Efectos de la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la salud mental de niños y adolescentes: revisión sistemática y meta-análisis / Effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the mental health of children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introducción: La enfermedad por COVID-19 ha afectado a millones de personas en todo el mundo y ha planteado un desafío sin precedentes a los sistemas de salud, provocando medidas como el distanciamiento social y el confinamiento domiciliario, que han afectado a la vida diaria y las relaciones sociales de la población. El objetivo principal de este artículo fue examinar las consecuencias de estas circunstancias en la salud mental infanto-juvenil. Método: Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura científica disponible en PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase y ScinceDirect, de acuerdo con las recomendaciones de la Declaración PRISMA. La selección de los estudios se realizó en base a los siguientes criterios: estudios de investigación originales, con un diseño metodológico prospectivo, publicados a partir del año 2020 y que en sus resultados evaluaran mediante escalas niveles de depresión, estrés, ansiedad y/o problemas conductuales de la población infanto-juvenil durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Resultados: De los 334 estudios identificados, 14 cumplían los criterios establecidos para ser incluidos en esta revisión. Se agruparon los resultados en sintomatología internalizante y externalizante. En relación a la sintomatología internalizante, la diferencia de medias pre-post, analizada mediante la d de Cohen, fue de 0.172 (0.036; 0.308) siendo significativa (p = 0.0131). Por el contrario, no se objetivaron diferencias significativas en la sintomatología externalizante (p = 0.7314).Conclusiones: Durante la pandemia se observó un aumento de la sintomatología internalizante, pero no de la externalizante, en niños y adolescentes. Al mismo tiempo, se observaron variaciones que sugieren que el efecto podría estar modulado por factores individuales y contextuales.(AU)

Introduction: COVID-19 disease has affected millions of people worldwide and has posed an unprecedented challenge to health systems, leading to measures such as social distancing and home confinement that have affected the daily life and social relationships of the population. This article reviews the consequences of these circumstances on child and adolescent mental health. Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature available in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and ScinceDirect was carried out, in accordance with the recommendations of the PRISMA Declaration. The selection of studies followed the following criteria: original research studies with a prospective methodological design published from the year 2020 and whose results evaluated levels of depression, stress, anxiety and/or behavioral problems in the child and adolescent population during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using clinical scales. Results: Of the 334 studies identified, 14 met the criteria established to be included in this review. Results were grouped into internalizing and externalizing symptomatology. In relation to internalizing symptomatology the mean difference pre-post analyzed using Cohen’s d was 0.172 (0.036; 0.308), which was significant (p = 0.0131). No significant differences were observed in externalizing symptomatology (p = 0.7314). Conclusions: During the pandemic an increase in internalizing symptoms was observed, but not in externalizing symptoms, in children and adolescents. Also were observed variations suggesting that the effect could be modulated by individual and contextual factors.(AU)

Profilaxis antiepiléptica en meningiomas: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis / Seizure prophylaxis in meningiomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introducción: En la actualidad, no existe una indicación formal de profilaxis anticomicial en neurocirugía oncológica. Tampoco existen recomendaciones específicas sobre el uso de fármacos antiepilépticos (FAE) en pacientes portadores de meningiomas y libres de crisis que van a ser intervenidos. En general, se prescriben FAE de forma discrecional, teniendo en cuenta diversos factores de riesgo clínico-radiológicos. Presentamos una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis sobre la efectividad de la profilaxis anticomicial en meningiomas sin historia previa de crisis. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en las bases de datos PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Embase y clinicaltrials.gov. De los 4.368 estudios inicialmente identificados, finalmente se incluyeron 12 para la extracción de datos y análisis cualitativo. Los datos clínicos permitieron incluir únicamente 6 estudios en el metaanálisis. Se realizaron estudios de heterogeneidad, cálculo de OR combinada, evaluación del sesgo de publicación y análisis de sensibilidad. Resultados: La profilaxis con FAE en meningiomas sin crisis previas no redujo de forma significativa la incidencia de crisis postoperatorias respecto a los controles (OR combinada de Mantle-Haenszel, efectos aleatorios, de 1,26, IC del 95%, 0,60-2,78, sobre 2.041 pacientes). Sin embargo, la ausencia de estudios prospectivos, la presencia de sesgo de selección en los estudios, una probable infraestimación del número de crisis durante el seguimiento y la influencia marcada de un estudio sobre el efecto global impiden establecer una recomendación sólida en contra de la profilaxis anticomicial. Conclusiones: Dentro de las limitaciones de esta revisión, los resultados del metaanálisis no apoyan el uso rutinario de la profilaxis antiepiléptica en pacientes con meningiomas sin historia previa de crisis.(AU)

Introduction: No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in seizure-free patients with meningiomas scheduled for surgery. AEDs are generally prescribed on a discretionary basis, taking into consideration a range of clinical and radiological risk factors. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Of a total of 4368 studies initially identified, 12 were selected for extraction of data and qualitative analysis. Based on the clinical data presented, we were only able to include 6 studies in the meta-analysis. We performed heterogeneity studies, calculated a combined odds ratio, evaluated publication bias, and conducted a sensitivity analysis. Results: AED prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative seizures in comparison to controls (Mantel-Haenszel combined odds ratio, random effects model: 1.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.78]; 2041 patients). However, we are unable to establish a robust recommendation against this treatment due to the lack of prospective studies, the presence of selection bias in the studies reviewed, the likelihood of underestimation of seizure frequency during follow-up, and the strong influence of one study on the overall effect. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of this review, the results of the meta-analysis do not support the routine use of seizure prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.(AU)

Seizure prophylaxis in meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in seizure-free patients with meningiomas scheduled for surgery. AEDs are generally prescribed on a discretionary basis, taking into consideration a range of clinical and radiological risk factors. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Of a total of 4368 studies initially identified, 12 were selected for extraction of data and qualitative analysis. Based on the clinical data presented, we were only able to include 6 studies in the meta-analysis. We performed heterogeneity studies, calculated a combined odds ratio, evaluated publication bias, and conducted a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: AED prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative seizures in comparison to controls (Mantel-Haenszel combined odds ratio, random effects model: 1.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.78]; 2041 patients). However, we are unable to establish a robust recommendation against this treatment due to the lack of prospective studies, the presence of selection bias in the studies reviewed, the likelihood of underestimation of seizure frequency during follow-up, and the strong influence of one study on the overall effect. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of this review, the results of the meta-analysis do not support the routine use of seizure prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.

Seizure prophylaxis in meningiomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Profilaxis antiepiléptica en meningiomas: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis.

INTRODUCTION: No formal indication currently exists for seizure prophylaxis in neurosurgical oncology patients. Neither have specific recommendations been made on the use of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in seizure-free patients with meningiomas scheduled for surgery. AEDs are generally prescribed on a discretionary basis, taking into consideration a range of clinical and radiological risk factors. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Of a total of 4368 studies initially identified, 12 were selected for extraction of data and qualitative analysis. Based on the clinical data presented, we were only able to include 6 studies in the meta-analysis. We performed heterogeneity studies, calculated a combined odds ratio, evaluated publication bias, and conducted a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: AED prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative seizures in comparison to controls (Mantel-Haenszel combined odds ratio, random effects model: 1.26 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.78]; 2041 patients). However, we are unable to establish a robust recommendation against this treatment due to the lack of prospective studies, the presence of selection bias in the studies reviewed, the likelihood of underestimation of seizure frequency during follow-up, and the strong influence of one study on the overall effect. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of this review, the results of the meta-analysis do not support the routine use of seizure prophylaxis in patients with meningioma and no history of seizures.