Search

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.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ten integrative practices that were recently added to the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). METHODS: Review of Cochrane SRs on the following interventions were identified, summarized and critically assessed: apitherapy, aromatherapy, bioenergetics, family constellation, flower therapy, chromotherapy, geotherapy, hypnotherapy, hand imposition or ozone therapy. RESULTS: We included a total of 16 SRs: 4 on apitherapy, 4 on aromatherapy, 6 on hypnotherapy and 2 on ozone therapy. No Cochrane SR was found regarding bioenergetics, family constellation, chromotherapy, clay therapy, flower therapy or hand imposition. The only high-quality evidence was in relation to the potential benefit of apitherapy, specifically regarding some benefits from honey dressings for partial healing of burn wounds, for reduction of coughing among children with acute coughs and for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. CONCLUSION: Except for some specific uses of apitherapy (honey for burn wounds and for acute coughs and bee venom for allergic reactions to insect stings), the use of ten integrative practices that have recently been incorporated into SUS does not seem to be supported by evidence from Cochrane SRs.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is a tool for assessing evidence produced in synthesis reports. OBJECTIVES: To present the translation into Portuguese of the GRADE checklist, whose original version is in English, and to describe and explain each topic, in order to provide examples to researchers and professionals who will use the tool. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study developed at Centro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil. METHODS: This was a translation of the GRADE checklist, with the addition of the Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool in the checklist, with examples of its use. RESULTS: Situations of practical use of the tool were presented in order to facilitate and expand the use of assessment of the quality and strength of evidence among Portuguese speakers. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE checklist is valuable in helping to assess the strength and quality of evidence for synthesis reports for healthcare decision-making.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: To the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic assessment of the classification of scientific production within the scope of radiation oncology relating to central nervous system tumors. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the status of evidence relating to the central nervous system and to evaluate the geographic origins and major content of these published data.DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive critical appraisal study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.METHODS: We evaluated all of the central nervous system studies published in the journal Radiotherapy & Oncology between 2003 and 2012. The studies identified were classified according to their methodological design and level of evidence. Information regarding the geographical location of the study, the institutions and authors involved in the publication, main condition or disease investigated and time of publication was also obtained.RESULTS: We identified 3,004 studies published over the 10-year period. Of these, 125 (4.2%) were considered eligible, and 66% of them were case series. Systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials accounted for approximately 10% of all the published papers. We observed an increase in high-quality evidence and a decrease in low-quality published papers over this period (P = 0.036). The inter-rater reliability demonstrated significant agreement between observers in terms of the level of evidence.CONCLUSIONS: Increases in high-level evidence and in the total number of central nervous system papers were clearly demonstrated, although the overall number of such studies remained relatively small.

CONTEXT: In Brazil, obstetricians and gynecologists are not required to submit to periodical evaluations to ascertain their professional competence in dealing with new concepts and therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of a group of obstetricians and gynecologists on a written evidence-based obstetrics test and determine their opinions and use of systematic reviews. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Brazilian Obstetrics and Gynecology Congress 2001. METHODS: 230 doctors agreed to participate in the study during a national obstetrics and gynecology congress. Participants took an individual anonymous written multiple-choice test with seven questions on clinical obstetrics, one question on the interpretation of a meta-analysis graph and two questions on their opinions and actual use of systematic reviews. Scores were analyzed and compared after grouping the participants according to year of graduation, residence training, doctoral program and faculty status. RESULTS: The general average score was 49.2 ± 17.4. The scores tended to decline as the years since graduation advanced. Doctors who graduated in the last five years had higher scores than those who graduated over 25 years ago (52.2 versus 42.9). The performance did not vary according to medical residence, postgraduate program or teaching status. While 98.2% considered systematic reviews relevant, only 54.9% said that they routinely used this source of information. DISCUSSION: The participants' average score was low, even though they were highly qualified and trained. Despite the limitations of the study, the results are worrisome. If motivated physicians participating in a national congress obtained such low scores, we can speculate that the results might be even worse among other doctors that do not attend these events. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists could benefit from continuing medical education and raise questions about the recycling methods currently available.