Myocardial injury after major non-cardiac surgery evaluated with advanced cardiac imaging: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) is a frequent complication caused by cardiac and non-cardiac pathophysiological mechanisms, but often it is subclinical. MINS is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, justifying the need to its diagnose and the investigation of their causes for its potential prevention. METHODS: Prospective, observational, pilot study, aiming to detect MINS, its relationship with silent coronary artery disease and its effect on future adverse outcomes in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery and without postoperative signs or symptoms of myocardial ischemia. MINS was defined by a high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration > 14 ng/L at 48-72 h after surgery and exceeding by 50% the preoperative value; controls were the operated patients without MINS. Within 1-month after discharge, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were performed in MINS and control subjects. Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined by a CAD-RADS category ≥ 3. The primary outcomes were prevalence of CAD among MINS and controls and incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1-year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of individual MACE components and mortality. RESULTS: We included 52 MINS and 12 controls. The small number of included patients could be attributed to the study design complexity and the dates of later follow-ups (amid COVID-19 waves). Significant CAD by CCTA was equally found in 20 MINS and controls (30% vs 33%, respectively). Ischemic patterns (n = 5) and ischemic segments (n = 2) depicted by cardiac MRI were only observed in patients with MINS. One-year MACE were also only observed in MINS patients (15.4%). CONCLUSION: This study with advanced imaging methods found a similar CAD frequency in MINS and control patients, but that cardiac ischemic findings by MRI and worse prognosis were only observed in MINS patients. Our results, obtained in a pilot study, suggest the need of further, extended studies that screened systematically MINS and evaluated its relationship with cardiac ischemia and poor outcomes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03438448 (19/02/2018).

Global variations in the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its outcomes in pregnant women by geographical region and country's income status: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of COVID-19 and its impact varied between countries and regions. Pregnant women are at high risk of COVID-19 complications compared with non-pregnant women. The magnitude of variations, if any, in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and its health outcomes among pregnant women by geographical regions and country's income level is not known. METHODS: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis as part of the ongoing PregCOV-19 living systematic review (December 2019 to April 2021). We included cohort studies on pregnant women with COVID-19 reporting maternal (mortality, intensive care admission and preterm birth) and offspring (mortality, stillbirth, neonatal intensive care admission) outcomes and grouped them by World Bank geographical region and income level. We reported results as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 311 studies (2 003 724 pregnant women, 57 countries). The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women varied significantly by region (p<0.001) and income level (p<0.001), with the highest rates observed in Latin America and the Caribbean (19%, 95% CI 12% to 27%; 13 studies, 38 748 women) and lower-middle-income countries (13%, 95% CI 6% to 23%; 25 studies, 100 080 women). We found significant differences in maternal and offspring outcomes by region and income level. Lower-middle-income countries reported significantly higher rates of maternal mortality (0.68%, 95% CI 0.24% to 1.27%; 3 studies, 31 136 women), intensive care admission (4.53%, 95% CI 2.57% to 6.91%; 54 studies, 23 420 women) and stillbirths (1.09%, 95% CI 0.48% to 1.88%; 41 studies, 4724 women) than high-income countries. COVID-19 complications disproportionately affected South Asia, which had the highest maternal mortality rate (0.88%, 95% CI 0.16% to 1.95%; 17 studies, 2023 women); Latin America and the Caribbean had the highest stillbirth rates (1.97%, 95% CI 0.9% to 3.33%; 10 studies, 1750 women). CONCLUSION: The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women vary globally, and its health outcomes mirror the COVID-19 burden and global maternal and offspring inequalities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

The COVID-19 pandemic effect on the prehospital Madrid stroke code metrics and diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Only very few studies have investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pre-hospital stroke code protocol. During the first wave, Spain was one of the most affected countries by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease pandemic. This health catastrophe overshadowed other pathologies, such as acute stroke, the leading cause of death among women and the leading cause of disability among adults. Any interference in the stroke code protocol can delay the administration of reperfusion treatment for acute ischemic strokes, leading to a worse patient prognosis. We aimed to compare the performance of the stroke code during the first wave of the pandemic with the same period of the previous year. METHODS: This was a multicentre interrupted time-series observational study of the cohort of stroke codes of SUMMA 112 and of the ten hospitals with a stroke unit in the Community of Madrid. We established two groups according to the date on which they were attended: the first during the dates with the highest daily cumulative incidence of the first wave of the COVID-19 (from February 27 to June 15, 2020), and the second, the same period of the previous year (from February 27 to June 15, 2019). To assess the performance of the stroke code, we compared each of the pre-hospital emergency service time periods, the diagnostic accuracy (proportion of stroke codes with a final diagnosis of acute stroke out of the total), the proportion of patients treated with reperfusion therapies, and the in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: SUMMA 112 activated the stroke code in 966 patients (514 in the pre-pandemic group and 452 pandemic). The call management time increased by 9% (95% CI: -0.11; 0.91; p value = 0.02), and the time on scene increased by 12% (95% CI: 2.49; 5.93; p value = <0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, and the proportion of patients treated with reperfusion therapies remained stable. In-hospital mortality decreased by 4% (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave, a prolongation of the time "on the scene" of the management of the 112 calls, and of the hospital admission was observed. Prehospital diagnostic accuracy and the proportion of patients treated at the hospital level with intravenous thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy were not altered with respect to the previous year, showing the resilience of the stroke network and the emergency medical service.

Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study.

OBJECTIVES: A rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses. STUDY DESIGN: After prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals' JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI. RESULTS: Of the 3,999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n = 64), AI reviews were published in journals with higher Impact Factors (median 8.9 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001), and screened more abstracts per author (302.2 vs. 140.3, P = 0.009) and per included study (189.0 vs. 365.8, P < 0.001) while inspecting less full texts per author (5.3 vs. 14.0, P = 0.005). No differences were found in citation counts (0.5 vs. 0.6, P = 0.600), inspected full texts per included study (3.8 vs. 3.4, P = 0.481), completion times (74.0 vs. 123.0, P = 0.205) or AMSTAR-2 (7.5 vs. 6.3, P = 0.119). CONCLUSION: AI was an underutilized tool in COVID-19 systematic reviews. Its usage, compared to reviews without AI, was associated with more efficient screening of literature and higher publication impact. There is scope for the application of AI in automating systematic reviews.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring and timing of mother-to-child transmission: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the timing of mother-to-child transmission and perinatal outcomes, and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 status in offspring. DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between 1 December 2019 and 3 August 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies of pregnant and recently pregnant women (including after abortion or miscarriage) who sought hospital care for any reason and had a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and also provided data on offspring SARS-CoV-2 status and risk factors for positivity. Case series and case reports were also included to assess the timing and likelihood of mother-to-child transmission in SARS-CoV-2 positive babies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used to synthesise data for rates, with associations reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Narrative syntheses were performed when meta-analysis was inappropriate. The World Health Organization classification was used to categorise the timing of mother-to-child transmission (in utero, intrapartum, early postnatal). RESULTS: 472 studies (206 cohort studies, 266 case series and case reports; 28 952 mothers, 18 237 babies) were included. Overall, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.5%; 140 studies) of the 14 271 babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection tested positive for the virus with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Of the 592 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with data on the timing of exposure and type and timing of tests, 14 had confirmed mother-to-child transmission: seven in utero (448 assessed), two intrapartum (18 assessed), and five during the early postnatal period (70 assessed). Of the 800 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with outcome data, 20 were stillbirths, 23 were neonatal deaths, and eight were early pregnancy losses; 749 babies were alive at the end of follow-up. Severe maternal covid-19 (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4), maternal death (14.1, 4.1 to 48.0), maternal admission to an intensive care unit (3.5, 1.7 to 6.9), and maternal postnatal infection (5.0, 1.2 to 20.1) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. Positivity rates using RT-PCR varied between regions, ranging from 0.1% (95% confidence interval 0.0% to 0.3%) in studies from North America to 5.7% (3.2% to 8.7%) in studies from Latin America and the Caribbean. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were found to be low in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence suggests confirmed vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although this is likely to be rare. Severity of maternal covid-19 appears to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.

BACKGROUND: Testing used in screening, diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19 has been a subject of debate. Several organisations have developed formal advice about testing for COVID-19 to assist in the control of the disease. We collated, delineated and appraised current worldwide recommendations about the role and applications of tests to control SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. METHODS: We searched for documents providing recommendations for COVID-19 testing in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database and relevant websites such as TRIP database, ECRI Guidelines Trust, the GIN database, from inception to 21 September 2020. Two reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to potentially relevant citations without language or geographical restrictions. We extracted data in duplicate, including assessment of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II tool. RESULTS: We included 47 relevant documents and 327 recommendations about testing. Regarding the quality of the documents, we found that the domains with the lowest scores were 'Editorial independence' (Median=4%) and 'Applicability' (Median=6%). Only six documents obtained at least 50% score for the 'Rigour of development' domain. An important number of recommendations focused on the diagnosis of suspected cases (48%) and deisolation measures (11%). The most frequently recommended test was the reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (87 recommendations) and the chest CT (38 recommendations). There were 22 areas of agreement among guidance developers, including the use of RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 confirmation, the limited role of bronchoscopy, the use chest CT and chest X-rays for grading severity and the co-assessment for other respiratory pathogens. CONCLUSION: This first scoping review of recommendations for COVID-19 testing showed many limitations in the methodological quality of included guidance documents that could affect the confidence of clinicians in their implementation. Future guidance documents should incorporate a minimum set of key methodological characteristics to enhance their applicability for decision making.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. RESULTS: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Clinical manifestations, prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, transmission, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in pregnancy and postpartum: a living systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid, robust and continually updated evidence synthesis is required to inform management of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women and to keep pace with the emerging evidence during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to undertake a living systematic review to assess the prevalence, clinical manifestations, risk factors, rates of maternal and perinatal complications, potential for mother-to-child transmission, accuracy of diagnostic tests and effectiveness of treatment for COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women (including after miscarriage or abortion). We will search Medline, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database, preprint servers, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure system and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019. We will supplement our search with studies mapped by Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology group, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), COVID-19 study repositories, reference lists and social media blogs. The search will be updated every week and not be restricted by language. We will include observational cohort (≥10 participants) and randomised studies reporting on prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women, the rates of clinical manifestations and outcomes, risk factors in pregnant and postpartum women alone or in comparison with non-pregnant women with COVID-19 or pregnant women without COVID-19 and studies on tests and treatments for COVID-19. We will additionally include case reports and series with evidence on mother-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in utero, intrapartum or postpartum. We will appraise the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias. At least two independent reviewers will undertake study selection, quality assessment and data extraction every 2 weeks. We will synthesise the findings using quantitative random effects meta-analysis and report OR or proportions with 95% CIs and prediction intervals. Case reports and series will be reported as qualitative narrative synthesis. Heterogeneity will be reported as I2 and τ2 statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a synthesis of primary data. Regular updates of the results will be published on a dedicated website (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/who-collaborating-centre/pregcov/index.aspx) and disseminated through publications, social media and webinars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

