Stigmatization from Work-Related COVID-19 Exposure: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schubert M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8226580 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsCOVID-19 is associated with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) and euglycaemic DKA (EDKA); however, evidence regarding parameters affecting outcome and mortality rates is scarce.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, and Google Scholar from January 2020 to 7 January 2021 to identify all studies describing clinical profile, outcome and mortality rates regarding DKA, HHS, DKA/HHS and EDKA cases in COVID-19 patients. The appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute tools were used for quality assessment; quality of evidence was approached using GRADE. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess correlations between clinical characteristics and outcome based on case reports. Combined mortality rates (CMR) were estimated from data reported in case report series, cross-sectional studies, and meta-analyses. The protocol was submitted to PROSPERO (ID: 229356/230737).ResultsFrom 312 identified publications, 44 were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. Critical COVID-19 necessitating ICU (P = 3 × 10-8), DKA/HHS presence (P = 0.021), and AKI (P = 0.037) were independently correlated with death. Increased COVID-19 severity (P = 0.003), elevated lactates (P < 0.001), augmented anion gap (P < 0.001), and AKI (P = 0.002) were associated with DKA/HHS. SGLT-2i were linked with EDKA (P = 0.004) and negatively associated with AKI (P = 0.023). CMR was 27.1% (95% CI 11.2-46.9%) with considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 67%).ConclusionAcute diabetes-related metabolic emergencies in COVID-19 patients lead to increased mortality; key determinants are critical COVID-19 illness, coexistence of DKA/HHS and AKI. Previous SGLT-2i treatment, though associated with EDKA, might preserve renal function in COVID-19 patients.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-021-00502-9.
| S-EPMC7985576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are the most important problems among professions particularly, dentists. This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in various parts of the body in Iranian dentists by using systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods:This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and searching in national databases such as SID, Magiran, Irandoc, IranMedex, and Medlib, and international databases such as MedLine, Web of Sciences, Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, Embase, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Ebsco, CEBM, and Google Scholar search engine which were published by January 1, 2017. Researched keywords were in Persian and their standard English equivalents were in accordance with their MeSH. The obtained documents were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis version 2. Results:According to 23 studies through 2,531 Iranian dentists which took part in this study, prevalence of skeletal disorders in Iranian dentists has been 17.6% [confidence interval (CI) 95%:11.7-25.5] in knees, 33.2% (CI 95%:24.1-43.8) in shoulders, 33.4% (CI 95%: 26.8-40.8) in the thorax, 51.9% (CI 95%:46.7-57.2) in necks, 33.7% (CI 95%:28.2-39.6) in wrists/hands, 12.9% (CI 95%:7.7-20.6) in elbows, 37.3% (CI 95%: 31.5-43.5) in lower back, 11.9% (CI 95%:8.7-16.1) in thighs, 12.9% (CI 95%:3.8-36) in the foot, and 10.5% (CI 95%:7-15.4) in legs. Conclusion:Considering the high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in Iranian dentists, ergonomics should be included as a lesson in preclinic and also, reeducation courses for ergonomics basics should be executed for graduate dentists.
| S-EPMC6111132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective This review aimed to examine systematically the epidemiological evidence linking work-related exposure to violence and threats thereof with risk of mental disorders and mental ill-health symptoms. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science to identify original studies that provide quantitative risk estimates. The evidence was weighted according to completeness of reporting, potential common method bias, and bias due to differential selection and drop out, selective reporting, and misclassification of exposure and outcome. Results We identified 14 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies with eligible risk estimates, of which 4 examined depressive disorder and reported an elevated risk among the exposed [pooled relative risk (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-1.54, I 2=0%]. The occurrence of depressive and anxiety symptoms, burnout and psychological distress was examined in 17 studies (pooled RR 2.33, 95% CI 3.17, I 2=42%), and 3 studies examined risk of sleep disturbance (pooled RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.37, I2=0%). In most studies, common method bias and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence and strong heterogeneity in most outcome definitions invalidate the strict interpretation of most pooled risk estimates. Conclusion The reviewed studies consistently indicate associations between workplace violence and mental health problems. However, due to methodological limitations the causal associations (if any) may be stronger or weaker than the ones reported in this study. Prospective studies with independent and validated reporting of exposure and outcome and repeated follow-up with relevant intervals are highly warranted.
