Dataset Information

Effects of climate variables on the transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review of 62 ecological studies.

ABSTRACT: The new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was initially discovered at the end of 2019 in Wuhan City in China and has caused one of the most serious global public health crises. A collection and analysis of studies related to the association between COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) transmission and meteorological factors, such as humidity, is vital and indispensable for disease prevention and control. A comprehensive literature search using various databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, was systematically performed to identify eligible studies from Dec 2019 to Feb 1, 2021. We also established six criteria to screen the literature to obtain high-quality literature with consistent research purposes. This systematic review included a total of 62 publications. The study period ranged from 1 to 8 months, with 6 papers considering incubation, and the lag effect of climate factors on COVID-19 activity being taken into account in 22 studies. After quality assessment, no study was found to have a high risk of bias, 30 studies were scored as having moderate risks of bias, and 32 studies were classified as having low risks of bias. The certainty of evidence was also graded as being low. When considering the existing scientific evidence, higher temperatures may slow the progression of the COVID-19 epidemic. However, during the course of the epidemic, these climate variables alone could not account for most of the variability. Therefore, countries should focus more on health policies while also taking into account the influence of weather.

SUBMITTER: Zheng HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8364942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile numerous studies have assessed the effects of environmental (meteorological variables and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables on the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of them, however, have significant methodological limitations and errors that could call their results into question. Our main objective in this paper is to assess the methodological limitations in studies that evaluated the effects of environmental and socioeconomic variables on the spread of COVID-19.Main bodyWe carried out a systematic review by conducting searches in the online databases PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus up to December 31, 2020. We first excluded those studies that did not deal with SAR-CoV-2 or COVID-19, preprints, comments, opinion or purely narrative papers, reviews and systematic literature reviews. Among the eligible full-text articles, we then excluded articles that were purely descriptive and those that did not include any type of regression model. We evaluated the risk of bias in six domains: confounding bias, control for population, control of spatial and/or temporal dependence, control of non-linearities, measurement errors and statistical model. Of the 5631 abstracts initially identified, we were left with 132 studies on which to carry out the qualitative synthesis. Of the 132 eligible studies, we evaluated 63.64% of the studies as high risk of bias, 19.70% as moderate risk of bias and 16.67% as low risk of bias.ConclusionsAll the studies we have reviewed, to a greater or lesser extent, have methodological limitations. These limitations prevent conclusions being drawn concerning the effects environmental (meteorological and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables have had on COVID-19 outcomes. However, we dare to argue that the effects of these variables, if they exist, would be indirect, based on their relationship with social contact.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-021-00550-7.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse mental health consequences of COVID-19, including anxiety and depression, have been widely predicted but not yet accurately measured. There are a range of physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but it is not known if there are also psychiatric risk factors. In this electronic health record network cohort study using data from 69 million individuals, 62 354 of whom had a diagnosis of COVID-19, we assessed whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 (compared with other health events) was associated with increased rates of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses, and whether patients with a history of psychiatric illness are at a higher risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19.MethodsWe used the TriNetX Analytics Network, a global federated network that captures anonymised data from electronic health records in 54 health-care organisations in the USA, totalling 69·8 million patients. TriNetX included 62 354 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan 20, and Aug 1, 2020. We created cohorts of patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or a range of other health events. We used propensity score matching to control for confounding by risk factors for COVID-19 and for severity of illness. We measured the incidence of and hazard ratios (HRs) for psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia, during the first 14 to 90 days after a diagnosis of COVID-19.FindingsIn patients with no previous psychiatric history, a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with increased incidence of a first psychiatric diagnosis in the following 14 to 90 days compared with six other health events (HR 2·1, 95% CI 1·8-2·5 vs influenza; 1·7, 1·5-1·9 vs other respiratory tract infections; 1·6, 1·4-1·9 vs skin infection; 1·6, 1·3-1·9 vs cholelithiasis; 2·2, 1·9-2·6 vs urolithiasis, and 2·1, 1·9-2·5 vs fracture of a large bone; all p<0·0001). The HR was greatest for anxiety disorders, insomnia, and dementia. We observed similar findings, although with smaller HRs, when relapses and new diagnoses were measured. The incidence of any psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 18·1% (95% CI 17·6-18·6), including 5·8% (5·2-6·4) that were a first diagnosis. The incidence of a first diagnosis of dementia in the 14 to 90 days after COVID-19 diagnosis was 1·6% (95% CI 1·2-2·1) in people older than 65 years. A psychiatric diagnosis in the previous year was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis (relative risk 1·65, 95% CI 1·59-1·71; p<0·0001). This risk was independent of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19, but we cannot exclude possible residual confounding by socioeconomic factors.InterpretationSurvivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically reivew the observational evidence of the effect of school closures and school reopenings on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission.SettingSchools (including early years settings, primary schools and secondary schools).InterventionSchool closures and reopenings.Outcome measureCommunity transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (including any measure of community infections rate, hospital admissions or mortality attributed to COVID-19).MethodsOn 7 January 2021, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, the WHO Global COVID-19 Research Database, ERIC, the British Education Index, the Australian Education Index and Google, searching title and abstracts for terms related to SARS-CoV-2 AND terms related to schools or non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool to evaluate bias.ResultsWe identified 7474 articles, of which 40 were included, with data from 150 countries. Of these, 32 studies assessed school closures and 11 examined reopenings. There was substantial heterogeneity between school closure studies, with half of the studies at lower risk of bias reporting reduced community transmission by up to 60% and half reporting null findings. The majority (n=3 out of 4) of school reopening studies at lower risk of bias reported no associated increases in transmission.ConclusionsSchool closure studies were at risk of confounding and collinearity from other non-pharmacological interventions implemented around the same time as school closures, and the effectiveness of closures remains uncertain. School reopenings, in areas of low transmission and with appropriate mitigation measures, were generally not accompanied by increasing community transmission. With such varied evidence on effectiveness, and the harmful effects, policymakers should take a measured approach before implementing school closures; and should look to reopen schools in times of low transmission, with appropriate mitigation measures.

Dataset Information

Effects of climate variables on the transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review of 62 ecological studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets