scholarly journals COVID-19 and Hemoglobinopathies: A Systematic Review of Clinical Presentations, Investigations, and Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Xin Lee ◽  
Wei Keong Chieng ◽  
Sie Chong Doris Lau ◽  
Chai Eng Tan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Cell Disease ◽  
Oxygen Supplementation ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Course Of Illness ◽  
Clinical Presentations

This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the clinical profile and outcome of COVID-19 infection in patients with hemoglobinopathy. The rate of COVID-19 mortality and its predictors were also identified. A systematic search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database) for articles published between 1st December 2019 to 31st October 2020. All articles with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases with underlying hemoglobinopathy were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists. Thirty-one articles with data on 246 patients with hemoglobinopathy were included in this review. In general, clinical manifestations of COVID-19 infection among patients with hemoglobinopathy were similar to the general population. Vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in 55.6% of sickle cell disease patients with COVID-19 infection. Mortality from COVID-19 infection among patients with hemoglobinopathy was 6.9%. After adjusting for age, gender, types of hemoglobinopathy and oxygen supplementation, respiratory (adj OR = 89.63, 95% CI 2.514–3195.537, p = 0.014) and cardiovascular (adj OR = 35.20, 95% CI 1.291–959.526, p = 0.035) comorbidities were significant predictors of mortality. Patients with hemoglobinopathy had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 infection compared to the general population. Those with coexisting cardiovascular or respiratory comorbidities require closer monitoring during the course of illness. More data are needed to allow a better understanding on the clinical impact of COVID-19 infections among patients with hemoglobinopathy.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020218200.

scholarly journals Symptomatic manifestations of the disease caused by coronavirus (COVID-19) in adults: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (spe) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Rosa de Sousa Neto ◽  
Ana Raquel Batista de Carvalho ◽  
Erika Morganna Neves de Oliveira ◽  
Rosilane de Lima Brito Magalhães ◽  
Maria Eliete Batista Moura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Runny Nose ◽  
Cough Headache

ABSTRACT Objective To identify symptoms of COVID-19 in adults in the scientific literature. Method Systematic review of studies published from December 1, 2019 to April 21, 2020 from the Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases, in order to answer the following research question: “What are the symptoms caused by COVID-19 in adults?” using the keywords “Symptoms”, “Clinical Manifestations”, “Coronavirus”, “COVID-19”. Results Of the total 105 references, 13 references that addressed the symptoms of COVID-19 were selected. Fever and normal or dry cough were symptoms present in all studies. Conclusion The symptoms identified in adult patients were fever, normal or dry cough, headache, pharyngalgia, dyspnea, diarrhea, myalgia, vomiting, sputum or expectoration, anxiety or chest pain, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain, rhinorrhea, runny nose or nasal congestion, dizziness, chills, systemic pain, mental confusion, hemoptysis, asthma, taste disorder, smell disorder, belching and tachycardia.

scholarly journals Clinical manifestations and perinatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Yee ◽  
Woorim Kim ◽  
Ji Min Han ◽  
Ha Young Yoon ◽  
Nari Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Fetal Death ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Perinatal Outcomes ◽  
Current Review ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact

Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women. We searched for qualified studies in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The clinical characteristics of pregnant women with COVID-19 and their infants were reported as means and proportions with 95% confidence interval. Eleven studies involving with 9032 pregnant women with COVID-19 and 338 infants were included in the meta-analysis. Pregnant women with COVID-19 have relatively mild symptoms. However, abnormal proportions of laboratory parameters were similar or even increased, compared to general population. Around 30% of pregnant women with COVID-19 experienced preterm delivery, whereas the mean birth weight was 2855.9 g. Fetal death and detection of SARS-CoV-2 were observed in about 2%, whereas neonatal death was found to be 0.4%. In conclusion, the current review will serve as an ideal basis for future considerations in the treatment and management of COVID-19 in pregnant women.

scholarly journals Household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-214691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ingram ◽  
Sarah Ledden ◽  
Sarah Beardon ◽  
Manuel Gomes ◽  
Sue Hogarth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
North America ◽  
General Population ◽  
Social Determinants ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Household Composition ◽  
Living Alone ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Household Level

