RESUMO
Abstract Background: Internationally accepted standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in values and preferences. Considering values and preferences respects the rights of citizens to participate in health decision-making and ensures that guidelines align with the needs and priorities of the communities they are intended to serve. Early anecdotal reports suggest that COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. Objective: To capture and characterize whether and how COVID-19 public health guidelines considered values and preferences. Methods: We performed a systematic review of COVID-19 public health guidelines. We searched the eCOVID19 RecMap platform-a comprehensive international catalog of COVID-19 guidelines-up to July 2023. We included guidelines that made recommendations addressing vaccination, masking, isolation, lockdowns, travel restrictions, contact tracing, infection surveillance, and school closures. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to review guidelines for consideration of values and preferences. Results: Our search yielded 129 eligible guidelines, of which 43 (33.3%) were published by national organizations, 73 (56.6%) by international organizations, and 14 (10.9%) by professional societies and associations. Twenty-six (20.2%) guidelines considered values and preferences. Among guidelines that considered values and preferences, most did so to assess the acceptability of recommendations (23; 88.5%) and by referencing published research (24; 92.3%). Guidelines only occasionally engaged laypersons as part of the guideline development group (6; 23.1%). None of the guidelines performed systematic reviews of the literature addressing values and preferences. Conclusion: Most COVID-19 public health guidelines did not consider values and preferences. When values and preferences were considered, it was suboptimal. Disregard for values and preferences in guidelines might have partly contributed to divisive and unpopular COVID-19 policies. Given the possibility of future health emergencies, we recommend guideline developers identify efficient methods for considering values and preferences in crisis situations.
Assuntos
COVID-19RESUMO
Background: Up to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia, and impaired cognitive function, termed post COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice. Objective To create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. Methods Eligible trials will randomize adults with long COVID, to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham, or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, AMED, and CENTRAL, from inception, without language restrictions. Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest, and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include fatigue, pain, post-exertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnea, quality of life, patient-reported physical function, recovery, and serious adverse events. For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The GRADE approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence. We will update our living review biannually, upon the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice. Conclusion This living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy, and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline producing organizations to inform their recommendations.