Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 13(1): e066623, 2023 01 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2193796

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the clot play a role in gas exchange abnormalities. Fibrinolytic therapy can improve alveolar ventilation by restoring blood flow. In this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol, we aim to assess the safety and efficacy of fibrinolytic therapy in such a population. METHODS: We will perform a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS databases without language restrictions for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors will independently perform data extraction and quality assessments of data from included studies. In case of divergence, a third author will be contacted. The Cochrane handbook will be used for guidance. If the results are not appropriate for a meta-analysis, a descriptive analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will provide current evidence about the safety and efficacy of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. These findings will provide if fibrinolytic therapy might be an option for a desperate clinical setting, where all medical efforts have been used. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020187482. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committee approval is not necessary. We intend to update the public registry, report any protocol amendments and publish the results in a widely accessible journal.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Humanos , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/tratamiento farmacológico , Terapia Trombolítica
2.
Sao Paulo Med J ; 140(1): 56-70, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596876

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The speed of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put enormous pressure on hospitals and other healthcare facilities. This, together with blockages in several countries, has hindered the availability and accessibility of the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the available scientific evidence on the efficacy, safety, safe use and reuse of PPE for healthcare professionals, for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies analyzing products for disinfecting and enabling reuse of PPE for coronavirus within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and LILACS databases, for articles published up to November 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected. These analyzed the use of N95, surgical and cotton masks, face shields, flexible enclosures with plastic covers or polycarbonate intubation boxes and plastic curtains; and also PPE disinfection using several substances. CONCLUSION: Combined use of a face shield with a N95 mask proved to be superior to other associations for protecting healthcare workers. Some products are useful for disinfecting PPE, such as 70% ethanol, 0.1% sodium hypochlorite and a mixture of quaternary ammonium and H2O2, and hydrogen peroxide. Ultraviolet light and dry heat at 70 °C can be used to decontaminate N95 masks. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4V5FD at the OPENSCIENCE Framework.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Equipo de Protección Personal , Brasil , Atención a la Salud , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Peróxido de Hidrógeno , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Säo Paulo med. j ; 138(6):505-514, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS (Américas) | ID: grc-745402

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.

4.
Säo Paulo med. j ; 138(5):422-432, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS (Américas) | ID: grc-742313

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated;1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy. CONCLUSION: The high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.

5.
Sao Paulo Med J ; 138(6): 505-514, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-934367

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Desinfección/métodos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Brasil , Desinfectantes , Humanos
6.
Sao Paulo Med J ; 138(5): 422-432, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-742582

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal swabs, is the current gold standard diagnostic test for this virus and has sensitivity of 60-70%. Some studies have demonstrated a significant number of false-negative RT-PCR tests while displaying significant tomographic findings, in the early days of symptoms of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy between RT-PCR and computed tomography (CT) for detecting COVID-19 in the first week of its symptoms during the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of comparative studies of diagnostic accuracy within the Evidence-based Health Program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to June 6, 2020, relating to studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR and chest CT for COVID-19 diagnoses. The QUADAS 2 tool was used for methodological quality evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 1204 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated; 1045 had tomographic findings while 755 showed positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. RT-PCR demonstrated 81.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 92.3% accuracy. Chest CT demonstrated 95.3% sensitivity, 43.8% specificity and 63.3% accuracy. CONCLUSION: The high sensitivity and detection rates shown by CT demonstrate that this technique has a high degree of importance in the early stages of the disease. During an outbreak, the higher prevalence of the condition increases the positive predictive value of CT. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UNGHA in the Open Science Framework.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa de Transcriptasa Inversa , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Betacoronavirus , Brasil , COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
7.
No convencional en 0 | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-635411

RESUMEN

Abstract Objective To identify, systematically review, and summarize the best scientific evidence available on the efficacy and safety of homemade cloth face masks for the community. Methods The search was conducted using the Cochrane, PUBMED, EMBASE, and LILACS databases, as well as grey literature, using Opengrey . A search was also conducted using references from primary and secondary studies that were found. No language or time period restrictions were applied. All papers that objective was to check efficacy and safety of the use of cloth face masks as protection against viral transmission were included, as well as laboratory studies assessing barriers against particles. We excluded studies approaching the use of face masks by healthcare providers. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, and discrepancies were decided by a third reviewer. Results No randomized clinical trials involving cloth face masks for the general population were found. Seven studies assessing different types of cloth to prevent the penetration of droplets at a laboratory level and a review study were included. Conclusion Using cloth face masks provides a barrier against droplets when compared with not using any face masks. The face mask is an additional preventive mesuare and must be used along with respiratory etiquette, hand hygiene, social distancing, and isolation of cases.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA