Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 32
Filter
2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 142: 333-370, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509964

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Consensus , Databases, Factual , Humans , Internationality , Practice Guidelines as Topic
4.
S Afr Med J ; 111(10): 934-937, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478412

ABSTRACT

Some clinicians prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 despite a lack of support from any credible South African professional body. They argue that when faced by clinical urgency, weak signals of efficacy should trigger action if harm is unlikely. Several recent reviews found an apparent mortality benefit by including studies at high risk of bias and with active rather than placebo controls. If these studies are discounted, the pooled mortality effect is no longer statistically significant, and evidence of benefit is very weak. Relying on this evidence could cause clinical harm if used to justify vaccine hesitancy. Clinicians remain responsible for ensuring that guidance they follow is both legitimate and reliable. In the ivermectin debate, evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles have largely been ignored under the guise thatin a pandemic the 'rules are different', probably to the detriment of vulnerable patients and certainly to the detriment of the profession's image. Medical schools and professional interest groups are responsible for transforming EBM from a taught but seldom-used tool into a process of lifelong learning, promoting a consistent call for evidence-based and unconflicted debate integral to clinical practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Ivermectin/administration & dosage , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , /psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Research Design , South Africa
6.
Gastroenterology ; 161(2): 681-700, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330154

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations can be altered by immunosuppressive therapies, and perhaps by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on inactivated vaccines. METHODS: Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative online platform, and voted on by a multidisciplinary group. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 15 of 20 questions. Recommendations address the following vaccines: Haemophilus influenzae type b, recombinant zoster, hepatitis B, influenza, pneumococcus, meningococcus, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis, and human papillomavirus. Most of the recommendations for patients with IBD are congruent with the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations for the general population, with the following exceptions. In patients with IBD, the panel suggested Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine for patients older than 5 years of age, recombinant zoster vaccine for adults younger than 50 year of age, and hepatitis B vaccine for adults without a risk factor. Consensus was not reached, and recommendations were not made for 5 statements, due largely to lack of evidence, including double-dose hepatitis B vaccine, timing of influenza immunization in patients on biologics, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines in adult patients without risk factors, and human papillomavirus vaccine in patients aged 27-45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, maintaining appropriate vaccination status in these patients is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, IBD is not a contraindication to the use of inactivated vaccines, but immunosuppressive therapy may reduce vaccine responses.


Subject(s)
Gastroenterology/standards , Immunization/standards , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/drug therapy , Opportunistic Infections/prevention & control , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Canada , Consensus , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Immunization/adverse effects , Immunocompromised Host , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/diagnosis , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/immunology , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/mortality , Opportunistic Infections/diagnosis , Opportunistic Infections/immunology , Opportunistic Infections/mortality , Patient Safety , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects
8.
Hist Philos Life Sci ; 43(2): 61, 2021 Apr 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1188226

ABSTRACT

Calls for evidence-based approaches to COVID-19 have sparked up discussions on the use of evidence for policy. In this note, we expand these discussions: while the debate has mostly focused on the types of evidence to be used for policy, we argue that the assessment of judgments involved in data practices and evidence production should play a central role in evaluating policy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Judgment , Policy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond) ; 82(2): 1-4, 2021 Feb 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1110766

ABSTRACT

The UK government recently decided to extend the interval between the first dose of the Pfizer BioNTech and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines from 3 weeks to 12 weeks to maximise the number of people receiving the initial dose, despite the trials only providing vaccine efficacy data based on a schedule of 21 days between doses. This editorial discusses whether there is evidence to support this policy change.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Vaccination Coverage , Vaccination , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Drug Administration Schedule , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Government Regulation , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Policy Making , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Vaccination/methods , Vaccination/standards , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Coverage/methods , Vaccination Coverage/standards
11.
Eur J Cancer ; 147: 154-160, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1077873

ABSTRACT

The worldwide spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated infectious coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed a unique challenge to medical staff, patients and their families. Patients with cancer, particularly those with haematologic malignancies, have been identified to be at high risk to develop severe COVID-19. Since publication of our previous guideline on evidence-based management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer, research efforts have continued and new relevant data has come to light, maybe most importantly in the field of vaccination studies. Therefore, an update of our guideline on several clinically important topics is warranted. Here, we provide a concise update of evidence-based recommendations for rapid diagnostics, viral shedding, vaccination and therapy of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. This guideline update was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology by critically reviewing the currently available data on these topics applying evidence-based medicine criteria.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Virus Shedding/physiology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Germany/epidemiology , Hematologic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Hematologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Hematologic Neoplasms/virology , Hematology/organization & administration , Hematology/standards , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/standards , Infectious Disease Medicine/organization & administration , Infectious Disease Medicine/standards , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/standards , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Societies, Medical/standards , Vaccination/methods , Vaccination/standards
13.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 129: 1-11, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1012425

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.


