scholarly journals A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Global Alignment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Specific Population ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Specific Virus

Abstract BackgroundFace masks are being used by individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 as a means to limit the spread of COVID-19 in several countries around the world. While some countries recommend the use of face masks, other countries do not recommend their use to limit the transmission of COVID-19 among this specific population. Because of contradicting recommendations provided by health authorities of different countries, this paper aims to investigate the availability of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 through a systematic review search. This paper will further discuss concerns around current recommendations provided to those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 regarding face mask use in the context of available evidence.MethodsTo carry out the systematic review on the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19, databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for relevant studies. Two groups of keywords were combined: those relating to face masks and COVID-19.ResultsThe systematic review search did not find any studies that investigated the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of this specific virus, COVID-19 among this specific population, those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19.ConclusionsIn light of the finding of this systematic review search, which is a lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of face masks in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19, the significance of this finding is highlighted and extensively discussed in this paper. This paper calls for, but does not limit to; 1) evidence-based recommendations; 2) considerations when providing recommendations in the absence of evidence; 3) evidence and knowledge transparency on current recommendations with the public; 4) global alignment on recommendations; and 5) further research.

scholarly journals A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Global Alignment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Specific Population ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Specific Virus

Abstract BackgroundFace masks are being used by individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 as a means to limit the spread of COVID-19 in several countries around the world. While some countries recommend the use of face masks, other countries do not recommend their use to limit the transmission of COVID-19 among this specific population. Because of contradicting recommendations provided by health authorities of different countries, this paper aims to investigate the availability of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 through a systematic review search. This paper will further discuss concerns around current recommendations provided to those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 regarding face mask use in the context of available evidence.MethodsTo carry out the systematic review on the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19, databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for relevant studies. Two groups of keywords were combined: those relating to face masks and COVID-19.ResultsThe systematic review search did not find any studies that investigated the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of this specific virus, COVID-19 among this specific population, those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19.ConclusionsIn light of the finding of this systematic review search, which is a lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of face masks in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19, the significance of this finding is highlighted and extensively discussed in this paper. This paper calls for, but does not limit to; 1) evidence-based recommendations; 2) considerations when providing recommendations in the absence of evidence; 3) evidence and knowledge transparency on current recommendations with the public; 4) global alignment on recommendations; and 5) further research.

scholarly journals Concerns around public health recommendations on face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 supported by a systematic review search for evidence.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Global Alignment ◽  
The World ◽  
Guidelines And Recommendations

Abstract BackgroundContradicting and inconsistent public health recommendations regarding face mask use have been provided to individuals who are not yet medically diagnosed with COVID-19, which is significantly a large population. Face masks are being used by individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 as a means to limit the spread of COVID-19 in several countries around the world. While some countries recommend the use of face masks, other countries strictly do not recommend their use to limit the transmission of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. This paper critically analyses public health recommendations provided to this population regarding face mask use by public health and health professionals of different countries supported by a systematic review that searched for evidence on face mask use among this specific population in limiting the spread of COVID-19.MethodsTo carry out the systematic review portion of this paper, databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for relevant studies. Two groups of keywords were combined: those relating to face masks and COVID-19.ResultsThe systematic review search did not find any studies that investigated the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 to support current public health recommendations.ConclusionsThe finding of the systematic review search, which is a lack of scientific evidence, questions the basis of inconsistent public health recommendations that have been provided to the public at a very early yet a crucial stage of an outbreak. A closer attention need to be given to the procedures and practices behind providing public health guidelines and recommendations during an outbreak by public health and health professionals around the world. This paper calls for 1) evidence-based public health recommendations; 2) considerations when providing public health recommendations in the absence of evidence; 3) evidence and knowledge transparency on current public health recommendations; 4) global alignment on public health recommendations; and 5) further research to strengthen public health recommendations.

scholarly journals Evidence Based Dentistry among Dentists in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-136
Author(s):  
Irene Kida Minja ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Evidence Based Dentistry ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Purpose of this systematic review was to bring together studies of evidence-based practice among dentists in low- and middle-income countries, where its use has been reported to be limited. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Methodology: We searched the evidence (in English only) from medical databases including PubMed, EBSCO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, HINARI summon, and SCOPUS and Web of Science via Research4Life, grey literature, hand search from relevant articles, and augmented results on Google scholar.Published reports were retrieved from relevant websites and organizations. Studies included those that looked at key factors that facilitate or hinder Evidence Based Dentistry (EBD), as well as outcomes in terms of: knowledge, attitudes and skills of EB practice among dentists; and the methodology used and their relevance in future EBD strategies.Main focus was on dentists, as practitioners and faculty members. Studies on students and non-dental personnel were excluded.Findings:A total of 4568 records were retrieved and five potentially relevant articles were selected after title/abstract screening. Two articles were excluded after full text screening, and therefore Three papers were included in this review. The studies report limited knowledge,unsatisfactory attitude towards EBD and lowpractice of EBD and use of scientific evidence databases. None of the studies reported implementation of EBD nor evaluation thereof. The main barriers that constrained application of EBD ranged from lack of interest to infrastructural limitations. Originality: The current review showed that there is a need to strategised implementation of EBD in this region.

