Dataset Information

Early epidemiological indicators, outcomes, and interventions of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that brought the whole world to a standstill, has led to financial and health care burden. We aimed to evaluate epidemiological characteristics, needs of resources, outcomes, and global burden of the disease. Methods:Systematic review was performed searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to March 25, 2020, for full-text observational studies that described epidemiological characteristics, following MOOSE protocol. Global data were collected from the JHU-Corona Virus Resource Center, WHO-COVID-2019 situation reports, KFF.org, and Worldometers.info until March 31, 2020. The prevalence percentages were calculated. The global data were plotted in excel to calculate case fatality rate (CFR), predicted CFR, COVID-19 specific mortality rate, and doubling time for cases and deaths. CFR was predicted using Pearson correlation, regression models, and coefficient of determination. Results:From 21 studies of 2747 patients, 8.4% of patients died, 20.4% recovered, 15.4% were admitted to ICU and 14.9% required ventilation. COVID-19 was more prevalent in patients with hypertension (19.3%), smoking (11.3%), diabetes mellitus (10%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.4%). Common complications were pneumonia (82%), cardiac complications (26.4%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (15.7%), secondary infection (11.2%), and septic shock (4.3%). Though CFR and COVID-19 specific death rates are dynamic, they were consistently high for Italy, Spain, and Iran. Polynomial growth models were best fit for all countries for predicting CFR. Though many interventions have been implemented, stern measures like nationwide lockdown and school closure occurred after very high infection rates (>10cases per 100?000population) prevailed. Given the trend of government measures and decline of new cases in China and South Korea, most countries will reach the peak between April 1-20, if interventions are followed. Conclusions:A collective approach undertaken by a responsible government, wise strategy implementation and a receptive population may help contain the spread of COVID-19 outbreak. Close monitoring of predictive models of such indicators in the highly affected countries would help to evaluate the potential fatality if the second wave of pandemic occurs. The future studies should be focused on identifying accurate indicators to mitigate the effect of underestimation or overestimation of COVID-19 burden.

SUBMITTER: Patel U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7567430 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early epidemiological indicators, outcomes, and interventions of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

Patel Urvish U Malik Preeti P Mehta Deep D Shah Dhaivat D Kelkar Raveena R Pinto Candida C Suprun Maria M Dhamoon Mandip M Hennig Nils N Sacks Henry H

Journal of global health 20201201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that brought the whole world to a standstill, has led to financial and health care burden. We aimed to evaluate epidemiological characteristics, needs of resources, outcomes, and global burden of the disease.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review was performed searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to March 25, 2020, for full-text observational studies that described epidemiological characteristics, following MOOSE protocol. Global d ...[more]

PMID: 33110589

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: On 29th December 2019, a cluster of cases displaying the symptoms of a "pneumonia of unknown cause" was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province of China. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The search strategy involved peer-reviewed studies published between 1st January and 11th February 2020 in Pubmed, Google scholar and China Knowledge Resource Integrated database. Publications identified were screened for their title and abstracts according to the eligibility criteria, and further shortlisted by full-text screening. Three independent reviewers extracted data from these studies, and studies were assessed for potential risk of bias. Studies comprising non-overlapping patient populations, were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for patient characteristics. Results: A total of 29 publications were selected after full-text review. This comprised of 18 case reports, three case series and eight cross-sectional studies on patients admitted from mid-December of 2019 to early February of 2020. A total of 533 adult patients with pooled median age of 56 (95% CI: 49-57) and a pooled prevalence of male of 60% (95% CI: 52-68%) were admitted to hospital at a pooled median of 7 days (95% CI: 7-7) post-onset of symptoms. The most common symptoms at admission were fever, cough and fatigue, with a pooled prevalence of 90% (95% CI: 81-97%), 58% (95% CI: 47-68%), and 50% (95% CI: 29-71%), respectively. Myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, diarrhea and sore throat were less common with pooled prevalence of 27% (95% CI: 20-36%), 25% (95% CI: 15-35%), 10% (95% CI: 7-13%), 8% (95% CI: 5-13%), and 7% (95% CI: 1-15%), respectively. ICU patients had a higher proportion of shortness of breath at presentation, as well as pre-existing hypertension, cardiovascular disease and COPD, compared to non-ICU patients in 2 studies (n = 179). Conclusion: This study highlights the key epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 cases during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:ObjectivesClinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsThe search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited.ConclusionsThe early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy.Review registrationAvailable at https://osf.io/mpafn.

Project description:ObjectiveThis review assesses interventions and their effectiveness in mitigating psychological consequences from pandemic.MethodPublished English literatures were searched from four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO) from January 2020 and September 2021. A total of 27 papers with 29 studies (one paper reported three studies) met inclusion criteria. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool is applied to assess the quality of all randomised controlled trials (RCT).ResultsAll studies were recently conducted in 2020. Publications were from high-income (13, 44.8%), upper middle-income (12, 41.4%) and lower middle-income countries (3, 10.3%) and global (1, 3.5%). Half of the studies conducted for general population (51.7%). One-third of studies (8, 27.6%) provided interventions to patients with COVID-19 and 20.7% to healthcare workers. Of the 29 studies, 14 (48.3%) were RCT. All RCTs were assessed for risk of biases; five studies (15, 35.7%) had low risk as measured against all six dimensions reflecting high-quality study.Of these 29 studies, 26 diagnostic or screening measures were applied; 8 (30.9%) for anxiety, 7 (26.9%) for depression, 5 (19.2%) for stress, 5 (19.2%) for insomnia and 1 (3.8%) for suicide. Measures used to assess the baseline and outcomes of interventions were standardised and widely applied by other studies with high level of reliability and validity. Of 11 RCT studies, 10 (90.9%) showed that anxiety interventions significantly lowered anxiety in intervention groups. Five of the six RCT studies (83.3%) had significantly reduced the level of depression. Most interventions for anxiety and stress were mindfulness and meditation based.ConclusionsResults from RCT studies (11%, 78.6%) were effective in mitigating psychological consequences from COVID-19 pandemic when applied to healthcare workers, patients with COVID-19 and general population. These effective interventions can be applied and scaled up in other country settings through adaptation of modes of delivery suitable to country resources, pandemic and health system context.

Dataset Information

Early epidemiological indicators, outcomes, and interventions of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

Publications

Early epidemiological indicators, outcomes, and interventions of COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets