Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 468
Filter
1.
Arq Neuropsiquiatr ; 80(7): 741-758, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096903

ABSTRACT

The Brazilian Practice Guidelines for Stroke Rehabilitation - Part II, developed by the Scientific Department of Neurological Rehabilitation of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology (Academia Brasileira de Neurologia, in Portuguese), focuses on specific rehabilitation techniques to aid recovery from impairment and disability after stroke. As in Part I, Part II is also based on recently available evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other guidelines. Part II covers disorders of communication, dysphagia, postural control and balance, ataxias, spasticity, upper limb rehabilitation, gait, cognition, unilateral spatial neglect, sensory impairments, home rehabilitation, medication adherence, palliative care, cerebrovascular events related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the future of stroke rehabilitation, and stroke websites to support patients and caregivers. Our goal is to provide health professionals with more recent knowledge and recommendations for better rehabilitation care after stroke.


As Diretrizes Brasileiras de Reabilitação do Acidente Vascular Cerebral (AVC) - Parte II, desenvolvida pelo Departamento Científico de Reabilitação Neurológica da Academia Brasileira de Neurologia é voltada para intervenções específicas de técnicas de reabilitação de déficits neurológicos e incapacidades. Seguindo o mesmo modelo da Parte I, a Parte II também se baseia em estudos randomizados, revisões sistemáticas, metanálises e outras diretrizes sobre o mesmo tema. A segunda parte aborda os distúrbios da comunicação, disfagia, controle postural e equilíbrio, ataxias, espasticidade, reabilitação do membro superior, marcha, cognição, negligência espacial unilateral, déficits sensoriais, reabilitação domiciliar, aderência ao uso de medicamentos, cuidados paliativos, o futuro da reabilitação no AVC, e websites de orientação sobre AVC para pacientes e cuidadores. Nosso objetivo é fornecer aos profissionais envolvidos na reabilitação conhecimento atualizado e recomendações para um melhor cuidado no pós-AVC.


Subject(s)
Stroke Rehabilitation , Stroke , Humans , Brazil , COVID-19 , Stroke/complications , Stroke/drug therapy , Stroke Rehabilitation/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
2.
Value Health ; 25(9): 1469-1479, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2084454

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review definitions of digital health and understand their relevance for health outcomes research. Four umbrella terms (digital health, electronic health, mobile health, and telehealth/telemedicine) were summarized in this article. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and EconLit were searched from January 2015 to May 2020 for systematic reviews containing key Medical Subject Headings terms for digital health (n = 38) and synonyms of "definition." Independent pairs of reviewers performed each stage of the review, with reconciliation by a third reviewer if required. A single reviewer consolidated each definition for consistency. We performed text analysis via word clouds and computed document frequency-and inverse corpus frequency scores. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2610 records with 545 articles (20.9%) taken forward for full-text review. Of these, 39.3% (214 of 545) were eligible for data extraction, of which 134 full-text articles were retained for this analysis containing 142 unique definitions of umbrella terms (digital health [n = 4], electronic health [n = 36], mobile health [n = 50], and telehealth/telemedicine [n = 52]). Seminal definitions exist but have increasingly been adapted over time and new definitions were created. Nevertheless, the most characteristic words extracted from the definitions via the text analyses still showed considerable overlap between the 4 umbrella terms. CONCLUSIONS: To focus evidence summaries for outcomes research purposes, umbrella terms should be accompanied by Medical Subject Headings terms reflecting population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and setting. Ultimately a functional classification system is needed to create standardized terminology for digital health interventions denoting the domains of patient-level effects and outcomes.


Subject(s)
Telemedicine , Text Messaging , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Public Opinion , Systematic Reviews as Topic
3.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0272859, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079727