scholarly journals Face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19: A lack of evidence for and against and implications around early public health

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Infectious Disease Outbreak ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Benefit Risk Assessment ◽  
The World

Aim: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, public health professionals from around the world have been making decisions on face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID- 19 or "healthy individuals" to limit the spread of COVID-19. While some countries have strongly recommended face masks for "healthy individuals", other countries have recommended against it. Public health recommendations that have been provided to this population since the beginning of the outbreak have been controversial, contradicting, and inconsistent around the world. The purpose of this paper is to understand available evidence around the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with COVID-19 and most importantly, to understand the state of knowledge early public health recommendations are based on. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that investigated the use of face masks to limit the spread of COVID-19 among "healthy individuals" in order to understand available evidence using the databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus. Two groups of keywords were combined: Those relating to COVID-19 and face masks. Results: No studies were found, demonstrating a lack of evidence for and against face mask use suggesting implications around early public health recommendations provided to "healthy individuals". Conclusion: Three and a half months into the COVID-19 outbreak (December 2019-2nd week of April 2020), there are no peer-reviewed scientific studies that have investigated the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face mask use among "healthy individuals" to limit the spread of COVID-19. Yet, very strong public health recommendations have been provided on whether "healthy individuals" should or should not wear face masks to limit the spread of COVID-19 since the beginning of the outbreak. A lack of scientific evidence for and against face mask use heavily questions the basis of public health recommendations provided at a very early, yet a crucial stage of an outbreak. This finding and a further look at early public health recommendations conclude that there is a clear need for more concentrated research around face mask use among healthy individuals and public health recommendations that are evidence-based; precautionary in the absence of evidence; based on benefit-risk assessment; transparent; and globally aligned to provide the most successful guidelines during an infectious disease outbreak.

scholarly journals Face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19: A lack of evidence for and against and implications around public health recommendations.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Disease Outbreak ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Infectious Disease Outbreak ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Benefit Risk Assessment

Abstract IntroductionSince the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, public health professionals have been constantly making decisions on face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 or “healthy individuals” to limit the spread of COVID-19. While some countries have strongly recommended face masks for “healthy individuals”, other countries have recommended against it. Public health recommendations that have been provided to this population since the beginning of the outbreak have been controversial, contradicting, and inconsistent around the world. The purpose of this paper is to understand available evidence around the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with COVID-19 and most importantly, to understand the state of knowledge that the public health recommendations that have been provided since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak are based on.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies that investigated the use of face masks to limit the spread of COVID-19 among “healthy individuals”.ResultsNo studies were found, demonstrating a lack of evidence for and against face mask use suggesting implications around public health recommendations provided to “healthy individuals” since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak.ConclusionsThree and a half months into the COVID-19 outbreak (December 2019 – 2nd week of April 2020), there are no peer-reviewed scientific studies that have investigated the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of face mask use among “healthy individuals”. Yet, very strong public health recommendations have been provided on whether they should or should not wear face masks to limit the spread of COVID-19. A lack of scientific evidence heavily questions the basis of these public health recommendations provided at a very early, yet a crucial stage of an outbreak. This finding and a further look at public health recommendations conclude that there is a clear need for more concentrated research around face mask use among healthy individuals as well as public health recommendations that are evidence-based; precautionary in the absence of evidence; based on benefit-risk assessment; transparent; and globally aligned in order to provide the most successful guidelines during an infectious disease outbreak.

scholarly journals Guidelines for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery. Consensus document of Spanish Societies of Anesthesia (SEDAR), Cardiovascular Surgery (SECCE) and Perfusionists (AEP)

2020 ◽  
pp. 5-77
Author(s):  
Juan Antonio Margarit ◽  
Maria Azucena Pajares ◽  
Carlos Garcia Camacho ◽  
Mario Castaño Ruiz ◽  
Maria Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Critical Care Unit ◽  
Cardiovascular Surgery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scientific Societies ◽  
Clinical Process ◽  
Consensus Document

The ERAS guidelines are intended to identify, disseminate and promote the implementation of the best, scientific evidence-based actions to decrease variability in clinical practice. The implementation of these practices in the global clinical process will promote better outcomes and the shortening of hospital and critical care unit stays, thereby resulting in a reduction in costs and in greater efficiency. After completing a systematic review at each of the points of the perioperative process in cardiac surgery, recommendations have been developed based on the best scientific evidence currently available with the consensus of the scientific societies involved.

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2780-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela O’Connor ◽  
Anas A. Minkara ◽  
Robert W. Westermann ◽  
James Rosneck ◽  
T. Sean Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocols ◽  
The Mean

Background: The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete’s preparedness for sporting activities. Purpose: To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The search terms “hip arthroscopy,” “return to play,” and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. Results: A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = −0.95, P = .0003). Conclusion: Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.

(Not) Proving the Public Good: Scientific Evidence and the Margin of Appreciation

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-262
Author(s):  
Ciarán Burke ◽  
Alexandra Molitorisová
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Policy Measures ◽  
National Governments

Abstract The article offers a critical look at the complex relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and policy-supportive (scientific) evidence. In particular, due to now commonplace, evidence-based policy-making of national governments, the Court is effectively supplemented with various statistics and studies and tasked with reviewing policy measures aiming to improve the public good. This article investigates the ECtHR’s use and interpretation of policy-supportive evidence in the proportionality analysis, and how this affects the margin of appreciation. The recent case of Dubská and Krejzová concerning the ban on home births, which the article explores in detail, is illustrative in this regard. Although the Court appears to review scientific evidence substantively, an increased proliferation of statistics and studies may bring about controversy in relation to legal cases, without having a conclusive impact upon the outcome of a dispute.

scholarly journals Face Mask Use in the Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Coclite ◽  
Antonello Napoletano ◽  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Andrea del Monaco ◽  
Daniela D'Angelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Grade Approach

Background: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of wearing a mask. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH, The Cochrane Library, and pre-prints from inception to 22 April 2020 without restriction by language. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane and GRADE approach.Findings: Our search identified 35 studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (4,017 patients), 10 comparative studies (18,984 patients), 13 predictive models, nine laboratory experimental studies. For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05). Similar findings were reported in observational studies. Mathematical models indicated an important decrease in mortality when the population mask coverage is near-universal, regardless of mask efficacy. In the best-case scenario, when the mask efficacy is at 95%, the R0 can fall to 0.99 from an initial value of 16.90. Levels of mask filtration efficiency were heterogeneous, depending on the materials used (surgical mask: 45–97%). One laboratory study suggested a viral load reduction of 0.25 (95% CI 0.09–0.67) in favor of mask vs. no mask.Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of face masks in a community setting. Robust randomized trials on face mask effectiveness are needed to inform evidence-based policies.PROSPERO registration: CRD42020184963.

scholarly journals Metamizole/dipyrone for the relief of cancer pain: A systematic review and evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Gaertner ◽  
Ulrike M Stamer ◽  
Constanze Remi ◽  
Raymond Voltz ◽  
Claudia Bausewein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Low Doses ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Background: Dipyrone (metamizole) is one of the most widely used non-opioid analgesics for the treatment of cancer pain. Aim: Because evidence-based recommendations are not yet available, a systematic review was conducted for the German Guideline Program in Oncology to provide recommendations for the use of dipyrone in cancer pain. Design: First, a systematic review for clinical trials assessing dipyrone in adult patients with cancer pain was conducted. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Data sources: The search was performed in MedLine, Embase (via Ovid), and the Cochrane Library (1948–2013) and additional hand search was conducted. Finally, recommendations were developed and agreed in a formal structured consensus process by 53 representatives of scientific medical societies and 49 experts. Results: Of 177 retrieved studies, 4 could be included (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 cohort study, n = 252 patients): dipyrone significantly decreased pain intensity compared to placebo, even if low doses (1.5–2 g/day) were used. Higher doses (3 × 2 g/day) were more effective than low doses (3 × 1 g/day), but equally effective as 60 mg oral morphine/day. Pain reduction of dipyrone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs did not differ significantly. Compared to placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and morphine, the incidence of adverse effects was not increased. Conclusion: Dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain as an alternative to other non-opioids either alone or in combination with opioids. It can be preferred over non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to the presumably favorable side effect profile in long-term use, but comparative studies are not available for long-term use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document