta-analyses, we considered adjusted odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment with the AMSTAR 2 tool have been done in parallel and duplicate. RESULTS: We included five meta-analyses and four narrative reviews. The meta-analyses reported that people with any mental disorder had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.69), severe illness course (OR from 1.32 to 1.77, 95%CI between 1.19-1.46 and 1.29-2.42, respectively) and COVID-19 related mortality (OR from 1.38 to 1.52, 95%CI between 1.15-1.65 and 1.20-1.93, respectively) as compared to the general population. People with anxiety disorders had an increased risk of SAR-CoV-2 infection, but not increased mortality. People with mood and schizophrenia spectrum disorders had an increased COVID-19 related mortality but without evidence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Narrative reviews were consistent with findings from the meta-analyses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: As compared to the general population, there is strong evidence showing that people with pre-existing mental disorders suffered from worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and may therefore be considered a risk group similar to people with underlying physical conditions. Factors likely involved include living accommodations with barriers to social distancing, cardiovascular comorbidities, psychotropic medications and difficulties in accessing high-intensity medical care.

Micronutrient perspective on COVID-19: Umbrella review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Micronutrients are clinically important in managing COVID-19, and numerous studies have been conducted, but inconsistent findings exist. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between micronutrients and COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus for study search on July 30, 2022 and October 15, 2022. Literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in a double-blinded, group discussion format. Meta-analysis with overlapping associations were reconsolidated using random effects models, and narrative evidence was performed in tabular presentations. RESULTS: 57 reviews and 57 latest original studies were included. 21 reviews and 53 original studies were of moderate to high quality. Vitamin D, vitamin B, zinc, selenium, and ferritin levels differed between patients and healthy people. Vitamin D and zinc deficiencies increased COVID-19 infection by 0.97-fold/0.39-fold and 1.53-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased severity 0.86-fold, while low vitamin B and selenium levels reduced severity. Vitamin D and calcium deficiencies increased ICU admission by 1.09 and 4.09-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased mechanical ventilation by 0.4-fold. Vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies increased COVID-19 mortality by 0.53-fold, 0.46-fold, and 5.99-fold, respectively. CONCLUSION: The associations between vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies and adverse evolution of COVID-19 were positive, while the association between vitamin C and COVID-19 was insignificant.REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022353953.

An umbrella review and meta-analysis of renin-angiotensin system drugs use and COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of extensive literature on the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 outcomes, the evidence is still controversial. We aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related outcomes by summarising the currently available evidence. METHODS: An umbrella review was conducted using Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and medRxiv from inception to 1 February 2021. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes were eligible. Studies' quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the random-effects modelling including several subgroup analyses. Heterogenicity was assessed using I2 statistic. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021233398) and reported using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 47 reviews were eligible for inclusion. Out of the nine COVID-19 outcomes evaluated, there was significant associations between ACEIs/ARBs use and each of death (OR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.75-0.86; I2  = 51.9%), death/ICU admission as composite outcome (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.80-0.92; I2  = 43.9%), severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.78-0.95; I2  = 68%) and hospitalisation (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.04-1.46; I2  = 76.4%). The significant reduction in death/ICU admission, however, was higher among studies which presented adjusted measure of effects (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.47-0.84) and were of moderate quality (OR = 0.74, 95%CI = 0.63-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Collective evidence from observational studies indicate a good quality evidence on the significant association between ACEIs/ARBs use and reduction in death and death/ICU admission, but poor-quality evidence on both reducing severe COVID-19 and increasing hospitalisation. Our findings further support the current recommendations of not discontinuing ACEIs/ARBs therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Corticosteroids use for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews.

Purpose: A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19. Material and Methods: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach. Results: 35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for mechanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions: There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.

Efficacy of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19: An umbrella review.

Tocilizumab is an interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitor that has been proposed as a therapeutic agent for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the efficacy of tocilizumab in treating COVID-19, and to provide an overview of all systematic reviews on this topic. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science collection, the Cochrane library, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar, as well as the medRxiv preprint server. These databases were searched up to 30 September 2021, using the following keywords: 'SARS-CoV-2', 'COVID-19', 'tocilizumab', 'RHPM-1', 'systematic review', and 'meta-analysis'. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis) investigating the efficacy or safety of tocilizumab in confirmed COVID-19 patients. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to assess quality of the included articles, while publication bias was examined using Egger's test. A total of 50 eligible systematic reviews were included. The pooled estimates showed significant reductions in clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.93), deaths (RR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.71-0.85) and the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.64-0.92) for those receiving tocilizumab compared with the control group. Also, an emerging survival benefit was demonstrated for those who received tocilizumab, over those in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.52; 95%CI, 0.43-0.63). In addition, tocilizumab substantially increased the number of ventilator-free days, compared with the control treatments (weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.38; 95%CI, 0.51-6.25). Furthermore, lymphocyte count (WMD 0.26 × 10⁹ /L; 95%CI, 0.14-0.37), IL-6 (WMD 176.99 pg/mL; 95%CI, 76.34-277.64) and D-dimer (WMD 741.08 ng/mL; 95%CI, 109.42-1372.75) were all significantly elevated in those receiving tocilizumab. However, the level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (WMD -30.88 U/L; 95%CI, -51.52, -10.24) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD -104.83 mg/L; 95%CI, -133.21, -76.46) were both significantly lower after treatment with tocilizumab. Tocilizumab treatment reduced the risk of intubation, mortality and the length of hospital stay, without increasing the risk of superimposed infections in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, tocilizumab can be considered an effective therapeutic agent for treating patients with COVID-19.

