The neurological symptoms of COVID-19: a systematic overview of systematic reviews, comparison with other neurological conditions and implications for healthcare services.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
In response to the rapid spread of COVID-19, this paper provides health professionals with better accessibility to available evidence, summarising findings from a systematic overview of systematic reviews of the neurological symptoms seen in patients with COVID-19. Implications of so-called 'Long Covid' on neurological services and primary care and similarities with other neurological disorders are discussed.Methods
Firstly, a systematic overview of current reviews of neurological symptoms of COVID-19 was conducted. Secondly, the implications of these findings are discussed in relation to the potential effect on neurological services and the similarities in the experience of patients with COVID-19 and those with other neurological disorders. A total of 45 systematic reviews were identified within seven databases, published between 11 April 2020 and 15 October 2020, following a search in June 2020, updated on 20 October 2020.Results
The results indicated that COVID-19 exhibits two types of neurological symptoms; life-threatening symptoms such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and encephalitis, and less devastating symptoms such as fatigue and myalgia. Many of these so-called lesser symptoms appear to be emerging as longer-term for some sufferers and have been recently labelled Long Covid. When compared, these less devastating symptoms are very similar to other neurological conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and functional neurological disorder (FND).Conclusion
Implications for neurological healthcare services in the United Kingdom (UK) may include longer waiting times and a need for more resources (including more qualified health professionals). There is also a possible change-effect on health professionals' perceptions of other neurological conditions such as CFS and FND. Future research is recommended to explore changes in health professionals' perceptions of neurological symptoms because of COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Wildwing T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970685 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this project was to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of reminders in changing professional behavior in clinical settings.Relevant systematic reviews of reminder interventions were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE and the Cochrane Library in conjunction with a larger project examining professional behavioral change interventions. Reviews were appraised using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews. As most reviews only reported vote counting, conclusions about effectiveness for each review were based on a count of positive studies. If available, we also report effect sizes. Conclusions were based on the findings from higher quality and current systematic reviews.Thirty-five reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Ten reviews examined the effectiveness of reminders generally, 5 reviews focused on specific health care settings, 14 reviews concentrated on specific behaviors and 6 reviews addressed specific patient populations. The quality of the reviews was variable (median?=?3, range?=?1 to 8). Seven reviews had AMSTAR scores >5 and were considered in detail. Five of these seven reviews demonstrated positive effects of reminders in changing provider behavior. Few reviews used quantitative pooling methods; in one high quality and current review, the overall observed effects were moderate with an absolute median improvement in performance of 4.2% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%).The results support that modest improvements can occur with the use of reminders. The effect size is consistent with other interventions that have been used to improve professional behavior.Reminders appear effective in improving different clinical behaviors across a range of settings.
| S-EPMC3503870 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe importance of access to healthcare for all is internationally recognised as a global goal, high on the global agenda. Yet inequalities in health exist within and between countries which are exacerbated by inequalities in access to healthcare. In order to address these inequalities, we need to better understand what drives them. While there exists a wealth of research on access to healthcare in different countries and contexts, and for different patient groups, to date no attempt has been made to bring this evidence together through a global lens. This study aims to address that gap by bringing together evidence of what factors affect patients' access to healthcare and exploring how those factors vary in different countries and contexts around the world.MethodsAn overview of reviews will be conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to search four databases: Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Additional searches will be conducted on the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Bank websites. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the eligibility criteria and full-text articles will be obtained for all records that meet the inclusion criteria or where there is uncertainty around eligibility. A data extraction table will be developed during the review process and will be piloted and refined before full data extraction commences. Methodological quality/risk of bias will be assessed for each included study using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality assessment will be used to inform the narrative synthesis, but a low-quality score will not necessarily lead to study exclusion.DiscussionFactors affecting patients' ability to access healthcare will be identified and analysed according to different country and context characteristics to shed light on the importance of different factors in different settings. Results will be interpreted accounting for the usual challenges associated with conducting such reviews. The results may guide future research in this area and contribute to priority setting for development initiatives aimed at ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019144775.
