Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Evidence, not eminence, for surgical management during COVID-19: a multifaceted systematic review and a model for rapid clinical change.
Kovoor, J G; Tivey, D R; Ovenden, C D; Babidge, W J; Maddern, G J.
  • Kovoor JG; University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Tivey DR; Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Ovenden CD; Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Babidge WJ; Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Maddern GJ; University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
BJS Open ; 5(4)2021 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345713
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) forced surgical evolution worldwide. The extent to which national evidence-based recommendations, produced by the current authors early in 2020, remain valid, is unclear. To inform global surgical management and a model for rapid clinical change, this study aimed to characterize surgical evolution following COVID-19 through a multifaceted systematic review.

METHODS:

Rapid reviews were conducted targeting intraoperative safety, personal protective equipment and triage, alongside a conventional systematic review identifying evidence-based guidance for surgical management. Targeted searches of PubMed and Embase from 31 December 2019 were repeated weekly until 7 August 2020, and systematic searches repeated monthly until 30 June 2020. Literature was stratified using Evans' hierarchy of evidence. Narrative data were analysed for consistency with earlier recommendations. The systematic review rated quality using the AGREE II and AMSTAR tools, was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205845. Meta-analysis was not conducted.

RESULTS:

From 174 targeted searches and six systematic searches, 1256 studies were identified for the rapid reviews and 21 for the conventional systematic review. Of studies within the rapid reviews, 903 (71.9 per cent) had lower-quality design, with 402 (32.0 per cent) being opinion-based. Quality of studies in the systematic review ranged from low to moderate. Consistency with recommendations made previously by the present authors was observed despite 1017 relevant subsequent publications.

CONCLUSION:

The evidence-based recommendations produced early in 2020 remained valid despite many subsequent publications. Weaker studies predominated and few guidelines were evidence-based. Extracted clinical solutions were globally implementable. An evidence-based model for rapid clinical change is provided that may benefit surgical management during this pandemic and future times of urgency.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Surgical Procedures, Operative / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bjsopen

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Surgical Procedures, Operative / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bjsopen