Global burden of mental health problems among children and adolescents during COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review.

Mental health problems among children and adolescents are increasingly reported amidst the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In this umbrella review, we aimed to synthesize global evidence on the epidemiologic burden and correlates of child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) problems during this pandemic from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Adopting the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we evaluated 422 citations and identified 17 eligible reviews with medium to high methodological quality. Most of the reviews reported a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, suicidal behavior, stress-related disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and other mental health problems. Also, factors associated with CAMH such as age, gender, place of residence, educational attainment, household income, sedentary lifestyle, social media and internet use, comorbidities, family relationships, parents' psychosocial conditions, COVID-19 related experiences, closure of schools, online learning, and social support were reported across reviews. As most studies were cross-sectional and used nonrepresentative samples, future research on representative samples adopting longitudinal and intervention designs is needed. Lastly, multipronged psychosocial care services, policies, and programs are needed to alleviate the burden of CAMH problems during and after this pandemic.

An Umbrella Review With Meta-Analysis of Chest Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations for Trauma Patient Management.

Background: RT-PCR testing is the standard for diagnosis of COVID-19, although it has its suboptimal sensitivity. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been proposed as an additional tool with diagnostic value, and several reports from primary and secondary studies that assessed its diagnostic accuracy are already available. To inform recommendations and practice regarding the use of chest CT in the in the trauma setting, we sought to identify, appraise, and summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of chest CT for diagnosis of COVID-19, and its application in emergency trauma surgery patients; overcoming limitations of previous reports regarding chest CT accuracy and discussing important considerations regarding its role in this setting. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review using Living Overview of Evidence platform for COVID-19, which performs regular automated searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and more than 30 other sources. The review was conducted following the JBI methodology for systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of the evidence is reported (registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020198267). Results: Thirty studies that fulfilled selection criteria were included; 19 primary studies provided estimates of sensitivity (0.91, 95%CI = [0.88-0.93]) and specificity (0.73, 95%CI = [0.61; 0.82]) of chest CT for COVID-19. No correlation was found between sensitivities and specificities (ρ = 0.22, IC95% [-0.33; 0.66]). Diagnostic odds ratio was estimated at: DOR = 27.5, 95%CI (14.7; 48.5). Evidence for sensitivity estimates was graded as MODERATE, and for specificity estimates it was graded as LOW. Conclusion: The value of chest CT appears to be that of an additional screening tool that can easily detect PCR false negatives, which are reportedly highly frequent. Upon the absence of PCR testing and impossibility to perform RT-PCR in trauma patients, chest CT can serve as a substitute with increased value and easy implementation. Systematic Review Registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42020198267].

Joint European policy on the COVID-19 risks for people with mental disorders: An umbrella review and evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for mental and public health.

As COVID-19 becomes endemic, identifying vulnerable population groups for severe infection outcomes and defining rapid and effective preventive and therapeutic strategies remains a public health priority. We performed an umbrella review, including comprehensive studies (meta-analyses and systematic reviews) investigating COVID-19 risk for infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality in people with psychiatric disorders, and outlined evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for overcoming potential barriers that psychiatric patients may experience in preventing and managing COVID-19, and defining optimal therapeutic options and current research priorities in psychiatry. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Ovid/PsycINFO databases up to 17 January 2022 for the umbrella review. We synthesized evidence, extracting when available pooled odd ratio estimates for the categories "any mental disorder" and "severe mental disorders." The quality of each study was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 approach and ranking evidence quality. We identified four systematic review/meta-analysis combinations, one meta-analysis, and three systematic reviews, each including up to 28 original studies. Although we rated the quality of studies from moderate to low and the evidence ranged from highly suggestive to non-significant, we found consistent evidence that people with mental illness are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and most importantly mortality, but not of ICU admission. The risk and the burden of COVID-19 in people with mental disorders, in particular those with severe mental illness, can no longer be ignored but demands urgent targeted and persistent action. Twenty-two recommendations are proposed to facilitate this process.

Risk factors for depression in the elderly: An umbrella review of published meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Depression has been identified as one of the leading causes of the disease burden worldwide. Identification of the potential factors that increased or decreased the risk of depression could be important to provide prevention strategies. We aimed to conduct an umbrella review of risk factors for depression in the elderly and assessed the credibility of evidence of the association between each factor and depression. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Web of Science from 1990 to April 11, 2021 for articles investigating associations between potential factors and depression. For each association, we recalculated the summary effect size and 95% confidence intervals using random effects models. The 95% prediction interval and between-heterogeneity were also reported. For publication bias, small-study effect and excess of significance bias were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five publications met the inclusion criteria, including twenty-two meta-analyses and three qualitative systematic reviews. Approximately 1,199,927 participants and 82 unique factors were reported. Two factors were rated as convincing evidence and four factors showed highly suggestive evidence. These risk factors were aspirin use, individuals aged 80 years and above, sleep disturbances and persistent sleep disturbances, hearing problem, poor vision, and cardiac disease. LIMITATIONS: Most studies that we included were of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: We found several risk factors for depression with different levels of evidence, in which aspirin use and individuals aged 80 years and above presented the strongest evidence. Further research is warranted to support other findings from this umbrella review using a large, well-designed cohort study.

Artificial Intelligence for COVID-19 Detection in Medical Imaging-Diagnostic Measures and Wasting-A Systematic Umbrella Review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a barrage of primary research and reviews. We investigated the publishing process, time and resource wasting, and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews on artificial intelligence techniques to diagnose COVID-19 in medical images. We searched nine databases from inception until 1 September 2020. Two independent reviewers did all steps of identification, extraction, and methodological credibility assessment of records. Out of 725 records, 22 reviews analysing 165 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. This review covers 174,277 participants in total, including 19,170 diagnosed with COVID-19. The methodological credibility of all eligible studies was rated as critically low: 95% of papers had significant flaws in reporting quality. On average, 7.24 (range: 0-45) new papers were included in each subsequent review, and 14% of studies did not include any new paper into consideration. Almost three-quarters of the studies included less than 10% of available studies. More than half of the reviews did not comment on the previously published reviews at all. Much wasting time and resources could be avoided if referring to previous reviews and following methodological guidelines. Such information chaos is alarming. It is high time to draw conclusions from what we experienced and prepare for future pandemics.

Obesity augments the disease burden in COVID-19: Updated data from an umbrella review.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for identification of risk factors, which may help to identify people at enhanced risk for severe disease outcomes to improve treatment and, if possible, establish prophylactic measures. This study aimed to determine whether individuals with obesity compared to individuals with normal weight have an increased risk for severe COVID-19. We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library and critically reviewed the secondary literature using AMSTAR-2. We explored 27 studies. Findings indicate that individuals with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 ), as compared to individuals without obesity, experience an increased risk for hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 1.40-2.45), admission to the intensive care unit (OR: 1.30-2.32), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.47-2.63), and the composite outcome 'severe outcome' (OR or risk ratio: 1.62-4.31). We found diverging results concerning death to COVID-19, but data trended towards increased mortality. Comparing individuals with obesity to individuals without obesity, findings suggested younger individuals (<60 years) experience a higher risk of severe disease compared to older individuals (≥60 years). Obesity augments the severity of COVID-19 including a tendency to increased mortality and, thus, contributes to an increased disease burden, especially among younger individuals.

Incidence of cardiac complications following COVID-19 infection: An umbrella meta-analysis study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 causes fatal cardiac damages. Despite many overwhelming meta-analysis related to cardiac complications following COVID-19 disease, no umbrella meta-analysis study has been conducted. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to report the summarized pooled incidences of cardiac complications in the overall, critically ill, and deceased patients, compare the cardiac complications between the severe/non-severe or deceased/non-deceased patients, and also compare poor outcomes between patients with/without acute myocardial injury (AMI). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, web of science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Springer, Sage journals were searched before April 2021. After assessing the quality and duplicate data, data were run by the random/fixed-effect models, I2 heterogeneity index, Egger's test, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: After removing duplicate data, in the overall COVID-19 patients, the pooled incidence of AMI, heart failure, arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were 21%, 14%, 16%, 3.46%, and 1.3%, respectively. In the patients with severe disease, the pooled incidence of AMI and shock were 33 and 35%, respectively. Similarly, in the deceased COVID-19 patients, the pooled incidence rate of AMI and arrhythmia were 56% and 47.5%, respectively. The patients with severe disease were at higher risk of AMI (RR = 5.27) and shock (OR = 20.18) compared with the non-severe cases. Incidence of AMI was associated with transfer to the intensive care units (ICU) (RR = 2.92) and mortality (RR = 2.57, OR = 8.36), significantly. CONCLUSION: Cardiac complications were found to be increased alarmingly in COVID-19 patients. Baseline and during hospitalization checking with electrocardiography, echocardiography, and measuring of cardiac biomarkers should be applied.

Effects of Digital Technologies on Older People's Access to Health and Social Care: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic prompted the rapid implementation of new and existing digital technologies to facilitate access to health and care services during physical distancing. Older people may be disadvantaged in that regard if they are unable to use or have access to smartphones, tablets, computers, or other technologies. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we synthesized evidence on the impact of digital technologies on older adults' access to health and social services. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published from January 2000 to October 2019 using comprehensive searches of 6 databases. We looked for reviews in a population of adults aged ≥65 years in any setting, reporting outcomes related to the impact of technologies on access to health and social care services. RESULTS: A total of 7 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, providing data from 77 randomized controlled trials and 50 observational studies. All of them synthesized findings from low-quality primary studies, 2 of which used robust review methods. Most of the reviews focused on digital technologies to facilitate remote delivery of care, including consultations and therapy. No studies examined technologies used for first contact access to care, such as online appointment scheduling. Overall, we found no reviews of technology to facilitate first contact access to health and social care such as online appointment booking systems for older populations. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of digital technologies on equitable access to services for older people is unclear. Research is urgently needed in order to understand the positive and negative consequences of digital technologies on health care access and to identify the groups most vulnerable to exclusion.

Telehealth in surgery: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use has increased worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, hands-on requirements of surgical care may have resulted in slower implementation. This umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) evaluated the perceptions, safety and implementation of telehealth services in surgery, and telehealth usage in Australia between 2020 and 2021. METHODS: PubMed was searched from 2015 to 2021 for systematic reviews evaluating real-time telehealth modalities in surgery. Outcomes of interest were patient and provider satisfaction, safety, and barriers and facilitators associated with its use. Study quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A working group of surgeons provided insights into the clinical relevance to telehealth in surgical practice of the evidence collated. RESULTS: From 2025 identified studies, 17 were included, which were of low to moderate risk of bias. Patient and provider satisfaction with telehealth was high. Time savings, decreased healthcare resource use and lower costs were reported as key advantages of the service. Inability to perform comprehensive examinations was noted as the primary barrier. In Australia, peak telehealth usage coincided with the introduction of temporary telehealth services and increased lockdown measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers are broadly satisfied with telehealth and its benefits. Barriers may be overcome via multidisciplinary collaboration. Telehealth may benefit surgical care long-term if implemented correctly both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pre-existing health conditions and severe COVID-19 outcomes: an umbrella review approach and meta-analysis of global evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study applies an umbrella review approach to summarise the global evidence on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with pre-existing health conditions. METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs) were identified in PubMed, Embase/Medline and seven pre-print servers until December 11, 2020. Due to the absence of age-adjusted risk effects stratified by geographical regions, a re-analysis of the evidence was conducted. Primary studies were extracted from SRs and evaluated for inclusion in the re-analysis. Studies were included if they reported risk estimates (odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR)) for hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, intubation or death. Estimated associations were extracted from the primary studies for reported pre-existing conditions. Meta-analyses were performed stratified for each outcome by regions of the World Health Organization. The evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. Registration number CRD42020215846. RESULTS: In total, 160 primary studies from 120 SRs contributed 464 estimates for 42 pre-existing conditions. Most studies were conducted in North America, European, and Western Pacific regions. Evidence from Africa, South/Latin America, and the Eastern Mediterranean region was scarce. No evidence was available from the South-East Asia region. Diabetes (HR range 1.2-2.0 (CI range 1.1-2.8)), obesity (OR range 1.5-1.75 (CI range 1.1-2.3)), heart failure (HR range 1.3-3.3 (CI range 0.9-8.2)), COPD (HR range 1.12-2.2 (CI range 1.1-3.2)) and dementia (HR range 1.4-7.7 (CI range 1.2-39.6)) were associated with fatal COVID-19 in different regions, although the estimates varied. Evidence from Europe and North America showed that liver cirrhosis (OR range 3.2-5.9 (CI range 0.9-27.7)) and active cancer (OR range 1.6-4.7 (CI range 0.5-14.9)) were also associated with increased risk of death. Association between HIV and undesirable COVID-19 outcomes showed regional heterogeneity, with an increased risk of death in Africa (HR 1.7 (CI 1.3-2.2)). GRADE certainty was moderate to high for most associations. CONCLUSION: Risk of undesirable COVID-19 health outcomes is consistently increased in certain patient subgroups across geographical regions, showing high variability in others. The results can be used to inform COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation or other intervention strategies.