Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 9.804
Filter
Add filters

Filters applied
Year range
1.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Aug 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models are typically developed to estimate the risk that an individual in a particular health state will develop a particular health outcome, to support (shared) decision making. Systematic reviews of prognostic model studies can help identify prognostic models that need to further be validated or are ready to be implemented in healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To provide a step-by-step guidance on how to conduct and read a systematic review of prognostic model studies and to provide an overview of methodology and guidance available for every step of the review progress. SOURCES: Published, peer-reviewed guidance articles. CONTENT: We describe the following steps for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies: 1) Developing the review question using the PICOTS format, 2) Searching and selection of articles, 3) Data-extraction using the CHARMS checklist, 4) Quality and risk of bias assessment using PROBAST, 5) Analysing data and undertaking quantitative meta-analysis, and 6) Presenting summary of findings, interpreting results and drawing conclusions. Guidance for each step is described and illustrated using a case study on prognostic models for patients with COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: Guidance for conducting a systematic review of prognosis studies is available, but the implications of these reviews for clinical practice and further research highly depend on complete reporting of primary studies.

2.
J Hosp Infect ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2031453

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The role of fomites in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. Our objective was to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through fomites, using evidence from viral culture studies. METHODS: We conducted searches in the WHO Covid-19 Database, PubMed, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to 31 December 2021. We included studies that investigated fomite transmission and performed viral culture to assess the cytopathic effect (CPE) of positive fomite samples and confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 as the cause of the CPE. We assessed the risk of bias using a checklist modified from the QUADAS-2 criteria. RESULTS: We included 23 studies. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Five studies demonstrated replication-competent virus from fomite cultures and three used genome sequencing to match fomite samples with human clinical specimens. The mean Ct of samples with positive viral culture was significantly lower compared with cultured samples that returned negative results: SMD -1.45, 95%CI -2.00 to -0.90, I(2)=0%;P<0.00001. The likelihood of isolating replication-competent virus was significantly greater when the Ct was <30: RR 3.10 (95%CI 1.32 to 7.31, I(2)=71%, P=0.01). Infectious specimens were mostly detected within 7 days of symptom onset. One study showed possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from fomites to humans. CONCLUSION: The evidence from published studies suggests that replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 is present on fomites. Replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 is significantly more likely when the PCR Ct for clinical specimens and fomite samples is <30. Further studies should investigate the duration of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and the frequency of transmission from fomites.

3.
Journal of Air Transport Management ; 105:102299, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2031414

ABSTRACT

Unlike the other air transport business models, air cargo and business aviation proved resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic setting the fundamentals for further growth in the post-pandemic business environment. In contrast to air cargo, however, business aviation is relatively under-researched. On these grounds, this paper is of interest as it examines the available academic contributions on business aviation using a systematic literature review methodology. Based on Scopus, Transportation Research International Documentation (TRID) and Web of Science databases and after applying specific inclusion criteria, 260 papers were selected for further analysis. We performed a descriptive analysis to identify the basic characteristics of the papers and a content analysis with VOSviewer software to comprehend deeply the arguments that have been investigated so far. We found that the first paper was published in 1966 and until 2021 there is a steady but slow increase in the scientific research mainly in four disciplines: Applied Sciences (70.00%), Economic and Social Sciences (18.46%), Natural Sciences (9.23%) and Health Sciences (2.31%). There are 637 researchers working in affiliations located in 37 countries that have studied business aviation-related issues. Nevertheless, they have formed small networks within their country or affiliation's boundaries. United States is the country that leads the research on business aviation in terms of publications and unique researchers' affiliations while University of Quebec from Canada is the leading affiliation with the highest number of publications. The content analysis showed that business aviation research is limited to a few topics among which engineering management aspects have mostly been explored. Overall, the results show that much room exists for future research on business aviation especially with respect to economics and business management issues, environmental impacts, and health-related topics.