| S-EPMC6979353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:This overview of reviews aimed to identify (1) aspects of the patient experience when seeking care for musculoskeletal disorders from healthcare providers and the healthcare system, and (2) which mechanisms are used to measure aspects of the patient experience. Data sources:Four databases were searched from inception to December 20th, 2019. Review methods:Systematic or scoping reviews examining patient experience in seeking care for musculoskeletal from healthcare providers and the healthcare system were included. Independent authors screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews. Patient experience concepts were compiled into five themes from a perspective of a) relational and b) functional aspects. A list of mechanisms used to capture the patient experience was also collected. Results:Thirty reviews were included (18 systematic and 12 scoping reviews). Relational aspects were reported in 29 reviews and functional aspects in 25 reviews. For relational aspects, the most prevalent themes were "information needs" (education and explanation on diseases, symptoms, and self-management strategies) and "understanding patient expectations" (respect and empathy). For functional aspects, the most prevalent themes were patient's "physical and environmental needs," (cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of clinics), and "trusted expertise," (healthcare providers' competence and clinical skills to provide holistic care). Interviews were the most frequent mechanism identified to collect patient experience. Conclusions:Measuring patient experience provides direct insights about the patient's perspectives and may help to promote better patient-centered health services and increase the quality of care. Areas of improvement identified were interpersonal skills of healthcare providers and logistics of health delivery, which may lead to a more desirable patient-perceived experience and thus better overall healthcare outcomes. Trial registration:Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019136500).
| S-EPMC7517681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories.ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines to assess the quality of the included reviews and performed a random effects meta-analysis with main outcome measure Cohen's d. All types of participants were considered.ResultsThe search produced 187 reviews: 23 were included, covering 115 unique RCTs and 8,683 unique individuals with various conditions. Compared to wait list control and compared to treatment as usual, MBSR and MBCT significantly improved depressive symptoms (d=0.37; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.45, based on 5 reviews, N=2814), anxiety (d=0.49; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.61, based on 4 reviews, N=2525), stress (d=0.51; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.67, based on 2 reviews, N=1570), quality of life (d=0.39; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.70, based on 2 reviews, N=511) and physical functioning (d=0.27; 95%CI 0.12 to 0.42, based on 3 reviews, N=1015). Limitations include heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias and limited long-term follow-up in several studies.ConclusionThe evidence supports the use of MBSR and MBCT to alleviate symptoms, both mental and physical, in the adjunct treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, depression, anxiety disorders and in prevention in healthy adults and children.
| S-EPMC4400080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile there is an ample literature on the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions aimed at healthcare providers, managers, and policy-makers, there has been less focus on patients and their informal caregivers. Further, no overview of the literature on dissemination strategies aimed at healthcare users and their caregivers has been conducted. The overview has two specific research questions: (1) to determine the most effective strategies that have been used to disseminate knowledge to healthcare recipients, and (2) to determine the barriers (and facilitators) to dissemination of knowledge to this group.MethodsThis overview used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol. A comprehensive search of ten databases and five websites was conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were included. A methodological quality assessment was conducted; low-quality reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, informed by a matrix of strategy by outcome measure. The Health System Evidence taxonomy for "consumer targeted strategies" was used to separate strategies into one of six categories.ResultsWe identified 44 systematic reviews that describe the effective strategies to disseminate health knowledge to the public, patients, and caregivers. Some of these reviews also describe the most important barriers to the uptake of these effective strategies. When analyzing those strategies with the greatest potential to achieve behavioral changes, the majority of strategies with sufficient evidence of effectiveness were combined, frequent, and/or intense over time. Further, strategies focused on the patient, with tailored interventions, and those that seek to acquire skills and competencies were more effective in achieving these changes. In relation to barriers and facilitators, while the lack of health literacy or e-literacy could increase inequities, the benefits of social media were also emphasized, for example by widening access to health information for ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.ConclusionsThose interventions that have been shown to be effective in improving knowledge uptake or health behaviors should be implemented in practice, programs, and policies-if not already implemented. When implementing strategies, decision-makers should consider the barriers and facilitators identified by this overview to ensure maximum effectiveness.Protocol registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018093245.
| S-EPMC7057470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acupuncture is increasingly used worldwide. It is becoming more accepted by both patients and healthcare providers. However, the current understanding of its adverse events (AEs) is fragmented. We conducted this overview to collect all systematic reviews (SRs) on the AEs of acupuncture and related therapies. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to December 2015. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed with a validated instrument. Evidence was narratively reported. Seventeen SRs covering various types of acupuncture were included. Methodological quality of the reviews was overall mediocre. Four major categories of AEs were identified, which are organ or tissue injuries (13 reviews, median: 36 cases, median deaths: 4), infections (11 reviews, median: 17 cases, median deaths: 0.5), local AEs or reactions (12 reviews, median: 8.5 cases, no deaths were reported), and other complications such as dizziness or syncope (11 reviews, median: 21 cases, no deaths were reported). Minor and serious AEs can occur during the use of acupuncture and related modalities, contrary to the common impression that acupuncture is harmless. Serious AEs are rare, but need significant attention as mortality can be associated with them. Referrals should consider acupuncturists' training credibility, and patient safety should be a core part of acupuncture education.