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Food security is substantially affected directly by COVID-19 and/or indirectly by the measures adopted for the prevention of COVID-19 transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the impact of COVID-19 on food security and identify the most compromised food security dimension to ease the food security regulators and actors' intervention prioritisation. METHODOLOGY: Primary research focused on the impact of COVID-19 on food security will be searched from three online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus), manually using a google scholar search engine, and studies' reference list were also manually searched. The prevalence of food insecurity in each study and the most compromised food security dimension including their associated factors will be identified. The food insecurity before and after COVID-19 emergence and the status of food security dimension before and after COVID-19 will be compared and interpreted. DISCUSSION: The heterogeneity of the studies and the factors for the variability of outcomes will be discussed. COVID-19 had a negative impact on food security if the food insecurity prevalence before the emergence of COVID-19 is less than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other confounding factors that can contribute to the high food insecurity prevalence like natural disasters, war, and instability will be considered in addition to COVID-19. REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO under the registration number: CRD42022325475.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Food Security , Food Supply , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Prevalence , Systematic Reviews as Topic
4.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0272839, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been the most important public health concern worldwide since 2020. Several vaccines are now available to help in controlling COVID-19 associated morbidity and mortality. This study will aim to provide the global and regional prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as an estimate of disease severity among COVID-19 vaccinated individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In order to determine the global burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated individuals, we will systematically extract and review papers from PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science direct and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). All the studies describing the prevalence and/or disease severity (hospitalization and case fatality rate) data of COVID-19 among individuals who received a partial or complete dose of WHO-approved COVID-19 vaccines will be eligible. A random effect model will be used to calculate the pooled prevalence and to estimate the disease severity. Subgroup analysis will be performed to explore the association between the number of vaccine doses received and the COVID-19 burdens. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the global estimate data on pooled prevalence, hospitalization and case fatality rates of COVID-19 among vaccinated individuals. Moreover, the factors associated with reinfection and disease severity will be equally investigated in the meta-analysis. The results of this study will contribute in the understanding and estimation of the global burden of COVID-19 among vaccinated individuals. Findings will provide meaningful information for the success of the current global rollout of COVID-19 vaccination strategies and pave the way for future interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021273074.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Systematic Reviews as Topic
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(41): e30992, 2022 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2077957

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders pose a significant threat to the clinical rehabilitation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Tai Chi is a therapeutic exercise that can be used to treat anxiety disorders. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi for treating patients with anxiety disorders caused by COVID-19. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature, Wan Fang, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry databases will be searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on Tai Chi for the treatment of anxiety disorders caused by COVID-19, published from December 1, 2019, to August 22, 2022. Two researchers will screen the articles and extract the relevant information. RESULTS: The results will provide a systematic overview of the current evidence on the use of Tai Chi to treat anxiety disorders caused by COVID-19 among patients. CONCLUSION: The conclusions of this study will help clarify whether Tai Chi is effective and safe for treating anxiety disorders caused by COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Tai Ji , Anxiety Disorders/therapy , COVID-19/therapy , China , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Tai Ji/methods
6.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(41): e30929, 2022 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2077955

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically challenged the safety of on esophageal cancer (EC) surgery during COVID-19. The study aimed to evaluate the safety of EC surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022335164). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database, Chinese Scientific Journal database, and Wan Fang database was conducted to identify potentially relevant publications from January 2020 to May 2022. All data were independently extracted by two researchers. We will apply a fixed-effect model or random effect model basis on the heterogeneity test and employ with RevMan 5.4.1 software for data synthesis. The dichotomous surgical outcomes used risk ratios or risk differences, and for continuous surgical outcomes, mean differences (MD) or standardized MD, both with 95% confidence intervals were used. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, and mortality. The secondary outcomes were total hospital stay, postoperative stay, preoperative waiting, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, number of patients needing ICU stay, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: This study will comprehensively summarize the high-quality trials to determine the safety of EC surgery during COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis will present evidence for the safety of EC surgery during COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Systematic Reviews as Topic
7.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(20)2022 Oct 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2071433

ABSTRACT

Economic burden issues in SARS-CoV-2 patients with underlying co-morbidities are enormous resources for patient treatment and management. The uncertainty costs for clinical management render the healthcare system catatonic and incurs deficits in national annual budgets. This article focuses on systematic steps towards selecting and evaluating literature to uncover gaps and ways to help healthcare stakeholders optimize resources in treating and managing COVID-19 patients with multi-morbidity. A systematic review of all COVID-19 treatment procedures with co-morbidities or multi-morbidity for the period from 2019 to 2022 was conducted. The search includes studies describing treatment costs associated with multi- or co-morbidity cases for infected patients and, if concurrently reported, determining recurring expenses. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Galbraith plots and I2 statistics will be deployed to assess heterogeneity and to identify potential sources. A backward elimination process will be applied in the regression modelling procedure. Based on the number of studies retrieved and their sample size, the subgroup analysis will be stratified on participant disease category, associated total costs, and degree of freedom in cost estimation. These studies were registered in the PROSPERO registry (ID: CRD42022323071).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Financial Stress , Multimorbidity , Morbidity , Systematic Reviews as Topic
8.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e063687, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064168

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Assessing mental health literacy has implications for the identification and treatment of mental health problems. Adolescents have been identified as a particularly important target group for initiating and improving mental health literacy. However, much of what we know about adolescent mental health literacy comes from high-income countries. This proposed review seeks to synthesise the available published primary evidence from sub-Saharan Africa on the status and measurement of mental health literacy among school-going adolescents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA-2020). We will systematically search selected global databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and MEDLINE) and regional electronic databases (African Index Medicus and African Journals OnLine) up to December 2021 for observational and qualitative studies published in English and French. The standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields (QualSyst criteria) will be used to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies. The Petticrew-Roberts 3-step approach to narrative synthesis will be applied to the included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will not seek ethical approval from an institutional review board, as this is a systematic review of available and accessible literature. When completed, the full report of this review will be submitted to a journal for peer-reviewed publication; the key findings will be presented at local and international conferences with-partial or full-focus on (adolescent) mental health (literacy). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021229011.


