scholarly journals Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: an umbrella review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dylan Paul Griswold ◽  
Andres Gempeler ◽  
Angelos Kolias ◽  
Peter Hutchinson ◽  
Andres Rubiano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Risk Environments ◽  
Surgical Masks ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
N95 Respirators

Objective: The objective of this review was to summarise the effects of different personal protective equipment (PPE) for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for patients undergoing trauma surgery. The purpose of the review was to inform recommendations for rational use of PPE for emergency surgery staff, particularly in low resources environments where PPE shortages and high costs are expected to hamper the safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) and affect the care of trauma patients. Introduction: Many healthcare facilities in low-and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate these already strained surgical healthcare services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect healthcare workers from viral exposure. Inclusion criteria: This review included systematic reviews, experimental and observational studies evaluating the effect of different PPE on the risk of COVID-19 infection in HCWs involved in emergency trauma surgery. Indirect evidence from other healthcare settings was considered, as well as evidence from other viral outbreaks summarised and discussed for the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted searches in the LOVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and over thirty other sources. The risk of bias assessment of the included studies was planned with the AMSTAR II tool for systematic reviews, the RoBII tool for randomised controlled trials, and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction tool and summarised narratively. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for grading the certainty of the evidence was followed. Results: We identified 17 systematic reviews that fulfilled our selection criteria and were included for synthesis. We did not identify randomised controlled trials during COVID-19 or studies additional to those included in the reviews that discussed other similar viral respiratory illnesses. Conclusions: The use of PPE drastically reduces the risk of COVID-19 compared with no mask use in HCWs in the hospital setting. N95 and N95 equivalent respirators provided more protection and were found to halve the risk of COVID-19 contagion in HCWs from moderate and high-risk environments. Eye protection also offers additional security and is associated with reduced incidence of contagion. These effects apply to emergency trauma care. Decontamination and reuse appear as feasible, cost-effective measures that would likely help overcome PPE shortages and enhance the allocation of limited resources. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS There is high certainty that the use of N95 respirators and surgical masks are associated with a reduced risk of coronaviruses respiratory illness when compared with no mask use. In moderate to high-risk environments, especially in aerosol-generating procedures, N95 respirators are associated with a more significant reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection compared with surgical masks. Eye protection also reduces the risk of contagion. Decontamination of masks and respirators with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, vaporous hydrogen peroxide, or dry heat is effective and does not affect PPE performance or fit.

scholarly journals Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e045598
Author(s):  
Dylan P Griswold ◽  
Andres Gempeler ◽  
Angelos G Kolias ◽  
Peter J Hutchinson ◽  
Andres M Rubiano
Keyword(s):  
Health Systems ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

IntroductionMany healthcare facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced and may lack optimal organisation and governance, especially concerning surgical health systems. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate these already strained surgical healthcare services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from viral exposure and ensure the continuity of specialised care for patients. The objective of this broad evidence synthesis is to identify and summarise the available literature regarding the efficacy of different personal protective equipment (PPE) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for patients undergoing trauma surgery in low-resource environments.MethodsWe will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and over 30 other sources. The search results will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. This review will preferentially consider systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as well as individual studies of such designs, evaluating the effect of different PPE on the risk of COVID-19 infection in HCWs involved in emergency trauma surgery. Critical appraisal of eligible studies for methodological quality will be conducted. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool in Covidence. Studies will, when possible, be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using JBI SUMARI. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed and a summary of findings will be created.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198267.

Evidence-Based Practice: The Cochrane Collaboration, and Occupational Therapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn L. Hayes ◽  
John J. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This paper describes how occupational therapists can become involved in the Cochrane Collaboration — a well-developed tool for facilitating the involvement of health professionals and lay people in evidence-based practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is a growing international project intended to systematically locate, conduct systematic reviews (including metaanalyses) of, and disseminate information on all available randomised controlled trials of interventions in any area of health. In particular, occupational therapists can use the Cochrane Collaboration to become better informed about best practice and evaluate research in their areas of interest, and learn skills related to conducting randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Outcomes reported on the management of COPD exacerbations: a systematic survey of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 00072-2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Mathioudakis ◽  
Mia Moberg ◽  
Julie Janner ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Jørgen Vestbo
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report heterogeneous outcome measures, thus rendering their results incomparable, complicating their translation into clinical practice. As a first step in the development of a core outcome set that will aim to homogenise outcome measures in future RCTs, we assessed the outcomes reported in recent relevant RCTs and systematic reviews.We conducted a methodological systematic review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ registration number CRD42016052437) of RCTs and systematic reviews on COPD exacerbation management indexed on Medline and PubMed during the last decade. We evaluated their methodology, specifically focusing on the reported outcome measures.Based on 123 RCTs and 38 systematic reviews, we found significant variability in the outcomes reported and in their definition. Mortality, which was assessed in 82% of the included trials, was the most frequently assessed outcome, followed by the rate of treatment success or failure (63%), adverse events (59%), health status, symptoms and quality of life (59%), lung function (47%), and duration of exacerbations (42%).The significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcome measures in RCTs and systematic reviews limits the interpretability and comparability of their results, and warrants the development of a core outcome set for COPD exacerbations management.

scholarly journals The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 340 (feb15 1) ◽  
pp. c365-c365 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J Kirkham ◽  
K. M Dwan ◽  
D. G Altman ◽  
C. Gamble ◽  
S. Dodd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Mesh fixation techniques for inguinal hernia repair: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Hernia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Alabi ◽  
N. Haladu ◽  
N. W. Scott ◽  
M. Imamura ◽  
I. Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Mesh Fixation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Purpose Inguinal hernia repair using surgical mesh is a very common surgical operation. Currently, there is no consensus on the best technique for mesh fixation. We conducted an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials to compare the risk of chronic pain and recurrence following open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs using various mesh fixation techniques. Methods We searched major electronic databases in April 2020 and assessed the methodological quality of identified reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results We identified 20 SRs of variable quality assessing suture, self-gripping, glue, and mechanical fixation. Across reviews, the risk of chronic pain after open mesh repair was lower with glue fixation than with suture and comparable between self-gripping and suture. Incidence of chronic pain was lower with glue fixation than with mechanical fixation in laparoscopic repairs. There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between fixation techniques in open and laparoscopic mesh repairs, although fewer recurrences were reported with suture. Many reviews reported wide confidence intervals around summary estimates. Despite no clear evidence of differences among techniques, two network meta-analyses (one assessing open repairs and one laparoscopic repairs) ranked glue fixation as the best treatment for reducing pain and suture for reducing the risk of recurrence. Conclusion Glue fixation may be effective in reducing the incidence of chronic pain without increasing the risk of recurrence. Future research should consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fixation techniques alongside the type of mesh and the size and location of the hernia defect.

scholarly journals Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (55) ◽  
pp. 1-72
Author(s):  
David P French ◽  
Lisa M Miles ◽  
Diana Elbourne ◽  
Andrew Farmer ◽  
Martin Gulliford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Measurement Reactivity ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Expert Workshop ◽  
Improve Health

Background Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the ‘question–behaviour effect’). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. Objectives The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. Methods We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants’ health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. Results Systematic reviews – we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I 2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question–behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09—0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure – substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop – 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. Limitation The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. Conclusion We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. Future work The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. Study registration The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document