BackgroundNo clear synthesis of evidence examining household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity exists. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature on associations between household and area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and multimorbidity prevalence or incidence in the general population.MethodsSix databases (MedLine, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and Scopus) were searched. The search was limited to peer-reviewed studies conducted in high-income countries and published in English between 2010 and 2019. A second reviewer screened all titles with abstracts and a subset of full texts. Study quality was assessed and protocol pre-registered (CRD42019135281).Results41 studies spanning North America, Europe and Australasia were included. Household income and area-level deprivation were the most explored with fairly consistent findings. The odds of multimorbidity were up to 4.4 times higher for participants with the lowest level of income compared with the highest level. Those living in the most deprived areas had the highest prevalence or incidence of multimorbidity (pooled OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.42). Associations between deprivation and multimorbidity differed by age and multimorbidity type. Findings from the few studies investigating household tenure, household composition and area-level rurality were mixed and contradictory; homeownership and rurality were associated with increased and decreased multimorbidity, while living alone was found to be associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity and not associated.ConclusionImproving our understanding of broader social determinants of multimorbidity—particularly at the household level—could help inform strategies to tackle multimorbidity.

scholarly journals Citation Classics on Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anas Imran Arshad ◽  
Paras Ahmad ◽  
Paul M.H. Dummer ◽  
Mohammad Khursheed Alam ◽  
Jawaad Ahmed Asif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Changing Trends ◽  
Citation Classics

Abstract Objective A systematic search was performed for the identification and analysis of the 100 most often cited articles on dental caries and to highlight the changing trends in the field of dentistry over time. Materials and Methods The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through “All Databases.” Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description. Results The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =–0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006). Conclusion The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.

scholarly journals Anxiety disorders and risk of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Pérez-Piñar ◽  
L. Ayerbe ◽  
E. González ◽  
R. Mathur ◽  
Q. Foguet-Boreu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Severe Anxiety

AbstractBackgroundAnxiety disorders are the most common mental health problem worldwide. However, the evidence on the association between anxiety disorders and risk of stroke is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis presents a critical appraisal and summary of the available evidence on the association between anxiety disorders and risk of stroke.MethodsCohort studies reporting risk of stroke among patients with anxiety disorders were searched in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Web of Science, from database inception to June 2016. The quality of the studies was assessed using standard criteria. A meta-analysis was undertaken to obtain pooled estimates of the risk of stroke among patients with anxiety disorders.ResultsEight studies, including 950,759 patients, from the 11,764 references initially identified, were included in this review. A significantly increased risk of stroke for patients with anxiety disorders was observed, with an overall hazard ratio: 1.24 (1.09–1.41), P = 0.001. No significant heterogeneity between studies was detected and the funnel plot suggested that publication bias was unlikely. Limited evidence suggests that the risk of stroke is increased shortly after the diagnosis of anxiety and that risk of stroke may be higher for patients with severe anxiety.ConclusionsAnxiety disorders are a very prevalent modifiable condition associated with risk of stroke increased by 24%. This evidence could inform the development of interventions for the management of anxiety and the prevention of stroke. Further studies on the risk of stroke in patients with anxiety, and the explanatory factors for this association, are required.

scholarly journals Prevalence of Headache in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,275 Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Asiful Islam ◽  
Sayeda Sadia Alam ◽  
Shoumik Kundu ◽  
Tareq Hossan ◽  
Mohammad Amjad Kamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to spread globally since December 2019 from Wuhan, China. Headache has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 2019 and March 2020. Adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 patients were considered eligible. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182529).Results: We identified 2,055 studies, of which 86 studies (n = 14,275, 49.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of headache in COVID-19 patients was 10.1% [95% CI: 8.76–11.49]. There was no significant difference of headache prevalence in severe or critical vs. non-severe (RR: 1.05, p = 0.78), survived (recovered or discharged) vs. non-survived (RR: 1.36, p = 0.23), and ICU vs. non-ICU (RR: 1.06, p = 0.87) COVID-19 patients. We detected 64.0, 34.9, and 1.1% of the included studies as high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.Conclusions: From the first 4-month data of the outbreak, headache was detected in 10.1% of the adult COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in the general population: systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo da Rosa Mesquita ◽  
Luiz Carlos Francelino Silva Junior ◽  
Fernanda Mayara Santos Santana ◽  
Tatiana Farias de Oliveira ◽  
Rafaela Campos Alcântara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Clinical Manifestations

