Radiotherapy based management during Covid-19 pandemic - A systematic review of presented consensus and guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Siavashpour Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242203 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsIndividuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.ResultsTwenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from 'very low' to 'moderate'. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk-benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.DiscussionClinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.
| S-EPMC7882764 | 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:ObjectivesThe primary aim of the study is to provide recommendations for the investigation and management of patients with new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAfter undertaking a literature review, we used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to reach consensus about treatment options, onward referral, and imaging.Setting and participantsAn expert panel consisting of 15 members was assembled. A literature review was undertaken prior to the study and evidence was summarised for the panellists.Main outcome measuresThe panel undertook a process of ranking and classifying appropriateness of different investigations and treatment options for new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a 9-point Likert scale, panellists scored whether a treatment was: Not recommended, optional, or recommended. Consensus was achieved when more than 70% of responses fell into the category defined by the mean.ResultsConsensus was reached on the majority of statements after 2 rounds of ranking. Disagreement meant no recommendation was made regarding one treatment, using Vitamin A drops. Alpha-lipoic acid was not recommended, olfactory training was recommended for all patients with persistent loss of sense of smell of more than 2 weeks duration, and oral steroids, steroid rinses, and omega 3 supplements may be considered on an individual basis. Recommendations regarding the need for referral and investigation have been made.ConclusionThis study identified the appropriateness of olfactory training, different medical treatment options, referral guidelines and imaging for patients with COVID-19-related loss of sense of smell. The guideline may evolve as our experience of COVID-19 develops.
| S-EPMC7461026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To review the existing available information regarding urolithiasis management and the impact of COVID-19 on this, and propose recommendations for management of emergency urolithiasis presentations in the COVID-19 era. METHODS:Review of published guidelines produced by Urological Governing Bodies, followed by the literature review regarding urolithiasis management during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS:Consistent recommendations across guidelines and literature were that urolithiasis with concurrent sepsis or renal failure remains a urological emergency warranting urgent intervention within the pandemic environment. Ureteric stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy are considered equivalent for decompression in this setting, with both ideally to be performed under local anaesthesia where possible to spare ventilators and reduce aerosol-generating procedures. Greater utilization of medical expulsive therapy and dissolution chemolysis may occur during the pandemic, and longer indwelling stent times may be accepted while definite stone clearance is deferred. CONCLUSIONS:Urolithiasis will continue to be a source of emergency presentations requiring urgent intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is possible to limit these interventions to decompression of the collecting system in the setting of concurrent obstruction or infection, performed under local anaesthesia to limit use of resources and minimise aerosol-generating procedures, with deferral of definitive management.
| S-EPMC7681178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of evidence-based clinical decision-making. Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) may help reduce morbidity and mortality by improving the quality of clinical decisions. This systematic review aims to evaluate the availability, inclusivity, and quality of pandemic influenza CMGs, to identify gaps that can be addressed to strengthen pandemic preparedness in this area. Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, TRIP (Turning Research Into Practice), and Guideline Central were searched systematically from January 2008 to 23rd June 2022, complemented by a grey literature search till 16th June 2022. Pandemic influenza CMGs including supportive care or empirical treatment recommendations were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their quality using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). The findings are presented narratively. Forty-eight CMGs were included. They were produced in high- (42%, 20/48), upper-middle- (40%, 19/48), and lower-middle (8%, 4/48) income countries, or by international organisations (10%, 5/48). Most CMGs (81%, 39/48) were over 5 years old. Guidelines included treatment recommendations for children (75%, 36/48), pregnant women (54%, 26/48), people with immunosuppression (33%, 16/48), and older adults (29%, 14/48). Many CMGs were of low quality (median overall score: 3 out of 7 (range 1-7). All recommended oseltamivir; recommendations for other neuraminidase inhibitors and supportive care were limited and at times contradictory. Only 56% (27/48) and 27% (13/48) addressed oxygen and fluid therapy, respectively. Our data highlights the limited availability of up-to-date pandemic influenza CMGs globally. Of those identified, many were limited in scope and quality and several lacked recommendations for specific at-risk populations. Recommendations on supportive care, the mainstay of treatment, were limited and heterogeneous. The most recent guideline highlighted that the evidence-base to support antiviral treatment recommendations is still limited. There is an urgent need for trials into treatment and supportive care strategies including for different risk populations. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient outcomes. A 'living guideline' framework is recommended and further research into guideline implementation in different resourced settings, particularly low- and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC9640791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge.ObjectiveTo summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic.Evidence acquisitionGuidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria.Evidence synthesisOf the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence).ConclusionsTo make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal.Patient summaryWe performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.
| S-EPMC7274599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the limited evidence of school closure effectiveness in containing the pandemic and the consequences for young people, reopening schools with appropriate measures is essential. This overview aimed to describe the main measures planned for the 2020-2021 academic year within the WHO European Region. A rapid systematic review of scientific databases was also performed. The websites of the government, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Education of European Region countries were searched through 1 October for official documents about the prevention and management of suspected cases/confirmed cases in primary and secondary schools. To find further suggestions, a rapid systematic review was conducted through 20 October searching Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. There were 23 official documents. France, Luxembourg, Malta, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, the UK, Spain, and San Marino were considered. Performing the rapid review, 855 records were identified and 7 papers were finally selected. The recommendations mostly agreed. However, there was no consensus on the criteria for the return to school of students that tested positive, and the flexibility between attendance at school and remote education for high-risk children often varied. School closure was commonly considered as the very last resort for COVID-19 control. Studies are required to evaluate the impact of different recommendations during this autumn term.
| S-EPMC7731329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.MethodsThe proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.DiscussionThe results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.
| S-EPMC8694758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the context of the current pandemic, there is a need for specific advice concerning treatment of patients with Head and Neck cancers. The rule is to limit as much as possible the number of patients in order to reduce the risks of contamination by the SARS-Cov-2 virus for both patients and the caregivers, who are particularly exposed in ENT. The aim is to minimize the risk of loss of opportunity for patients and to anticipate the increased number of cancer patients to be treated at the end of the pandemic, taking into account the degree of urgency, the difficulty of the surgery, the risk of contaminating the caregivers (tracheotomy) and the local situation (whether or not the hospital and intensive care departments are overstretched).
| S-EPMC7151337 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7164889 | biostudies-literature