Subject(s)
Information Management , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Consensus , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/trends , Humans , Information Management/methods , Information Management/organization & administration , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/organization & administration , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
Chest ; 158(3): 1143-1163, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987247

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated by a significant coagulopathy, that likely manifests in the form of both microthrombosis and VTE. This recognition has led to the urgent need for practical guidance regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE. METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format that addressed urgent clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were systematically searched for relevant literature, and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, guidance was developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on 13 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions resulted in 22 statements. Very little evidence exists in the COVID-19 population. The panel thus used expert consensus and existing evidence-based guidelines to craft the guidance statements. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the optimal strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat VTE in patients with COVID-19 is sparse but rapidly evolving.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Venous Thromboembolism , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
15.
Am J Surg ; 222(2): 431-437, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11-30 days and >30 days) on outcomes. RESULTS: Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11-30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test. DISCUSSION: 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Time-to-Treatment/standards , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Decision-Making/methods , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Propensity Score , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment/standards , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
16.
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann ; 29(5): 361-368, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962771

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A project to benchmark the consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic was developed to assess the methodology used. Standard and practical approaches for COVID-19 management in surgical patients to date are not accessible, despite the magnitude of the pandemic. A plethora of consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management in the course of COVID-19 epidemic have been rapidly published in the last three months. METHODS: Each manuscript was scored on a seven-point scale in the different items and domains with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. RESULTS: Nine guidelines that met the inclusion criteria were assessed. Transnational cooperation produced only one guideline. Multivariable analysis showed that improved scores of stakeholders' involvement were related to internationally developed guidelines. Clarity of presentation was related to the contribution of scientific societies due to greater rigor of development. The rigor of development produced guidelines with a high overall value. Higher healthcare expenses did not produce superior guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluated by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, the methodological characteristic of consensus statements, guidelines, and recommendations on surgical management during COVID-19 pandemic was relatively low. International development should be recommended as a model for the development of best methodological quality guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Surgical Procedures, Operative/standards , Benchmarking/standards , Clinical Decision-Making , Consensus , Humans , Patient Safety/standards , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects
18.
JCO Glob Oncol ; 6: 1455-1460, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-901960

ABSTRACT

The core pillars of multimodal care of patients with cancer are surgical, radiation, and medical oncology. The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has suddenly resurrected a new pillar in oncology care: teleoncology. With oncologists reaching out to patients through telemedicine, it is possible to evaluate and fulfill patients' needs; triage patients for elective procedures; screen them for influenza-like illness; provide them with guidance for hospital visits, if needed; and bridge oral medications and treatments when a hospital visit is not desirable because of any high risk-benefit ratio. Teleoncology can bring great reassurance to patients at times when reaching an oncology center is challenging, and more so in resource-constrained countries. Evidence-based treatment protocols, dispensable by teleoncology, already exist for many sites of cancer and they can provide a bridge to treatment when patients are unable to reach cancer centers for their standard treatment. The young pillar of teleoncology is going to remain much longer than COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/organization & administration , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/trends , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Medical Oncology/trends , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/trends , Triage/methods , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards
20.
Laryngoscope ; 131(3): E746-E754, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893245

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To compare personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines, specifically respirator use, among international public health agencies, academic hospitals, and otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) departments in the United States for the care of coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) patients. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. METHODS: Review of publicly available public health and academic hospitals guidelines along with review of communication among otolaryngology departments. RESULTS: Among 114 academic institutions affiliated with OHNS residencies, 20 (17.5%) institutions provided public access to some form of guidance on PPE and 73 (64%) provided information on screening or diagnostic testing. PPE guidelines were uniquely described based on several variables: location of care, COVID-19 status, involvement of aerosol generating or high-risk procedures, and physical distance from the patient. Six hospital guidelines were highlighted. Across these six institutions, there was agreement that N95 respirators were needed for high-risk patients undergoing high-risk procedures. Variations existed among institutions for scenarios with low-risk patients. Definitions of the low-risk patient and high-risk procedures were inconsistent among institutions. Three of the highlighted institutions had OHNS departments recommending higher level of airway protection than the institution. CONCLUSIONS: OHNS departments typically had more stringent PPE guidance than their institution. Discrepancies in communicating PPE use were frequent and provide inconsistent information on how healthcare workers should protect themselves in the COVID-19 pandemic. Identification of these inconsistencies serves as an opportunity to standardize communication and develop evidence-based guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V Laryngoscope, 131:E746-E754, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Otolaryngology/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Academic Medical Centers/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL