Anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic umbrella review of the global evidence

ObjectivesTo summarise the evidence relating to the prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAn umbrella review of systematic reviews was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods.Data sourcesThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews, JBI Evidence Synthesis, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched in March 2021 for reviews published in English.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews reporting the prevalence of anxiety and depression among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two researchers screened each abstract and independently reviewed full text articles. Study quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, and the degree of overlap in primary studies was calculated.ResultsTen systematic reviews (100 unique studies), including 169 157 HCWs from 35 countries were included. The prevalence of anxiety among all HCWs ranged from 22.2% (95% CI 21.3% to 23.1%) to 33.0% (95% CI 31.9% to 34.1%). The prevalence of anxiety among physicians (n=5820) was reported to be between 17% and 19.8% and for nurses (n=14 938) between 22.8% and 27%. The prevalence of depression among all HCWs ranged from 17.9% (95% CI 17.1% to 18.8%) to 36% (95% CI 34.9% to 37.1%). The prevalence of depression among physicians (n=643) and nurses (n=8063) was reported to be 40.4% and 28%, respectively.ConclusionsThere is wide variation evident in the presence of anxiety and depression among HCWs. In particular, the prevalence of depression among physicians was high. Strategies to reduce the incidence of anxiety and depression are urgently required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021238960.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of aliskiren combination therapy: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043807 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e043807

Author(s):

Jiantong Shen ◽

Wenming Feng ◽

Yike Wang ◽

Qiyuan Zhao ◽

Billong Laura Flavorta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Combination Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Third Person ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

IntroductionEfficacy of aliskiren combination therapy with other antihypertensive has been evaluated in the treatment of patients with hypertension in recent systematic reviews. However, most previous reviews only focused on one single health outcome or one setting, none of them made a full summary that assessed the impact of aliskiren combination treatment comprehensively. As such, this umbrella review based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is aimed to synthesise the evidences on efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren-based therapy for hypertension and related comorbid patients.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI published from inception to August 2020 will be conducted. The selected articles are systematic reviews which evaluated efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren combination therapy. Two reviewers will screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate quality independently. Any disputes will be resolved by discussion or the arbitration of a third person. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 tool tool. We will take a mixed-methods approach to synthesising the review literatures, reporting summary of findings tables and iteratively mapping the results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for the study, as we would only collect data from available published materials. This umbrella review will be also submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication after completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020192131.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017868 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e017868

Author(s):

Joey S.W. Kwong ◽

Sheyu Li ◽

Wan-Jie Gu ◽

Hao Chen ◽

Chao Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Coronary Revascularisation ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Registration Number ◽

Collection Form ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045598 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-regression

Human Resources for Health ◽

10.1186/s12960-020-00544-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Nader Salari ◽

Habibolah Khazaie ◽

Amin Hosseinian-Far ◽

Behnam Khaledi-Paveh ◽

Mohsen Kazeminia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Sample Size ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Research Work ◽

Hospital Staff ◽

Anxiety And Depression ◽

Front Line ◽

Prevalence Of Depression ◽

Meta Regression

Abstract Background Stress, anxiety, and depression are some of the most important research and practice challenges for psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral scientists. Due to the importance of issue and the lack of general statistics on these disorders among the Hospital staff treating the COVID-19 patients, this study aims to systematically review and determine the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. Methods In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2–31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5–31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3–67.5%) among the hospitals’ Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P < 0.05), however, the prevalence of stress increased with increasing the sample size, yet this was not statistically significant (P = 0.829). Conclusion The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.

Download Full-text

Epidemiology of Cancers in Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): A Protocol for Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17144954 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (14) ◽

pp. 4954

Author(s):

Manoj Kumar Honaryar ◽

Yelena Tarasenko ◽

Maribel Almonte ◽

Vitaly Smelov

Keyword(s):

Sexual Orientation ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Team Members ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Health Community ◽

Global Epidemiology ◽

Sex With Men

While earlier studies on men having sex with men (MSM) tended to examine infection-related cancers, an increasing number of studies have been focusing on effects of sexual orientation on other cancers and social and cultural causes for cancer disparities. As a type of tertiary research, this umbrella review (UR) aims to synthesize findings from existing review studies on the effects of sexual orientation on cancer. Relevant peer-reviewed systematic reviews (SRs) will be identified without date or language restrictions using MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews, among others. The research team members will prepare the data extraction forms. Two reviewers will independently assess extracted SRs using the Assessment of Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. A third reviewer will weigh in to resolve discrepancies. The reviewers will be blinded to publisher, journal, and authors, making their judgements on the title, year, and abstract. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis checklist will guide data synthesis. By collating evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document, our first UR on global epidemiology of malignancies among MSM would serve as an evidence-based decision-making tool for the public health community.