5.
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing ; 41:248-263, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2031120

ABSTRACT

Aim This study aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on nurses' burnout and related factors. Background Nurses at the frontlines in every field of the health system and composed most of the health service industry closely experience all negative events during the pandemic. Methods This study is a rapid systematic review. Results A total of 751 studies were selected, of which 13 studies were compatible with the inclusion criteria. The sample size ranged from 107 to 12.596. The studies determined that nurses' burnout levels were generally moderate level and above during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociodemographic, occupational, psychological, and COVID-19-related factors affected this burnout. Conclusion The results of this review may use to make implications that would ease the effect of the pandemic on nurses and develop strategies to protect nurses from burnout in similar possible situations. The protocol information is included here for blind peer review. Prospero registration number (ID) CRD42021244849. Registration and protocol Prior to undertaking the review, we registered the protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The registration number is CRD42021244849. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021244849. The changes made during the review process were registered in PROSPERO with an update.

6.
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences ; 25:274-284, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2030432

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aims to analyze the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted using databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, EuropePMC, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Clinicaltrial.gov, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library) and several other published articles from the systematic review up to March 31, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for the studies' qualitative assessment. The primary outcome examined was mortality rate, while the secondary included the length of stay (LOS) in thei care unit;hospital length of stay (HOS), coagulation markers including D-dimer, Platelet count, aPTT, PT and fibrinogen;markers of inflammation specifically C-reactive protein;and other adverse events ranging from hemorrhage to thrombosis. Additionally, the quantitative synthesis was conducted using fixed and random effects model in "The Revman 5.4", while heterogeneity was tested using the I-squared (I2) measure. RESULTS: A total of 1,062 articles were found during the initial search step and eventually 12 were chosen to be analyzed quantitatively in a meta-analysis. Comparison of the results related to anticoagulant group with no anticoagulant or standard care treatment showed that anticoagulant group significantly reduced mortality rate with RR= 0.53;95 % CI, 0.30-0.95;P= 0.03, with I2 = 88% and venous thromboembolism (VTE) RR = 0.53;95% CI, 0.37-0.76;P = .0007 with I2 = 35%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, anticoagulants can mitigate mortality rate and VTE in COVID-19 patients.

7.
Prague Medical Report ; 123(3):140-165, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2030374

ABSTRACT

Before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged, proning had been demonstrated to improve oxygenation in those with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and be performed in non-intensive care settings. This benefit was further exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to awake prone positioning (APP). We assessed the efficacy of routine APP versus standard care in preventing death and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in non-intubated hypoxic COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were used from January 1st, 2020, to January 15th, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Routine APP group were encouraged to be self-prone, whereas the standard care group received care according to local clinical practice and allowed APP crossover as rescue therapy. We included eight COVID-19 RCTs assessing 809 APP vs. 822 standard care patients. APP group had less IMV requirement (26.5% vs. 30.9%;OR - odds ratio 0.77;P=0.03) than the standard care group, with subgroup analysis showing greater benefit (32.5% vs. 39.1%;OR 0.75;P=0.02) for those mainly requiring oxygen support of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The time to IMV initiation was similar (mean 8.3 vs. 10.0 days;P=0.66) for patients requiring NIMV and HFNC. Patients mainly receiving supplemental oxygen and non-rebreather masks had improved oxygenation parameters, although not statistically significant. Other outcomes involving all-cause hospital mortality, hospital and ICU (intensive care unit) length of stay, and adverse events were comparable. APP appeared to be an important modality for reducing IMV requirements, especially in those requiring NIMV and HFNC.

8.
Frontiers in Immunology ; 13:940357, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029963

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To evaluate the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) through a systematic approach. Method: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with no time restrictions. The search was based on the three main concepts: Covid-19, Vaccine immunogenicity and Diabetes Mellitus. Results: After excluding irrelevant studies, 16 studies remained for the quantitative assay. Among the sixteen studies, eleven had controls. Type of diabetes was specifically mentioned in six studies (T2DM;n=4, T1DM and T2DM;n=2). Twelve of the included studies were conducted on the immunogenicity of vaccines that included mRNA vaccines (i.e. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in DM, five studies included vector-based vaccines (i.e. Ad5-nCoV and ChAdOx1-S), and five studies assessed the immunogenicity of vaccines in DM, including inactivated vaccines (i.e. BBV-152, CoronaVac, Sinopharm or SinoVac). Most of the current studies indicate lower antibody response in patients with DM compared to individuals without DM, after the second dose of vaccine and irrespective of vaccine type. Several studies have shown that higher age and higher BMI are associated with lower antibody response, while optimum glycemic control and higher GFR are associated with higher antibody response among patients with DM. Conclusion: Immunogenicity of the vaccines has mostly been reported to be lower among patients with DM compared to healthy controls. There are also few studies assessing variables that significantly affect this association, including age, type of diabetes, BMI, glycemic control and eGFR. Investigating these associations could help us provide the most advantageous condition for patients with DM before, during and after vaccination for optimum antibody response. Many unresolved issues concerning potential factors affecting vaccine immunogenicity, including type of vaccine, numbers of administered doses, re-vaccination intervals and hyperglycemia in patients with DM need to be addressed through future research.

