Pregnancy and Breastfeeding During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Published Pregnancy Cases.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rodrigues C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7719788 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and abortion has been debated since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to conduct this systematic review to understand better the potential effects of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on fetal loss in infected mothers presented with abortion following this infection.MethodsWe included articles published in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase databases in 2019 and 2020 through a comprehensive search via appropriate keywords, including COVID-19 and abortion synonyms. All studies with the abortion data in COVID-19 confirmed pregnant females were collected.ResultsOut of 208 potentially relevant articles, 11 articles were eligible to include in the systematic review. The included reports were published because of the following reasons: (1) First-trimester miscarriage; (2) Late miscarriage; (3) complication of COVID-19 infection in pregnancy; (4) COVID-19 disease in artificial pregnancy. First-trimester abortion was found in 5 studies, and second-trimester abortion in 7 studies. Two patients acquired infection during the hospital stay while they were referred for abortion. Reports related to abortion in pregnant females with COVID-19 show that most miscarriages due to COVID-19 in the first trimester were due to placental insufficiency.ConclusionsThere is an increased risk of abortion in mothers with a positive test result of SARS-CoV-2, which several case reports and case series have identified during the pandemic. Placental inflammation during the viral infection may result in fetal growth retardation and induce abortion. There has not been any consistent evidence of vertical transmission of the virus from mother to fetus, which requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC8357105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting normal life globally, every area of life is touched. The pandemic demands quick action and as new information emerges, reliable synthesises and guidelines for care are urgently needed. Breastfeeding protects mother and child; its health benefits are undisputed and based on evidence. To plan and support breastfeeding within the current pandemic, two areas need to be understood: 1) the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 as it applies to breastfeeding and 2) the protective properties of breastfeeding, including the practice of skin-to-skin care. This review aims to summarise how to manage breastfeeding during COVID-19. The summary was used to create guidelines for healthcare professionals and mothers.MethodsCurrent publications on breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic were reviewed to inform guidelines for clinical practice.ResultsCurrent evidence states that the Coronavirus is not transmitted via breastmilk. Breastfeeding benefits outweigh possible risks during the COVID-19 pandemic and may even protect the infant and mother. General infection control measures should be in place and adhered to very strictly.ConclusionsBreastfeeding should be encouraged, mothers and infant dyads should be cared for together, and skin-to-skin contact ensured throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If mothers are too ill to breastfeed, they should still be supported to express their milk, and the infant should be fed by a healthy individual. Guidelines, based on this current evidence, were produced and can be distributed to health care facilities where accessible information is needed.
| S-EPMC7487446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Until now, several reports about pregnant women with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been published. However, there are no comprehensive systematic reviews collecting all case series studies on data regarding adverse pregnancy outcomes, especially association with treatment modalities. (2) Objective: We aimed to synthesize the most up-to-date and relevant available evidence on the outcomes of pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed infection with COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Google scholar, and Embase were explored for studies and papers regarding pregnant women with COVID-19, including obstetrical, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and complications published from 1 January 2020 to 4 May 2020. Systematic review and search of the published literature was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). (4) Results: In total, 11 case series studies comprising 104 pregnant women with COVID-19 were included in our review. Fever (58.6%) and cough (30.7%) were the most common symptoms. Other symptoms included dyspnea (14.4%), chest discomfort (3.9%), sputum production (1.0%), sore throat (2.9%), and nasal obstruction (1.0%). Fifty-two patients (50.0%) eventually demonstrated abnormal chest CT, and of those with ground glass opacity (GGO), 23 (22.1%) were bilateral and 10 (9.6%) were unilateral. The most common treatment for COVID-19 was administration of antibiotics (25.9%) followed by antivirals (17.3%). Cesarean section was the mode of delivery for half of the women (50.0%), although no information was available for 28.8% of the cases. Regarding obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, fetal distress (13.5%), pre-labor rupture of membranes (9.6%), prematurity (8.7%), fetal death (4.8%), and abortion (2.9%) were reported. There are no positive results of neonatal infection by RT-PCR. (5) Conclusions: Although we have found that pregnancy with COVID-19 has significantly higher maternal mortality ratio compared to that of pregnancy without the disease, the evidence is too weak to state that COVID-19 results in poorer maternal outcome due to multiple factors. The number of COVID-19 pregnancy outcomes was not large enough to draw a conclusion and long-term outcomes are yet to be determined as the pandemic is still unfolding. Active and intensive follow-up is needed in order to provide robust data for future studies.
| S-EPMC7692613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected orthopedic practices worldwide. Few studies focusing on epidemiology and management of fractures in COVID-19 patients have been published. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the fracture types, presentation, treatment, complications, and early outcomes of fractures occurring amidst COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review of the all published papers was conducted with a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Library database using keywords 'COVID-19', 'Coronavirus', 'trauma∗'and 'fracture' from January-April 2020.ResultsThe searches yielded a total of ten studies with 112 Patients who were positive for COVID-19 associated with fractures was performed for six studies, reporting data separately for 44 patients with COVID 19 and an associated fracture. A diagnosis of COVID 19 was made on the basis of positive Computed Tomography scan in 39 patients and 30 patients had a positive Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction test. Overall, there were 29 proximal femoral fractures, 8 spine fractures, 7 fractures of the other bones. The fractures were treated surgically in 30 cases (68.18%) and the remaining 14 cases (31.82%) were managed conservatively. There were 16 patients (36.36%) who died, mostly due to respiratory failure with a median age of 82 years.ConclusionCOVID-19 has led to a significant reduction in a load of fracture patients globally, though the incidence of fragility fractures continues to be unaffected. There is a significantly higher risk of mortality in elderly patients with fractures and hence they should only be operated in a facility with a robust intensive care. Conservative treatment should be adopted as far as possible in non-obligatory fractures and in lesser equipped centers. Surgery in patients with proximal femur fragility fractures when judiciously selected did result in improvement in respiratory status. Reorganizing medical services is vital to deliver effective fracture care and also mitigate disease transmission.