Download Full-text

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568220906810 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 219256822090681 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Muthu Sathish ◽

Ramakrishnan Eswar

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Spine Surgery ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Critical Flaw ◽

Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Download Full-text

Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017737 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. e017737 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Hedyeh Ziai ◽

Rujun Zhang ◽

An-Wen Chan ◽

Nav Persaud

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Ovid Medline ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Unpublished Studies ◽

Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Nutritional Supplementation during Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD: A Systematic Review

10.1101/19000786 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Abdulelah M Aldhahir ◽

Ahmed M Al Rajah ◽

Yousef S Aldabayan ◽

Salifu Drammeh ◽

Vanitha Subbu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽

Nutritional Supplementation ◽

Systematic Search ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTBackgroundUptake of nutritional supplementation during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been limited by an absence of rigorous evidence-based studies supporting use. Our objective were to report and summarise the current evidence supporting use of nutritional supplementation to improve outcomes during pulmonary rehabilitation in stable COPD patients.MethodsA systematic search was conducted up to May 7th, 2019 (registration number CRD42018089142). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Six databases were included: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online or MEDLARS Online (Medline), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science.ResultsThis systematic search generated 580 initial matches, of which 24 studies (1035 COPD participants) met the pre-specified criteria and were included. Our analysis does not confirm an impact of nutritional supplementation during PR, but studies, supplements and PR programmes were heterogeneous in nature.ConclusionThere is currently insufficient evidence on the effect of nutritional supplementation on improving outcomes during PR in patients with COPD. Therefore, controversy remains and further research is needed.

Download Full-text

Mapping the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Interventions in Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, and Hypertension: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Journal of Medical Internet Research ◽

10.2196/16791 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. e16791 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Patrick Timpel ◽

Sarah Oswald ◽

Peter E H Schwarz ◽

Lorenz Harst

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Population Characteristics ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Low Grade ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Meta Analyses

Background Telemedicine is defined by three characteristics: (1) using information and communication technologies, (2) covering a geographical distance, and (3) involving professionals who deliver care directly to a patient or a group of patients. It is said to improve chronic care management and self-management in patients with chronic diseases. However, currently available guidelines for the care of patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia do not include evidence-based guidance on which components of telemedicine are most effective for which patient populations. Objective The primary aim of this study was to identify, synthesize, and critically appraise evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine solutions and their components on clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Methods We conducted an umbrella review of high-level evidence, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. On the basis of predefined eligibility criteria, extensive automated and manual searches of the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were conducted. Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted data, and carried out the quality assessments. Extracted data were presented according to intervention components and patient characteristics using defined thresholds of clinical relevance. Overall certainty of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results Overall, 3564 references were identified, of which 46 records were included after applying eligibility criteria. The majority of included studies were published after 2015. Significant and clinically relevant reduction rates for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤−0.5%) were found in patients with diabetes. Higher reduction rates were found for recently diagnosed patients and those with higher baseline HbA1c (>8%). Telemedicine was not found to have a significant and clinically meaningful impact on blood pressure. Only reviews or meta-analyses reporting lipid outcomes in patients with diabetes were found. GRADE assessment revealed that the overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions The results of this umbrella review indicate that telemedicine has the potential to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. Although subgroup-specific effectiveness rates favoring certain intervention and population characteristics were found, the low GRADE ratings indicate that evidence can be considered as limited. Future updates of clinical care and practice guidelines should carefully assess the methodological quality of studies and the overall certainty of subgroup-specific outcomes before recommending telemedicine interventions for certain patient populations.

Download Full-text

Nurse staffing and patient care outcomes: protocol for an umbrella review to identify evidence gaps for low and middle-income countries

Wellcome Open Research ◽

10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17430.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. 363

Author(s):

Abdulazeez Imam ◽

Sopuruchukwu Obiesie ◽

Jalemba Aluvaala ◽

Michuki Maina ◽

David Gathara ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Nurse Staffing ◽

Published Data ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Middle Income ◽

Middle Income Countries ◽

Registration Number ◽

The Individual ◽

Low And Middle Income

Background: Adequate staffing is key to the delivery of nursing care and thus to improved inpatient and health service outcomes. Several systematic reviews have addressed the relationship between nurse staffing and these outcomes. Most primary studies within each systematic review are likely to be from high-income countries which have different practice contexts to low and middle-income countries (LMICs), although this has not been formally examined. We propose conducting an umbrella review to characterise the existing evidence linking nurse staffing to key outcomes and explicitly aim to identify evidence gaps in nurse staffing research in LMICs. Methods and analysis: This protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Literature searching will be conducted across Ovid Medline, Embase and EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct searching and data abstraction and discordance will be handled by discussion between both parties. The risk of bias of the individual studies will be performed using the AMSTAR-2. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical permission is not required for this review as we will make use of already published data. We aim to publish the findings of our review in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021286908

Download Full-text