ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#This study aimed to develop a comprehensive instrument for evaluating and ranking clinical practice guidelines, named Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings tool (STAR), and test its reliability, validity, and usability.@*METHODS@#This study set up a multidisciplinary working group including guideline methodologists, statisticians, journal editors, clinicians, and other experts. Scoping review, Delphi methods, and hierarchical analysis were used to develop the STAR tool. We evaluated the instrument's intrinsic and interrater reliability, content and criterion validity, and usability.@*RESULTS@#STAR contained 39 items grouped into 11 domains. The mean intrinsic reliability of the domains, indicated by Cronbach's α coefficient, was 0.588 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.414, 0.762). Interrater reliability as assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.774 (95% CI: 0.740, 0.807) for methodological evaluators and 0.618 (95% CI: 0.587, 0.648) for clinical evaluators. The overall content validity index was 0.905. Pearson's r correlation for criterion validity was 0.885 (95% CI: 0.804, 0.932). The mean usability score of the items was 4.6 and the median time spent to evaluate each guideline was 20 min.@*CONCLUSION@#The instrument performed well in terms of reliability, validity, and efficiency, and can be used for comprehensively evaluating and ranking guidelines.
Subject(s)
Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. METHODS: We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Humans , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The recent lifting of COVID-19 related restrictions in Switzerland causes uncertainty about the future of the epidemic. We developed a compartmental model for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Switzerland and projected the course of the epidemic until the end of year 2020 under various scenarios. The model was age-structured with three categories, children (0-17), adults (18-64) and seniors (65- years). Lifting all restrictions according to the plans disclosed by the Swiss federal authorities by mid-May resulted in a rapid rebound in the epidemic, with the peak expected in July. Measures equivalent to at least 90% reduction in all contacts were able to eradicate the epidemic; 56% reduction in contacts could keep the intensive care unit occupancy under the critical level, and delay the next wave until October. Scenarios where strong contact reductions were only applied in selected age groups could not suppress the epidemic, increasing the risk of a next wave in July, and another stronger wave in September. Future interventions need to cover all age groups to keep the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic under control.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundTo clarify the characteristic and the duration of positive nucleic acid in children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including asymptomatic children. MethodsA total of 32 children confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 24 and February 12, 2020 from four provinces in Western China were enrolled in this study and followed up until discharge and quarantine 14 days later. ResultsEleven children (34%) were asymptomatic, among whom six children had normal computed tomographic (CT) scan images. Age and gender were not associated with clinical symptoms or the results of CT scan in children infected with SARS-CoV-2. The concentrations of white blood cells and neutrophils were higher in children with asymptomatic infection than in children with clinical symptoms or CT abnormalities. Patients who presented with CT abnormalities had lower D-dimer or lower total bilirubin than those who had normal CT scan but clinical symptoms. All children recovered and no one died or was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The mean duration of positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was 15.4 (SD=7.2) days and similar for both asymptomatic children and children with symptoms or CT abnormalities. We found a significant negative correlation between the lymphocyte count and the duration of positive nucleic acid test. ConclusionsChildren with asymptomatic infection should be quarantined for the same duration as symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The clinical significance and mechanism behind the negative correlation between the number of lymphocytes and the duration of positive SARS-CoV-2 needs further study.
