scholarly journals The outcome of COVID-19 among the geriatric age group in African countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Degena Bahrey Tadesse ◽  
Shishay Wahdey ◽  
Melaku Negash ◽  
Ebud Ayele ◽  
Teklehaimanot Gereziher Haile ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Age Group ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared as a pandemic and public health emergency that infected more than 5 million people worldwide at the time of writing this protocol. Strong evidence for the outcome of COVID-19 among the geriatric age group has not been published in Africa. Therefore, this protocol will be served as a guideline to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcome of COVID-19 among the geriatric age group in Africa. Methods Published and unpublished studies on the outcome of COVID-19 among the geriatric age group in Africa and written in any language will be included. Databases (PubMed / MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Google, EMBASE, Web of Science, Microsoft Academic, WHO COVID-19 database, Cochran Library, Africa Wide Knowledge, and Africa Index Medicus) from March to August 2020 will be searched. Two independent reviewers will select, screen, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. The proportion will be measured using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis will be conducted to manage heterogeneity. The presence of publication bias will be assessed using Egger’s test and visual inspection of the funnel plots. This systematic and meta-analysis review protocol will be reported per the PRISMA-P guidelines. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will be expected to quantify the outcome of COVID-19 among the geriatric age group in Africa. Systematic review registration This protocol was submitted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in April 2020 and accepted with the registration number: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). CRD42020180600.

scholarly journals Panel of COVID-19 phenotypes: systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Carvalho Silveira ◽  
Yanca Carollynne Souza Moraes ◽  
Rodrigo da Silva Santos ◽  
Angela Adamski da Silva Reis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
World Health ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation Support ◽  
Severity Of The Disease ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract Background The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), had an unexpected impact on much of the world, especially Brazil. People diagnosed with the virus manifest different levels of respiratory symptoms, ranging from mild to severe, and may need mechanical ventilation support. The interaction different factors lead to the development of a spectrum of time-related diseases in different phenotypes. Methods This review will consider observational studies published from December 2019 to July 2021, without language restrictions. Studies involving human subjects, adult participants (18 years and older), with subjects who have received a COVID-19 diagnosis using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for the detection of the SARS- CoV-2 virus, according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidance. The databases to be searched will include PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The grey literature will also be searched for published research and unpublished studies, using Google Scholar. wo reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Findings will be reported using a narrative synthesis of the results will be carried out around the prevalence, severity of the disease, mortality and risk among the different phenotypes of COVID-19. The I 2 statistic will be used to examine the heterogeneity between the studies, if possible, the meta-analysis will be conducted using the RStudio® statistical software package, and the data will be displayed using forest graphics. Discussion This review will disclose a panel of the different manifestations of the disease COVID-19, and to identify the real risk factor for the most serious phenotypes. Systematic review registration This protocol has been registered within the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)(CRD42020211439)

scholarly journals A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n526
Author(s):  
François Lamontagne ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Reed Siemieniuk ◽  
Bram Rochwerg ◽  
Jessica Bartoszko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Drug Interventions

Abstract Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter? There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. Recommendation The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. Readers note This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of interferons for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Noormandi ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Time Of Administration

Background and objective: COVID-19 has since been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), infecting millions worldwide. The use of Interferon (INF) subtypes previously examined in the treatment of SARS and MERS is also being initiated in some clinical trials. Although different clinical trials were evaluated IFNs in the treatment of COVID-19, their efficacy and safety remain unknown. Therefore, this study aims to systematically assess IFNs efficacy and safety in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods: The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register (CRD42020200643) on 24 July 2020. This protocol has been arranged according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. Discussion: Due to lack of approved medication for the covid-19 treatment and also various mutations of this virus, evaluated the efficacy and safety of medications by various studies could help for finding treatments with high effectiveness. IFNs are one of the medications that have been administered in covid-19 infection.  Moreover, the best time of administration and dose of this medication was unknown. Although meta-analysis is a potent source for assessing the accuracy of subjects, heterogeneity of articles is a potent limitation of our work.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Incremental Costs of Implementing a New Vaccine in the Expanded Program of Immunization in Sub-Saharan Africa

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831989454
Author(s):  
Joe Brew ◽  
Christophe Sauboin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
World Health ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Vaccine Type ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Cost

Background. The World Health Organization is planning a pilot introduction of a new malaria vaccine in three sub-Saharan African countries. To inform considerations about including a new vaccine in the vaccination program of those and other countries, estimates from the scientific literature of the incremental costs of doing so are important. Methods. A systematic review of scientific studies reporting the costs of recent vaccine programs in sub-Saharan countries was performed. The focus was to obtain from each study an estimate of the cost per dose of vaccine administered excluding the acquisition cost of the vaccine and wastage. Studies published between 2000 and 2018 and indexed on PubMed could be included and results were standardized to 2015 US dollars (US$). Results. After successive screening of 2119 titles, and 941 abstracts, 58 studies with 80 data points (combinations of country, vaccine type, and vaccination approach–routine v. campaign) were retained. Most studies used the so-called ingredients approach as costing method combining field data collection with documented unit prices per cost item. The categorization of cost items and the extent of detailed reporting varied widely. Across the studies, the mean and median cost per dose administered was US$1.68 and US$0.88 with an interquartile range of US$0.54 to US$2.31. Routine vaccination was more costly than campaigns, with mean cost per dose of US$1.99 and US$0.88, respectively. Conclusion. Across the studies, there was huge variation in the cost per dose delivered, between and within countries, even in studies using consistent data collection tools and analysis methods, and including many health facilities. For planning purposes, the interquartile range of US$0.54 to US$2.31 may be a sufficiently precise estimate.

scholarly journals The global prevalence of latent tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1900655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Cohen ◽  
Victor Dahl Mathiasen ◽  
Thomas Schön ◽  
Christian Wejse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Latent Tuberculosis ◽  
Interferon Γ ◽  
Preventive Therapy ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
World Health ◽  
Global Prevalence ◽  
Ltbi Prevalence ◽  
Health Organization

In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that one-third of the world's population had latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which was recently updated to one-fourth. However, this is still based on controversial assumptions in combination with tuberculin skin test (TST) surveys. Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) with a higher specificity than TST have since been widely implemented, but never used to estimate the global LTBI prevalence.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of LTBI estimates based on both IGRA and TST results published between 2005 and 2018. Regional and global estimates of LTBI prevalence were calculated. Stratification was performed for low, intermediate and high TB incidence countries and a pooled estimate for each area was calculated using a random effects model.Among 3280 studies screened, we included 88 studies from 36 countries with 41 IGRA (n=67 167) and 67 TST estimates (n=284 644). The global prevalence of LTBI was 24.8% (95% CI 19.7–30.0%) and 21.2% (95% CI 17.9–24.4%), based on IGRA and a 10-mm TST cut-off, respectively. The prevalence estimates correlated well to WHO incidence rates (Rs=0.70, p<0.001).In the first study of the global prevalence of LTBI derived from both IGRA and TST surveys, we found that one-fourth of the world's population is infected. This is of relevance, as both tests, although imperfect, are used to identify individuals eligible for preventive therapy. Enhanced efforts are needed targeting the large pool of latently infected individuals, as this constitutes an enormous source of potential active tuberculosis.

scholarly journals Necessity of dural tenting sutures in modern neurosurgery: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e027904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Łukasz Przepiórka ◽  
Przemysław Kunert ◽  
Jarosław Żyłkowski ◽  
Jan Fortuniak ◽  
Patrycja Larysz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Potential Space ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
The Past ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Ethical Committee Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe ongoing need for dural tenting sutures in a contemporary neurosurgical practice has been questioned in the literature for over two decades. In the past, these sutures were supposed to prevent blood collecting in the potential space between the skull and the dura by elevating the latter. Theoretically, with modern haemostasis and proper postoperative care, this technique should not be necessary and the surgery time can be shortened. Unfortunately, there is no evidence-based proof to either support or reject this hypothesis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Eight electronic databases of peer-reviewed journals will be searched, as well as other sources. Eligible articles will be assessed against inclusion criteria. The intervention is not tenting the dura and this will be compared with the usual dural tenting sutures. Where possible, ‘summary of findings’ tables will be generated.Ethics and disseminationEthical committee approval is not required for a systematic review protocol. Findings will be presented at international neurosurgical conferences and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018097089.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of trauma centers verification: Protocol for a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice Batomen ◽  
Lynne Moore ◽  
Mabel Carabali ◽  
Pier-Alexandre Tardif ◽  
Howard Champion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Body ◽  
World Health ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract Background The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. Methods We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. Discussion This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document