High versus standard doses of corticosteroids in severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

Despite the increasing evidence of the benefit of corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, no data are available about the potential role of high doses of steroids for these patients. We evaluated the mortality, the risk of need for mechanical ventilation (MV), or death and the risk of developing a severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between high (HD) and standard doses (SD) among patients with a severe COVID-19. All consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to a single center were selected, including those treated with steroids and an ARDS. Patients were allocated to the HD (≥ 250 mg/day of methylprednisolone) of corticosteroids or the SD (≤ 1.5 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone) at discretion of treating physician. Five hundred seventy-three patients were included: 428 (74.7%) men, with a median (IQR) age of 64 (54-73) years. In the HD group, a worse baseline respiratory situation was observed and male gender, older age, and comorbidities were significantly more common. After adjusting by baseline characteristics, HDs were associated with a higher mortality than SD (adjusted OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.59-3.81, p < 0.001) and with an increased risk of needing MV or death (adjusted OR 2.35, p = 0.001). Conversely, the risk of developing a severe ARDS was similar between groups. Interaction analysis showed that HD increased mortality exclusively in elderly patients. Our real-world experience advises against exceeding 1-1.5 mg/kg/day of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19 with an ARDS, especially in older subjects. This reinforces the rationale of modulating rather than suppressing immune responses in these patients.

The accuracy of haemoglobin A1c as a screening and diagnostic test for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy complications. Accurate screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes are critical to treatment, and in a pandemic scenario like coronavirus disease 2019 needing a simple test that minimises prolonged hospital stay. We undertook a meta-analysis on the screening and diagnostic accuracy of the haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test in women with and without risk factors for gestational diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Unlike the oral glucose tolerance test, the HbA1c test is simple, quick and more acceptable. There is a growing body of evidence on the accuracy of HbA1c as a screening and diagnostic test for GDM. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library and selected relevant studies. Accuracy data for different thresholds within the final 23 included studies (16 921 women) were pooled using a multiple thresholds model. Summary accuracy indices were estimated by selecting an optimal threshold that optimises either sensitivity or specificity according to different scenarios. SUMMARY: HbA1c is more useful as a specific test at a cut-off of 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) with a false positive rate of 10%, but should be supplemented by a more sensitive test to detect women with GDM.

Understanding clinical decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional worldwide survey.

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence-based recommendations for therapeutic decisions during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic creates a unique scenario of clinical decision making which is worth to analyze. We aim to identify the drivers of therapeutic aggressiveness during the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional worldwide survey (conducted April 12 to 19, 2020) was aimed at physicians who managed patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Treatment preferences were collected in five different clinical scenarios. We used multilevel mixed-effects ordered logistic regression to identify variables that were associated with the use of more aggressive therapies. FINDINGS: The survey was completed by 852 physicians from 44 different specialties and 29 countries. The heterogeneity of therapeutic decisions increased as the clinical scenario worsened. Factors associated with aggressive therapeutic decisions were higher self-perceived expertise (high vs. null, OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.31-2.89), perceived quality of COVID-19 publications (high vs. null, OR 1.92, 95%CI 1.17-3.16), and female sex (OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.02-1.33). Conversely, Infectious Diseases specialty, Latin American and North American origin, lower confidence in the treatments chosen, and having published articles indexed in PubMed as the first-author were associated with the use of less aggressive therapies. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides insight into the drivers of the decision-making process during a new and extreme health emergency. Different factors including the perceived expertise and quality of publications, gender, geographic origin, medical specialty and implication in medical research influenced this process. The clinical severity attenuated the physician's tolerance for uncertainty. FUNDING: No funding was required.

Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly. RESULTS: 192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19. CONCLUSION: Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. METHODS: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. RESULTS: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.