scholarly journals Prognostic models for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for systematic review, critical appraisal, and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyu Zhong ◽  
Liping Si ◽  
Guangcheng Zhang ◽  
Jiayu Huo ◽  
Yue Xing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
British Library ◽  
Prognostic Prediction ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is the most common degenerative joint disease. It is associated with significant socioeconomic burden and poor quality of life, mainly due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and related total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since early detection method and disease-modifying drug is lacking, the key of KOA treatment is shifting to disease prevention and progression slowing. The prognostic prediction models are called for to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of our review is to identify and characterize reported multivariable prognostic models for KOA about three clinical concerns: (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA. Methods The electronic datasets (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL) and gray literature sources (OpenGrey, British Library Inside, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and BIOSIS preview) will be searched from their inception onwards. Title and abstract screening and full-text review will be accomplished by two independent reviewers. The multivariable prognostic models that concern on (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA will be included. Data extraction instrument and critical appraisal instrument will be developed before formal assessment and will be modified during a training phase in advance. Study reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias will be assessed according to the TRIPOD statement, CHARMS checklist, and PROBAST tool, respectively. Prognostic prediction models will be summarized qualitatively. Quantitative metrics on the predictive performance of these models will be synthesized with meta-analyses if appropriate. Discussion Our systematic review will collate evidence from prognostic prediction models that can be used through the whole process of KOA. The review may identify models which are capable of allowing personalized preventative and therapeutic interventions to be precisely targeted at those individuals who are at the highest risk. To accomplish the prediction models to cross the translational gaps between an exploratory research method and a valued addition to precision medicine workflows, research recommendations relating to model development, validation, or impact assessment will be made. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020203543

scholarly journals Pandemic of COVID-19 and Pregnancy

BioMedica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2S) ◽  
pp. 206-212
Author(s):  
Shaherzad Sohail ◽  
Lubna Raiz Dar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Vertical Transmission ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Pregnant Females

<p><strong>Background and Objective:</strong> Infectious disease outbreak caused by novel Coronavirus is a global public health concern. In this pandemic, pregnant women are high risk population. Knowledge and data on the effect of this COVID-19 disease on pregnant females and their newborns is limited. Number of cases is increasing day by day. Aim of the current study was to provide evidence-based knowledge related to effects of Coronavirus on pregnancy to improve the understanding of the COVID-19 disease. <strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review, carried out in the Department of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology at Shalamar Medical and Dental College, Lahore. The available published research data from January 1st 2020 to May 13th 2020, on the effects of Coronavirus in pregnancy was collected. On the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines the articles in English were selected from electronic databases PubMed and Goggle scholar. <strong>Results: </strong>The information gathered is organized in five main themes namely; Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 during pregnancy, risk of vertical transmission, issues related to breast feeding, care during antenatal period and labor and strategies for prevention. The main concern is to focus on best clinical practices for care of pregnant females. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> Clinical manifestations of Coronavirus infection in pregnant females are not different from general population. There is on strong evidence of risk of vertical transmission. Best antenatal care and care during labor is the right of all pregnant females whether suspected or infected and it must be according to the standardized guidelines. Breast feeding is encouraged either with full protection of transmission of droplet infection or my expressing milk manually. Vaginal delivery is safe and preventive strategies for the disease available for general population must be adapted by the pregnant women also to avoid getting the infection.</p>

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Instruments Used for Evaluating Causal Beliefs and Perceived Heart Risk Factors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mozhgan Saeidi ◽  
Saeid Komasi ◽  
Angelo Compare
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Measuring Instruments ◽  
Causal Beliefs ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Grading Scales

Background: The etiologies and causal beliefs of heart disease are considered one of the 5 dimensions of health selfregulatory model. Thus, the present study aimed to review the literature and screen the appropriate tools for evaluating the causal beliefs and perceived heart risk factors (PHRFs). Methods: The review samples encompassed all published articles from 1992 to March 2017. A systematic search was conducted across 6 databases: the Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, EBSCO, ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. The qualitative evaluation of the articles was examined using the checklists of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) by 2 independent investigators. After the application of the criteria for inclusion in the study, 22 studies were obtained according to the PRISMA guidelines.  Results: A total of 10 504 (50.5% male) patients at an average age of 57.85±10.75 years participated in 22 studies under review. The results of the systematic review showed that 22 tools were available to measure PHRFs. The instruments were categorized into 4 groups of valid scales (6 studies), invalid questionnaires (6 studies), checklists (3 studies), and open-ended single items (7 studies). Only 23.2% of the measuring instruments were sufficiently valid. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review showed that a limited number of valid tools were available to measure PHRFs. Considering the importance of studying cardiac patients’ perception of the etiology of disease and the paucity of standards and valid grading scales, it seems necessary to design and provide tools with broader content that can cover all aspects of patients’ beliefs.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document