Subject(s)
Health Literacy , Mental Health , Adolescent , Africa South of the Sahara , Humans , Qualitative Research , Research Design , Schools , Systematic Reviews as Topic
9.
BMJ Open ; 12(10): e062775, 2022 10 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064159

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating a wide range of symptoms of poor mental health among emergency medical service (EMS) ambulance populations. Evidence suggests that using organisational support can improve employee outcomes and in turn, patient outcomes. Understanding why EMS staff do and do not use support services is therefore critical to improving uptake, ensuring equitable access, and potentially influencing workforce well-being, organisational sustainability and patient care delivery. This systematic review aims to identify what support is available and any perceived barriers and facilitators to accessing and utilising organisational support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches performed between 18 February 2022 and 23 February 2022 will be used to identify studies that report barriers and facilitators to EMS employee support among all government/state commissioned EMS ambulance systems. Electronic databases, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline and PsycINFO will be searched. All relevant English-language studies of adult employees of government/state commissioned EMS ambulance organisations published since December 2004 will be screened and relevant data extracted by two independent reviewers. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements.The primary outcome is the identification of perceived barriers or facilitators to EMS staff using organisational support for mental health. The secondary outcome is the identification of supportive interventions offered through or by ambulance trusts. Study selection will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the methodological quality of included studies will be appraised by administering rating checklists. A narrative synthesis will be conducted to report qualitative and quantitative data and will include population characteristics, methodological approach and information about barriers and facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because only available published data will be analysed. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022299650.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , Adult , Ambulances , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
10.
BMJ Open ; 12(10): e065588, 2022 10 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053224

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns about potential adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with infection, resulting in intensive research. Numerous studies have attempted to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss. However, studies and reviews to date have drawn differing conclusions. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a summary of all quantitative research on the relationship between pregnancy loss and COVID-19 infection and, if appropriate, to synthesise the evidence into an overall effect estimate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three publication databases (Embase, PubMed and Cochrane) and four preprint databases (medRxiv, Lancet Preprint, Gates Open Research and Wellcome Open Research) will be searched. Boolean logic will be used to combine terms associated with pregnancy loss and COVID-19. The population of interest are pregnant women. Retrieved results will be assessed in two phases: (1) abstract screening and (2) full text evaluation. All studies which compare pregnancy loss outcomes in women who had COVID-19 versus those who did not quantitatively will be included. Narrative and non-English studies will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen independently, with results compared and discrepancies resolved by the study team. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using a quality appraisal tool. Results will be summarised descriptively and where possible synthesised in a meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and provide an important update in a rapidly evolving field of research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022327437.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Spontaneous , COVID-19 , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Research Design , Stillbirth/epidemiology , Systematic Reviews as Topic
11.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e063846, 2022 09 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053217

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: For some people, COVID-19 infection leads to negative health impacts that can last into the medium or long term. The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection, or 'long COVID', negatively affects not only physical health, but also mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Complex, integrated interventions are recommended for long COVID, including psychological components; however, the effectiveness of such interventions has yet to be critically evaluated. This protocol describes a systematic review to be conducted of scientific literature reporting on clinical trials of interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being among individuals with long COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A health sciences librarian will identify the relevant literature through comprehensive systematic searches of Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, China National Knowledge Internet and WANFANG Data databases, as well as The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Studies will be selected through a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted will include intervention descriptions and efficacy metrics. Data will be narratively synthesised; if the data allow, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Risk of bias assessment will be conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for systematic reviews is not required. As researchers and clinicians respond to the new clinical entity that long COVID represents, this review will synthesise a rapidly emerging evidence base describing and testing interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Results will therefore be disseminated through an open-access peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations to inform research and clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022318678.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , COVID-19/complications , Cognition , Humans , Knowledge , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
12.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e061361, 2022 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053213