| S-EPMC7324923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for breast reconstruction. Many professional organizations initially placed restrictions on breast reconstruction, leading surgeons to conceive innovative protocols for offering breast reconstruction. This study reviewed the current evidence on breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide guidance for surgeons facing future crises.MethodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies (1) describing implant and autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy and (2) occurring during or pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsOf the 1347 studies identified, 26 were included. Studies discussed type of reconstruction (18, 69%), complications (11, 42%), timing of reconstruction (10, 38%), protocols (10, 38%), COVID-19 screening (7, 27%), and length of hospital stay (7, 27%). The type of reconstruction varied depending on the stage of the pandemic: early on, autologous breast reconstruction was halted to preserve resources, but was later resumed. Within implant-based reconstruction, direct-to-implant was favored over serial tissue expansion. Several protocols were developed, with many emphasizing multidisciplinary collaborations for patient selection, use of specialized measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission, and optimization of same-day discharge. Complication rates following breast reconstruction were similar to pre-pandemic rates.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the landscape of breast reconstruction by raising important questions about delivery of care, cost, and resource utilization. The findings of this review may inform surgeons as they plan for similar future crises or strive for improved patient care and efficacy even during nonpandemic times.
| S-EPMC8460228 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic poses a critical global public health crisis. Operating room (OR) best practice in this crisis is poorly defined. This systematic review was performed to identify contemporary evidence relating to OR practice in the context of COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE was searched systematically using PubMed (search date 19 March 2020) for relevant studies in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Documented practices and guidance were assessed to determine Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence, and recommendations for practice within five domains were extracted: physical OR, personnel, patient, procedure, and other factors.ResultsThirty-five articles were identified, of which 11 met eligibility criteria. Nine articles constituted expert opinion and two were retrospective studies. All articles originated from the Far East (China, 9; Singapore, 2); eight of the articles concerned general surgery. Common themes were identified within each domain, but all recommendations were based on low levels of evidence (median OCEBM level 5 (range 4-5)). The highest number of overlapping recommendations related to physical OR (8 articles) and procedural factors (13). Although few recommendations related to personnel factors, consensus was high in this domain, with all studies mandating the use of personal protective equipment.ConclusionThere was little evidence to inform this systematic review, but there was consensus regarding many aspects of OR practice. Within the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, timely amalgamation of global practice and experiences is needed to inform best practice.
| S-EPMC7272923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThis systematic review evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on obsessive-compulsive symptoms.Recent findingsMost studies showed that obsessive-compulsive symptoms worsened during the early stages of the pandemic, particularly for individuals with contamination-related obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), though other symptoms dimensions were found to worsen as well. Many patients and individuals in the general population experienced new obsessive-compulsive-like symptoms centered on COVID-19. Self-reported rates of symptom exacerbation and COVID-19-focused symptoms were consistently lower in studies that recruited patients from specialty clinics (compared to online samples). Most studies were conducted in Spring/Summer, 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has been an enormous stressor for individuals with OCD, especially for those with contamination symptoms. Regardless, there is strong reason to believe gold standard treatment approaches for OCD have maintained strong efficacy. Disseminating and effectively delivering evidence-based treatments for OCD is an urgent public health priority.
| S-EPMC8493778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeNumerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study.Methods and materialsBased on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios.ResultsFrom January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications.ConclusionsA large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.
| S-EPMC7834196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Significant concern emerged at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic regarding the safety and practicality of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We aimed to review reported surgical practice and peer-reviewed published review recommendations and guidelines relating to RAS during the pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. This study was registered on Open Science Framework. Databases were searched using the following search terms: 'robotic surgery', 'robotics', 'COVID-19', and 'SARS-CoV-2'. Firstly, articles describing any outcome from or reference to robotic surgery during the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were considered for inclusion. Guidelines or review articles that outlined recommendations were included if published in a peer-reviewed journal and incorporating direct reference to RAS practice during the pandemic. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention) tool was used to assess the quality of surgical practice articles and guidelines and recommendation publications were assessed using the AGREE-II reporting tool. Publication trends, median time from submission to acceptance were reported along with clinical outcomes and practice recommendations. Results: Twenty-nine articles were included: 15 reporting RAS practice and 14 comprising peer-reviewed guidelines or review recommendations related to RAS during the pandemic, with multiple specialities (i.e., urology, colorectal, digestive surgery, and general minimally invasive surgery) covered. Included articles were published April 2020-December 2021, and the median interval from first submission to acceptance was 92 days. All surgical practice studies scored 'low' or 'moderate' risk of bias on the ROBINS-I assessment. All guidelines and recommendations scored 'moderately well' on the AGREE-II assessment; however, all underperformed in the domain of public and patient involvement. Overall, there were no increases in perioperative complication rates or mortalities in patients who underwent RAS compared to that expected in non-COVID practice. RAS was deemed safe, with recommendations for mitigation of risk of viral transmission. Conclusions: Continuation of RAS was feasible and safe during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where resources permitted. Post-pandemic reflections upon published robotic data and publication patterns allows us to better prepare for future events and to enhance urgent guideline design processes.
| S-EPMC9181746 | biostudies-literature