| S-EPMC8506313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID?=?CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ?5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference?=?4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR?=?7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR?=?5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR?=?3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR?=?5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference?=?-6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference?=?5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR?=?2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR?=?5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.
| S-EPMC7859578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.
| S-EPMC8231929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsOriginal studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models.ResultsOf 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.
| S-EPMC8327046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of asthma on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains largely unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the asthma prevalence among patients with COVID-19 and compare outcomes between patients with and without asthma.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, bioRxiv, and medRxiv for studies reporting asthma prevalence in general patients with COVID-19 or comparing outcomes between patients with and without asthma, and excluded duplicate publications, reviews, editorials, comments, single case reports, or small case series (<10 cases). We determined the pooled estimates of effect using random-effect model.ResultsOn the basis of 131 studies (410,382 patients), we found great variability in the prevalence of comorbid asthma among patients with COVID-19 in different countries or regions ranging from 1.1% to 16.9%. No significant difference in asthma prevalence was found between hospitalized and nonhospitalized (risk ratio [RR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.92-1.43), severe and nonsevere (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.57), intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.54), dead and survived (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.11), intubated/mechanically ventilated and nonintubated/mechanically ventilated (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.17) patients with COVID-19. Patients with asthma have a lower risk of death compared with patients without asthma (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98). Asthma is not associated with a higher risk of intubation or mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72-1.46).ConclusionsThere is great variability in asthma prevalence among patients with COVID-19 in different countries or regions. Asthma is not associated with higher COVID-19 severity or worse prognosis, and patients with asthma are found to have a lower risk of death compared with patients without asthma.
| S-EPMC7725230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 outbreak has rapidly expanded to a global pandemic; however, our knowledge is limited with regards to the protective factors against this infection. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 related outcomes. A systematic search of relevant papers published until January 2022 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRISs). The primary outcomes included the risk of COVID-19 infection (primary prevention studies on uninfected individuals), hospital admission (secondary prevention studies on mild COVID-19 cases), and ICU admission and mortality rate (tertiary prevention studies on hospitalized COVID-19 patients). We identified five studies (one RCT, four NRISs) on primary prevention, with five (two RCTs, three NRISs) on secondary prevention, and 13 (six RCTs, seven NRISs) on tertiary prevention. Pooled analysis showed no significant effect on the risk of COVID-19 infection. No meta-analysis was possible on hospitalization risk due to paucity of data. Vitamin D supplementation was significantly associated with a reduced risk of ICU admission (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.62) and mortality (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70). Vitamin D supplementation had no significant impact on the risk of COVID-19 infection, whereas it showed protective effects against mortality and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9147949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related stigma and its associated factors among Egyptian physicians.MethodsA cross-sectional study using an anonymous online questionnaire was conducted from 7 to 21 June 2020. The survey was distributed via social media and email to physicians working in Egypt through convenience sampling.Results509 physicians participated in the study (mean age: 41.5±10.2). 138 (27.1%) participants were directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients. 159 (31.2%) participants reported severe level of COVID-19-related stigma. Participants' mean overall COVID-19-related stigma score was 40.6±8.0. The mean subscale scores were: personalized stigma 26.0±5.7, disclosure concerns 9.3±2.2, negative self-image 6.9±1.6, and concern with public attitudes 24.4±4.9. In the multivariable regression analyses, the overall COVID-19-related stigma score was higher in participants with lower qualifications (? = -0.19, 95% CI: 2.32, -0.64, p = 0.001), and in those working in a quarantine hospital (? = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01, 7.14, p = 0.050).ConclusionsA considerable proportion of Egyptian physicians in this exploratory study experienced COVID-19-related stigmatization. These preliminary findings highlight the need for specific research and targeted interventions particularly addressing COVID-19-related stigmatization among healthcare workers.
| S-EPMC7748273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.
| S-EPMC8054852 | biostudies-literature