| S-EPMC5469776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma.To undertake a systematic overview of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT for the treatment of allergic asthma.We searched nine electronic databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Systematic reviews were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively and thematically synthesized.We identified nine eligible systematic reviews; these focused on delivery of AIT through the following routes: subcutaneous (SCIT; n = 3); sublingual (SLIT; n = 4); and both SCIT and SLIT (n = 2). This evidence found that AIT delivered by SCIT and SLIT can improve medication and symptom scores and measures of bronchial hyper-reactivity. The impact on measures of lung function or asthma control was however less clear. We found no systematic review level evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT or SLIT. SLIT had a favorable safety profile when compared to SCIT, particularly in relation to the risk of systemic reactions.AIT has the potential to achieve reductions in symptom and medication scores, but there is no clear or consistent evidence that measures of lung function can be improved. Bearing in mind the limitations of synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and the fact that these reviews include mainly dated studies, a systematic review of current primary studies is now needed to update this evidence base, estimate the effectiveness of AIT on asthma outcomes and to investigate the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT.
| S-EPMC5539638 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn both sexes combined, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Furthermore, the incidence rate is increasing in many countries. Many lung cancer patients have a poor prognosis because they are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop effective methods for early diagnosis of lung cancer. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. However, it remains unclear which biomarker has superior performance for early and accurate detection of lung cancer. This overview aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to find an optimal biomarker for diagnosing lung cancer.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science to identify relevant systematic reviews including randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, or cohort studies that reported the value of biomarkers for diagnosing lung cancer. The methodological quality will be assessed using AMASAR-2 checklist, and the reporting quality will be assessed using PRISMA-DTA checklist. Bubble plot will be generated to map the biomarkers, methodological and reporting quality. The pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons will be performed using STATA 13.0.ResultsThe results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal CONCLUSION:: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for the diagnosis of lung cancer.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is an overview based on published systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6531075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an increasing public health problem, because of its persistent symptoms and several functional consequences. Understanding the prognosis of a condition is an important component of clinical decision-making and can help to guide the prevention of persistent symptoms following mTBI. The prognosis of mTBI has stimulated several empirical primary research papers and many systematic reviews leading to the identification of a wide range of factors. We aim to synthesize these factors to get a better understanding of their breadth and scope.MethodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched in databases systematic reviews synthesizing evidence about the prognosis of persistent symptoms after mTBI in the adult population. Two reviewers independently screened all references and selected eligible reviews based on eligibility criteria. They extracted relevant information using an extraction grid. They also rated independently the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. We synthesized evidence into a comprehensive conceptual map to facilitate the understanding of prognostic factors that have an impact on persistent post-concussion symptoms.ResultsFrom the 3857 references retrieved in a database search, we included 25 systematic reviews integrating the results of 312 primary articles published between 1957 and 2019. We examined 35 prognostic factors from the systematics reviews. No single prognostic factor demonstrated convincing and conclusive results. However, age, sex, and multiple concussions showed an affirmatory association with persistent post-concussion outcomes in systematic reviews.ConclusionWe highlighted the need for a comprehensive picture of prognostic factors related to persistent post-concussion symptoms. We believe that these prognostic factors would guide clinical decisions and research related to prevention and intervention regarding persistent post-concussion symptoms.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020176676.
| S-EPMC10357711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo systematically summarize evidence from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing medication nonadherence and to discern differences in effectiveness by intervention, patient, and study characteristics.SummaryMEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for papers published from January 2004 to February 2017. English-language SRs examining benefits of medication adherence interventions were eligible. Inclusion was limited to adult patients prescribed medication for 1 of the following disease conditions: diabetes and prediabetes, heart conditions, hypertension and prehypertension, stroke, and cognitive impairment. Non-disease-specific SRs that considered medication adherence interventions for older adults, adults with chronic illness, and adults with known medication adherence problems were also included. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. They then extracted key variables from eligible SRs, reconciling discrepancies via discussion. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess SRs; those with scores below 8 were excluded. Conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness were extracted. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality.ResultsOf 390 SRs, 25 met the inclusion criteria and assessed adherence as a primary outcome. Intervention types most consistently found to be effective were dose simplification, patient education, electronic reminders to patients, and reduced patient cost sharing or incentives. Of 50 conclusions drawn by the SRs, the underlying evidence was low or very low quality for 45 SRs.ConclusionDespite an abundance of primary studies and despite only examining high-quality SRs, the vast majority of primary studies supporting SR authors' conclusions were of low or very low quality. Nonetheless, health system leaders seeking to improve medication adherence should prioritize interventions that have been studied and found to be effective at improving patient adherence, including dose simplification, education, reminders, and financial incentives.
| S-EPMC6946938 | biostudies-literature