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is a significant growth in the use of digital technology and methods in health-related research, further driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. This has offered a potential to apply digital health research in hidden, marginalised and excluded populations who are traditionally not easily reached due to economic, societal and legal barriers. To better inform future digital health studies of these vulnerable populations, we proposed a scoping review to comprehensively map published evidence and guidelines on the applications and challenges of digital health research methods to hard-to-reach communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Arksey and O' Malley methodological framework for scoping reviews. The framework for the review will employ updated methods developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute including the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Scoping Review checklist. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Greenfile are the identified databases for peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies in-scope of the review. Grey literature focused on guidance and best practice in digital health research, and hard-to-reach populations will also be searched following published protocols. The review will focus on literature published between 1 February 2012 and 1 February 2022. Two reviewers are engaged in the review. After screening the title and abstract to determine the eligibility of each article, a thorough full-text review of eligible articles will be conducted using a data extraction framework. Key extracted information will be mapped in tabular and visualised summaries to categorise the breadth of literature and identify key digital methods, including their limitations and potential, for use in hard-to-reach populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval. The results of the scoping review will consist of peer-reviewed publications, presentations and knowledge mobilisation activities including a lay summary posted via social media channels and production of a policy brief.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Policy , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
13.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e060690, 2022 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053209

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Major advancements in technology have led to considerations how telemedicine (TM) and other technology platforms can be meaningfully integrated in treatment for psychiatric disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a further focus on use of TM in psychiatry. Despite the widespread use of TM, little is known about its effect compared with traditional in-person (IP) consultation. The objective of this systematic review is to examine if individual psychiatric outpatient interventions for adults using TM are comparable to IP in terms of (1) psychopathology outcomes, (2) levels of patient satisfaction, (3) working alliance and (4) dropout from treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will only include randomised controlled trials for adult participants with mood disorders, anxiety or personality disorders. The primary outcome is psychopathology, and secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, treatment alliance and dropout rate. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL. The inverse-variance method will be used to conduct the meta-analysis. Effect sizes will be calculated as standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) for the primary outcome, mean difference for patient satisfaction and working alliance, and risk ratio for the dropout rate. Effect sizes will be supplemented with 95% CI. We will calculate the I² statistic to quantify heterogeneity and Chi-square statistic (χ²) to test for heterogeneity for the primary outcome. Potential clinical and methodological heterogeneity moderators will be assessed in subgroup and sensitivity analysis. The risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2, and confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review protocol. Data sets will be deposited in the Zenodo repository. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-review scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256357.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Adult , Anxiety , Anxiety Disorders/therapy , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Personality Disorders/therapy , Referral and Consultation , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(39): e30844, 2022 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2051707

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: From the end of 2019 to now, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put enormous strain on the world's health systems. As a characteristic sign of COVID-19 patient, olfactory dysfunction (OD) poses considerable problems for patients. In China, acupuncture has been widely used to treat OD caused by COVID-19, but there is still a lack of evidence-based medical evaluation. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of COVID-19 OD. METHODS: According to the retrieval strategies, randomized controlled trials on the acupuncture for COVID-19 OD were obtained from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the Chinese Scientific Journal Database and the Wanfang Database, regardless of publication date, or language. Studies were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) and STATA 14.2 software. Ultimately, the evidentiary grade for the results will be evaluated. RESULTS: The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This study will provide up-to-date summary proof for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for COVID-19 OD.


Subject(s)
Acupuncture Therapy , COVID-19 , Olfaction Disorders , Acupuncture Therapy/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Disease Progression , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
15.
Front Public Health ; 10: 963667, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043533

ABSTRACT

Background: This umbrella review aims to consolidate evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the impact of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on kidney health, and the associations between kidney diseases and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Five databases, namely, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid Medline, were searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews from January 1, 2020 to June 2, 2022. Two reviewers independently selected reviews, identified reviews for inclusion and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by group discussions. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of all included reviews using ROBIS tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The characteristics and major findings of the included reviews are presented using tables and forest plots. The included meta-analyses were updated when necessary. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021266300). Results: A total of 103 reviews were identified. Using ROBIS, 30 reviews were rated as low risk of bias. Data from these 30 reviews were included in the narrative synthesis. Ten meta-analyses were updated by incorporating 119 newly available cohort studies. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients had a notable acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence of 27.17%. AKI was significantly associated with mortality (pooled OR: 5.24) and severe conditions in COVID-19 patients (OR: 14.94). The pooled prevalence of CKD in COVID-19 patients was 5.7%. Pre-existing CKD was associated with a higher risk of death (pooled OR: 2.21) and disease severity (pooled OR: 1.87). Kidney transplant recipients were susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection (incidence: 23 per 10,000 person-weeks) with a pooled mortality of 18%. Conclusion: Kidney disease such as CKD or recipients of kidney transplants were at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Persons with COVID-19 also had a notable AKI incidence. AKI, the need for RRT, pre-existing CKD and a history of kidney transplantation are associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021266300, identifier: CRD42021266300.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , COVID-19 , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Kidney , Pandemics , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
16.
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0275105, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043213

ABSTRACT

Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to infection. Furthermore, infection from pertussis, influenza and COVID-19 increases the likelihood of adverse consequences to the mother and developing baby such as stillbirth, ICU admission, and pre-term caesarean birth. Increased rates of transmission and risk of adverse consequences from infection justifies the provision of national maternal vaccination programmes. Additionally, maternal vaccination helps protect the infant until they are able to receive their own vaccinations; a time when they are most at risk of mortality from influenza and pertussis. Vaccination during pregnancy has been repeatedly demonstrated as safe and effective in reducing harm, although rates of uptake remain low compared to the general population. The current protocol describes the methodology for an umbrella review aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators of vaccination during pregnancy for pertussis, influenza, and COVID-19. Systematic reviews that investigate the barriers and facilitators of at least one of either pertussis, influenza, or COVID-19 will be included in this review. Multiple databases will be searched, and included reviews assessed for quality (using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) quality assessment for systematic reviews) and degree of overlap of included primary studies. Included reviews will be analysed according to the WHO SAGE model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy and separated by whether these explore influenza and pertussis, or COVID-19. The outcomes of this review will help inform the development of interventions to increase uptake of vaccination during pregnancy, and on whether interventions need to be tailored depending on the infectious disease. The key findings will identify the specific barriers and facilitators of vaccination hesitancy by considering contextual influences (e.g. sociodemographic variables), individual/social group influences (e.g. trust in the institutions), and vaccine-specific issues (e.g. safety and recommendations).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Whooping Cough , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infant , Influenza, Human/chemically induced , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pertussis Vaccine/therapeutic use , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Vaccination , Whooping Cough/epidemiology , Whooping Cough/prevention & control
17.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(38): e30770, 2022 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2042661

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a group of diseases that cannot be explained after routine clinical examination, and is characterized by postprandial fullness, early satiety, and upper abdominal pain or burning. According to the statistics, FD continues to become one of the high-risk sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting patients' quality of life, increasing psychological burden and increasing economic costs. However, its optimal treatment is still an urgent problem. A large number of studies have shown that acupuncture and moxibustion is effective and safe in the treatment of FD caused by sequelae of COVID-19, which is of research value. Therefore, based on the current literatures, the effectiveness and safety of different acupuncture and moxibustion methods were systematically evaluated to provide possible alternative therapy on FD. METHODS: Studies search for eligible randomized controlled trials that use different acupuncture and moxibustion methods as the sole treatment on FD and their data extraction will be done by 2 researchers. In case of disagreement, a third researcher will be introduced for arbitration. Mean difference or relative risk with fixed or random effect model in terms of 95% confidence interval will be adopted for the data synthesis. To evaluate the risk of bias, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool will be utilized. The sensitivity or subgroup analysis will also be conducted when meeting high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%). RESULTS: This meta-analysis will provide an authentic synthesis of different acupuncture and moxibustion methods on FD caused by sequelae of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis will evaluate the effect of acupuncture and moxibustion on FD caused by sequelae of COVID-19, providing evidence as to the treatment in these patients.


Subject(s)
Acupuncture Therapy , COVID-19 , Dyspepsia , Moxibustion , Acupuncture Therapy/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Dyspepsia/etiology , Dyspepsia/therapy , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Moxibustion/methods , Quality of Life , Systematic Reviews as Topic
18.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 101(38): e30246, 2022 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2042653

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a new disease, coronavirus disease (COVID-19), emerged, which put several countries on a state of alert. Because it is a novel virus, several aspects and factors that contribute to the evolution of pathogenesis are still unknown and need to be better understood. Therefore, a systematic review is necessary to investigate the association between COVID-19 infection and chronic nontransmissible disease in patients who have died of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature for observational studies published between December 2019 and September 2020. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42020176249. RESULTS: In the 31 studies analyzed, a total of 421,872 (100%) patients were infected with COVID-19, and, of these, 45,399 (10.8%) died. The 3 most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory diseases, respectively. The cure/recovery rate was 89.2% (376,473). CONCLUSION: This review revealed a high percentage of comorbidities in the patients with COVID-19, especially those who died.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Humans , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
19.
Syst Rev ; 11(1): 191, 2022 09 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038920

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.


Subject(s)
Research Report , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Asia , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Prospective Studies , Research Design
20.
Syst Rev ; 11(1): 174, 2022 08 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038919

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.


Subject(s)
Journal Impact Factor , Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Publications , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL