Search

Background: A lack of health resources is a common problem after the outbreak of infectious diseases, and resource optimization is an important means to solve the lack of prevention and control capacity caused by resource constraints. This study systematically evaluated the similarities and differences in the application of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) resource allocation models and analyzed the effects of different optimal resource allocations on epidemic control. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted of CNKI, WanFang, VIP, CBD, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase for articles published from January 1, 2019, through November 23, 2023. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies, extracted and cross-checked the data. Moreover, publication bias and sensitivity analysis were evaluated. Results: A total of 22 articles were included for systematic review; in the application of optimal allocation models, 59.09% of the studies used propagation dynamics models to simulate the allocation of various resources, and some scholars also used mathematical optimization functions (36.36%) and machine learning algorithms (31.82%) to solve the problem of resource allocation; the results of the systematic review show that differential equation modeling was more considered when testing resources optimization, the optimization function or machine learning algorithm were mostly used to optimize the bed resources; the meta-analysis results showed that the epidemic trend was obviously effectively controlled through the optimal allocation of resources, and the average control efficiency was 0.38(95%CI 0.25–0.51); Subgroup analysis revealed that the average control efficiency from high to low was health specialists 0.48(95%CI 0.37–0.59), vaccines 0.47(95%CI 0.11–0.82), testing 0.38(95%CI 0.19–0.57), personal protective equipment (PPE) 0.38(95%CI 0.06–0.70), beds 0.34(95%CI 0.14–0.53), medicines and equipment for treatment 0.32(95%CI 0.12–0.51); Funnel plots and Egger's test showed no publication bias, and sensitivity analysis suggested robust results. Conclusion: When the data are insufficient and the simulation time is short, the researchers mostly use the constructor for research; When the data are relatively sufficient and the simulation time is long, researchers choose differential equations or machine learning algorithms for research. In addition, our study showed that control efficiency is an important indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of epidemic prevention and control. Through the optimization of medical staff and vaccine allocation, greater prevention and control effects can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Most studies investigated the relationship between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) by comparing the incidence of GBS before and during the pandemic of COVID-19. However, the findings were inconsistent, probably owing to varying degrees of the lockdown policy. The quarantine requirements and travel restrictions in China were lifted around December 7, 2022. This study aimed to explore whether the relative frequency of GBS increased during the major outbreak in the absence of COVID-19-mandated social restrictions in China. Methods: GBS patients admitted to the First Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, from December 7, 2022 to February 20, 2023, and from June, 2017 to August, 2019 were included. The relative frequencies of GBS in hospitalized patients during different periods were compared. The patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection within six weeks prior to GBS onset formed the COVID-GBS group and non-COVID-GBS group, respectively. Results: The relative frequency of GBS among hospitalized patients during the major outbreak of COVID-19 (13/14,408) was significantly higher than that before the COVID-19 epidemic (29/160,669, P < 0.001). More COVID-GBS patients (11/13) presented AIDP subtype than non-COVID-GBS cases (10/27, P = 0.003). The mean interval between onset of infective symptoms and GBS was longer in COVID-GBS (21.54 ± 11.56 days) than in non-COVID-GBS (5.76 ± 3.18 days, P < 0.001). Conclusions: COVID-19 significantly increased the incidence of GBS. Most COVID-GBS patients fell into the category of AIDP, responded well to IVIg, and had a favorable prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]