Dataset Information

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Methods

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

Results

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

Conclusions

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

SUBMITTER: Borges do Nascimento IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177249 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading globally at an accelerated rate, with a basic reproduction number (R0) of 2-2.5, indicating that 2-3 persons will be infected from an index patient. A serious public health emergency, it is particularly deadly in vulnerable populations and communities in which healthcare providers are insufficiently prepared to manage the infection. As of March 16, 2020, there are more than 180,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with more than 7000 related deaths. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated from asymptomatic individuals, and affected patients continue to be infectious 2 weeks after cessation of symptoms. The substantial morbidity and socioeconomic impact have necessitated drastic measures across all continents, including nationwide lockdowns and border closures. Pregnant women and their fetuses represent a high-risk population during infectious disease outbreaks. To date, the outcomes of 55 pregnant women infected with COVID-19 and 46 neonates have been reported in the literature, with no definite evidence of vertical transmission. Physiological and mechanical changes in pregnancy increase susceptibility to infections in general, particularly when the cardiorespiratory system is affected, and encourage rapid progression to respiratory failure in the gravida. Furthermore, the pregnancy bias toward T-helper 2 (Th2) system dominance, which protects the fetus, leaves the mother vulnerable to viral infections, which are more effectively contained by the Th1 system. These unique challenges mandate an integrated approach to pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2. Here we present a review of COVID-19 in pregnancy, bringing together the various factors integral to the understanding of pathophysiology and susceptibility, diagnostic challenges with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays, therapeutic controversies, intrauterine transmission, and maternal-fetal complications. We discuss the latest options in antiviral therapy and vaccine development, including the novel use of chloroquine in the management of COVID-19. Fetal surveillance, in view of the predisposition to growth restriction and special considerations during labor and delivery, is addressed. In addition, we focus on keeping frontline obstetric care providers safe while continuing to provide essential services. Our clinical service model is built around the principles of workplace segregation, responsible social distancing, containment of cross-infection to healthcare providers, judicious use of personal protective equipment, and telemedicine. Our aim is to share a framework that can be adopted by tertiary maternity units managing pregnant women in the flux of a pandemic while maintaining the safety of the patient and healthcare provider at its core.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy has rapidly increased since December 2019, making it difficult to make rigorous evidence-based decisions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on prognosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women.Material and methodsWe used the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform for COVID-19, which continually retrieves studies from 46 data sources (including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, other electronic databases, clinical trials registries, and preprint repositories, among other sources relevant to COVID-19), mapping them into PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) questions. The search covered the period from the inception date of each database to 13 September 2020. We included systematic reviews assessing outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and/or their newborns. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, assessed full texts to select the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We measured the overlap of primary studies included among the selected systematic reviews by building a matrix of evidence, calculating the corrected covered area, and assessing the level of overlap for every pair of systematic reviews.ResultsOur search yielded 1132 references. 52 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Only one review had a low risk of bias, three had an unclear risk of bias, and 48 had a high risk of bias. Most of the included reviews were highly overlapped among each other. In the included reviews, rates of maternal death varied from 0% to 11.1%, admission to intensive care from 2.1% to 28.5%, preterm deliveries before 37 weeks from 14.3% to 61.2%, and cesarean delivery from 48.3% to 100%. Regarding neonatal outcomes, neonatal death varied from 0% to 11.7% and the estimated infection status of the newborn varied between 0% and 11.5%.ConclusionsOnly one of 52 systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. Results were heterogeneous and the overlap of primary studies was frequently very high between pairs of systematic reviews. High-quality evidence syntheses of comparative studies are needed to guide future clinical decisions.

Project description:Periodontal disease is very common during pregnancy. Although it has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, systematic reviews have reached discrepant conclusions on these links. Therefore, we conducted a systematic overview of systematic reviews studying the association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We searched 6 online databases up to November 2016 and hand-searched references and citations of eligible papers. Systematic reviews of studies comparing pregnancy outcomes among women with and without periodontal disease were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, preterm birth, and perinatal mortality. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual systematic reviews. Findings are described in tabular and narrative form. Twenty-three systematic reviews (including between 3 and 45 studies) were included. None reported the association between periodontal disease and maternal or perinatal mortality. Systematic reviews with the lowest risk of bias consistently demonstrated positive associations between periodontal disease and preterm birth (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0; 17 studies, 6,741 participants), low birth weight (LBW; relative risk, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.1; 10 studies, 5,693 participants), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4; 15 studies, 5,111 participants), and preterm LBW (relative risk 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.8; 4 studies, 2,263 participants). Based on these figures, estimated population-attributable fractions for periodontal disease were 5% to 38% for preterm birth, 6% to 41% for LBW, and 10% to 55% for preeclampsia. In terms of limitations, as several primary studies did not adjust for confounding, meta-analyses may have overestimated the strength of the associations under study. Due to substantial overlap in included primary studies, we could not aggregate results across reviews. Consistent evidence from systematic reviews with low risk of bias indicates that pregnant women with periodontal disease are at increased risk of developing preeclampsia and delivering a preterm and/or LBW baby (PROSPERO: CRD42015030132). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study highlights that periodontal disease is an important risk factor for several common adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of this link to guide risk selection. Research is needed to develop novel preventive and treatment strategies.