9.
Frontiers in Immunology ; 13:923286, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029962

ABSTRACT

Objectives: A major challenge for COVID-19 therapy is dysregulated immune response associated with the disease. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) may be a promising candidate for COVID-19 treatment owing to their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory functions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of UC-MSCs inpatients with COVID-19. Method: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect clinical trials concerning UC-MSCs for the treatment of COVID-19. After literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the included study were performed. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered on PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42022304061. After screening, 10 studies involving 293 patients with COVID-19 were eventually included. Our meta-analysis results showed that UC-MSCs can reduce mortality (relative risk [RR] =0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.38, 0.95], P=0.03) in COVID-19 patients. No significant correlation was observed between adverse events and UC-MSC treatment (RR=0.85, 95% CI: [0.65, 1.10], P=0.22;RR=1.00, 95%CI: [0.64, 1.58], P=1.00). In addition, treatment with UC-MSCs was found to suppress inflammation and improve pulmonary symptoms. Conclusions: UC-MSCs hold promise as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Systematic Review Registartion: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022304061.

10.
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine ; 9:951314, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029958

ABSTRACT

Background: This study aimed to compare the incidence of myocarditis in COVID-19 vaccines and in severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection groups. Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease) and trial registries were searched up to May 2022, for randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting the risk of myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We estimated the effect of COVID-19 infection and vaccines on rates of myocarditis by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of sex and age on the incidence of myocarditis. Results: We identified 22 eligible studies consisting of 55.5 million vaccinated cohorts and 2.5 million in the infection cohort. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range (IQR): 38-56), and 49% (IQR: 43 to 52%) were men. Of patients diagnosed with myocarditis (in both vaccination and COVID-19 cohort) 1.07% were hospitalized and 0.015% died. The relative risk (RR) for myocarditis was more than seven times higher in the infection group than in the vaccination group [RR: 15 (95% CI: 11.09-19.81, infection group] and RR: 2 (95% CI: 1.44-2.65, vaccine group). Of patients who developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine or having the infection, 61% (IQR: 39-87%) were men. Meta-regression analysis indicated that men and younger populations had a higher risk of myocarditis. A slow decline in the rates of myocarditis was observed as a function of time from vaccination. The risk of bias was low. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations.

11.
Open Public Health Journal ; 15(1), 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2029874

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Every postpartum mother is recommended to breastfeed her baby because breast milk is the main need of newborns. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on life in various aspects, including on the breastfeeding mothers, especially if they suffer from COVID-19 infection. Aim: The study aims to provide comprehensive evidence regarding potential virus transmission and antibody transfer through breastmilk and the experiences of mothers related to breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy involved the use of keywords related to COVID-19 and breastfeeding in PubMed and Science Direct databases. Articles were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Breastfeeding has been recommended to be continued during the pandemic due to the benefits associated with it and the absence of sufficient evidence for transmission of COVID-19 infection through breast milk. During the lockdown period, there was a change in breastfeeding patterns, although most mothers believed that breastfeeding should be continued. Anxiety and lack of support affected breastfeeding practices. Breastfeeding mothers reported a dilemmatic situation. They felt protected because of the lockdown policy but also struggled to get support from their social environment. The impact varied in terms of stopping breastfeeding practice altogether, breastfeeding irregularly, and even giving formula milk. Conclusion: Adherence to health protocols can reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 infection through breastfeeding from mother to baby. Support from the family and the environment is needed to ensure the continuity of breastfeeding practice. © 2022 Kurniawati et al.

12.
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista Paulista de Medicina ; 12:12, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029834

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an anti-human interleukin 6 receptor monoclonal antibody that has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on its efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab for treating COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (UNIFESP), Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and IBECS for RCTs published up to March 2021. Two authors selected studies and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 6,139 participants were included. We were not able to find differences between using tocilizumab compared to standard care on mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.13;8 trials;5,950 participants;low-certainty evidence). However, hospitalized patients under tocilizumab plus standard care treatment seemed to present a significantly lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation (risk ratio = 0.78;95% CI 0.64-0.94 moderate-certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To date, the best evidence available shows no difference between using tocilizumab plus standard care compared to standard care alone for reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. However, as a finding with a practical implication, the use of tocilizumab in association to standard care probably reduces the risk of progressing to mechanical ventilation in those patients. REGISTRATION: osf.io/qe4fs.

13.
PLoS One ; 17(9), 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2029776

ABSTRACT

Background The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies. Results 55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies;N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies;N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes. Discussion Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival. Other This study’s protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO;registration number CRD42020179707).

14.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases ; 16(9):1-17, 2022.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-2029768

ABSTRACT

Background: Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is an environmental risk factor for poor health outcomes globally, particularly for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Despite technological advancements, many interventions aimed at improving WASH access return less than optimal results on long term impact, efficacy and sustainability. Research focus in the 'WASH sector' has recently expanded from investigating 'which interventions work' to 'how they are best implemented'. The 'acceptability' of an intervention is a key component of implementation that can influence initial uptake and sustained use. Acceptability assessments are increasingly common for health interventions in clinical settings. A broad scale assessment of how acceptability has been measured in the WASH sector, however, has not yet been conducted. Methods/Principal findings: We conducted a systematic literature review of intervention studies published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated the acceptability of WASH interventions in LMIC settings. Using an implementation science approach, focused outcomes included how acceptability was measured and defined, and the timing of acceptability assessment. We conducted quality assessment for all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies. Of the 1238 records;36 studies were included for the analysis, 22 of which were non-randomized interventions and 16 randomized or cluster-randomized trials. We found that among the 36 studies, four explicitly defined their acceptability measure, and six used a behavioural framework to inform their acceptability study design. There were few acceptability evaluations in schools and healthcare facilities. While all studies reported measuring WASH acceptability, the measures were often not comparable or described. Conclusions: As focus in WASH research shifts towards implementation, a consistent approach to including, defining, and measuring acceptability is needed. Author summary: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for sustainable and effective water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). There is a significant body of literature measuring the impact of WASH interventions on health outcomes, such as diarrhoea or soil-transmitted helminth infections. The importance of behavioural determinants is also recognized and measured. However, many WASH interventions are not sustainable long-term. To improve this, research focus in the WASH sector has recently shifted towards implementation. This includes a significant number of process evaluations that focus on how well programs are implemented. A key component of implementation that has been recognized for health interventions in clinical settings is the initial and ongoing 'acceptability' to the recipient population. Sekhon et al. developed a theoretical framework of acceptability to capture the aspects of acceptability that may influence intervention uptake and sustained use. This is the first review of acceptability of WASH interventions. The outcomes of this review add new evidence on how and why it has been measured, and the potential place of acceptability evaluations in WASH to improve the impact and sustainability of interventions. The findings of this review may be useful for WASH stakeholders including intervention researchers, implementers, and recipients. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

15.
Clinical Hypertension ; 28(1):28, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029740

ABSTRACT

Sedentarism and chronic non-communicable diseases have been a worldwide health problem that is drastically exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic social impacts. Home-based exercises are widely encouraged during social isolation to counterbalance the physical inactive impacts. Although, in the context of hypertension, are home-based exercises effective in blood pressure controlling? Our objective is to conduct a systematic review of high-quality controlled trials comparing the possible effects of different types of home-based exercises in hypertensive patients. The literature search was carried out in three scientific databases: Medline, Europe PMC, and Lilacs. Articles were included following three criteria: analyzing the effect of home-based exercise programs on blood pressure in treated and untreated hypertensive patients;exercises must perform at home and on the frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT) principle, and the articles were published in English. From the qualitative analysis of 27 original trials screened through 451 identified studies, the main results are the following: 1) both endurance, isometric strength, and respiratory home-based exercise programs were efficient to decrease blood pressure in hypertensive patients;2) differences in methodological approaches regarding FITT components, distinct blood pressure values at baseline and specific underlying mechanisms must be considered as a potential bias of each home-based interventions. In conclusion, endurance, isometric strength, and breathing home-based programs seems to be effective to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients. However, further randomized controlled trials and mechanistic studies must be performing to guide evidence-based recommendations of home-based exercises as antihypertensive therapy.

16.
31st ACM Web Conference, WWW 2022 ; : 740-750, 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-2029538

ABSTRACT

Semantic text annotations have been a key factor for supporting computer applications ranging from knowledge graph construction to biomedical question answering. In this systematic review, we provide an analysis of the data models that have been applied to semantic annotation projects for the scholarly publications available in the CORD-19 dataset, an open database of the full texts of scholarly publications about COVID-19. Based on Google Scholar and the screening of specific research venues, we retrieve seventeen publications on the topic mostly from the United States of America. Subsequently, we outline and explain the inline semantic annotation models currently applied on the full texts of biomedical scholarly publications. Then, we discuss the data models currently used with reference to semantic annotation projects on the CORD-19 dataset to provide interesting directions for the development of semantic annotation models and projects. © 2022 ACM.

17.
Am J Med ; 2022 Jul 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2027842

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 treatment, and prophylaxis in exposed to SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We searched five engines and three registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs. control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19 related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. GRADE methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized (n=8253), five in non-hospitalized (n=2922), and two in prophylaxis (n=2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95%CI 0.60-0.9, I2=20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.64-0.92, I2=7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02-1.67, I2=77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.17-0.53, I2=0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.22-1.01, I2=33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (Mean difference [MD] -0.8 log10, 95%CI -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data is needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

18.
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal ; 25:25, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2029112

ABSTRACT

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is rare but can be a potentially serious complication following SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.1 Introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are effective in lowering the burden due to SARS-CoV-2. However, there have been reports of MIS occurrence following COVID-19 vaccination in adults.2 The potential public health implication of MIS-C following COVID-19 vaccination is not clear in children. Our objective is to describe the spectrum of clinical disease, therapy, and outcomes of MIS-C following COVID-19 vaccination in children.

19.
Appl Neuropsychol Adult ; : 1-14, 2022.
Article in English | PubMed | ID: covidwho-2028968

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection has a wide range of both acute and long-term symptoms. Memory alterations have been frequently reported in studies that explore cognition. The main objective of the systematic review is to update and further analyze the existing evidence of objective memory impairments in long-COVID-19 considering sample and study design characteristics, as well as to explore associations between memory performance and their epidemiological, clinical, and pathological features. A total of 13 studies were identified by searching in PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases up to May 6, 2022. Most studies evaluated verbal component of memory in the short-term and long-term recall up to 30 min and mainly performed a single assessment completed at 4-6 months after the infection. The samples mainly consisted of middle-aged adults that required hospitalization. Samples were not stratified by sex, age, and severity. Poor verbal learning was reported in most cases (6-58%), followed by deficits in long-term (4-58%) and short-term (4-37%) verbal memory. Visuospatial component of memory was studied less than verbal component, showing impairment of long-term retention of visual items (10-49%). COVID-19 severity in the acute stage was not systematically associated with poor memory performance. Verbal memory deficits were associated with anxiety and depression. The existing literature on objective memory assessment in long-COVID suggests further research is warranted to confirm memory dysfunction in association with epidemiological, pathological, and clinical factors, using both verbal and visuospatial tests, and exploring in deep long-term memory deficits.

20.
Journal of Chemotherapy ; : 1-14, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2028784

ABSTRACT

Remdesivir (RDV) is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug, now approved by Regulatory Agencies for COVID-19 treatment. RDV is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, but no conclusive studies have shown an effect in reducing mortality. This study aimed to carry out a systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate whether RDV can significantly modify the outcome of COVID-19 patients evaluating its effects on mortality, length of stay, time to clinical improvement and need for oxygen supplementation. No significant improvement in terms of survival in patients treated with standard therapy (ST)+RDV as compared to ST alone (P = 0.24) was found. The duration of oxygen support was significantly lower in patients treated with ST + RDV compared with ST alone (P = 0.03). Further investigations should be planned to assess the real impact of RDV in the management of COVID-19 patients.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL