Search

Context: Edentulous patients under the use of removable prosthesis face important restrictions, including sociocultural ones and, for this reason, the insertion of implants has become frequent in clinical dental practice. However, the success of the method will depend on the sort of different types of bone grafting, quality of donor area and the residual amount of bone left in insertion site. Purpose: the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of bone grafts used in maxillary sinus lifting surgeries for implant insertion. Methods: systematic review of randomized clinical trials or quasi-randomized. We used the guidelines of the manual of systematic reviews from Cochrane Collaboration and a sensitive search strategy in three electronic databases has been built. Results: We included six randomized clinical trials from different regions of the world with 135 participants. Bone volume was 3% higher on the grafted site with autogenic bone pure, but not a statistically significant difference DM: 3 (-8.48-14.48), the average percentage between the vital and non-vital bone showed up 0.82% higher on the grafted site with FDBA + PRP. The average percentage of vital tissue was also 15.8% higher on the side where PRP was used. Conclusion: the available evidence is insufficient to recommend a specific type of bone grafting in sinus augmentation (lift) procedures to place a dental implant. There was no statistically significant difference for bone volume, sensory loss, local inflammatory response and loss of implants, among others. For this reason, new randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of bone graft for lifting of the maxillary sinus are necessary. Key-words: Maxillary sinus. Grafting, survey, technique, materials.

Background Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to increased severity of numerous viral infections. Objective To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and LOVE for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to March 2nd evaluating the effects of vitamin D for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Two authors selected studies and analyzed the data evidence following Cochrane Recommendations. Results We included three RCTs with a total of 285 participants. We found low certainty-evidence indicating that hospitalized patients under calcifediol plus standard care (SC) treatment seem to present a significantly lower risk of being admitted to ICU, but no difference on mortality. We found low to very low certainty-evidence that the improvement in fibrinogen levels is slightly greater in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 that used cholecalciferol plus SC than in those treated with placebo plus SC [Mean difference, and the patients that used cholecalciferol plus SC achieved more SARS-CoV-2 negativity, but not on d-dimer, c-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin when compared with the patients in the placebo plus SC group. We also found low to moderate certainty-evidence that a single high dose of vitamin D does not seem to be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admissions, and d-dimer or CRP levels when used in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Conclusions As a practical implication, the use of vitamin D associated with SC seems to provide some benefit to patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence is currently insufficient to support the routine use of vitamin D for the management of COVID-19, as its effectiveness seems to depend on the dosage, on the baseline vitamin D levels, and on the degree of COVID-19 severity.

SUMMARY The aim of this rapid systematic review is to analyze the prevalence of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics, laboratory and imaging findings, diagnostic tests, and treatment information of older adults with COVID-19. To conduct this systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook recommendations will be followed. Patients aged 60 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Spanish Bibliographic Index on Health Sciences (IBECS) and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform. No language restrictions will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used. The meta-analysis will be performed using R software. We believe this rapid systematic review will be able to summarize the currently available evidence on clinical, socioeconomic characteristics, and management of COVID-19 in older adults. Therefore, it will help implement adequate strategies to fight the pandemic and assist in understanding the clinical profile of older patients with COVID-19, providing data with due scientific support upon which to base future choices of procedures and interventions. RESUMO O objetivo desta rápida revisão sistemática é analisar a prevalência de características clínicas, socioeconômicas e demográficas, achados laboratoriais e de imagem, testes de diagnóstico e informações de tratamento de idosos com COVID-19. Para conduzir esta revisão sistemática, serão seguidas as recomendações do Manual Cochrane. Pacientes com 60 anos ou mais com diagnóstico confirmado de infecção por Sars-CoV-2 serão incluídos. Uma pesquisa bibliográfica abrangente será realizada nas seguintes bases de dados: Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs), Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol em Ciências da Saúde (Ibecs) e Epistemonikos Plataforma COVID-19 L · OVE. Nenhuma restrição de idioma será aplicada. Para avaliar a qualidade metodológica e a certeza das evidências dos estudos incluídos, serão utilizadas a Escala Newcastle-Ottawa e a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (Grade). A meta-análise será realizada no software R. Acreditamos que esta revisão sistemática rápida será capaz de resumir as evidências atualmente disponíveis sobre as características clínicas, socioeconômicas e sobre o manejo de idosos com COVID-19. Portanto, ajudará a implementar estratégias adequadas para combater a pandemia e ajudará a entender o perfil clínico de pacientes idosos com COVID-19, fornecendo dados com o devido apoio científico sobre o qual basear futuras escolhas de procedimentos e intervenções.

Background There are few publications on search strategies to identify diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in lilacs. Objective To translate and customise medline search strategies for use in lilacs and assess their retrieval of studies in Cochrane DTA systematic reviews. Method We developed a six-step process to translate and customise medline search strategies for use in lilacs (iAHx interface). We identified medline search strategies of published Cochrane DTA reviews, translated/customised them for use in lilacs, ran searches in lilacs and compared the retrieval results of our translated search strategy versus the one used in the published reviews. Results Our lilacs search strategies translated/customised from the medline strategies retrieved studies in 70 Cochrane DTA reviews. Only 29 of these reviews stated that they had searched the lilacs database and 21 published their lilacs search strategies. Few had used the lilacs database search tools, none exploded the subject headings, and 86% used only English terms. Conclusion Translating and tailoring a medline search strategy for the lilacs database resulted in the retrieval of DTA studies that would have been missed otherwise.

Background Alopecia areata (AA) is a complex immune and polygenic inflammatory disease that causes hair loss on some or all areas of the body; extent, severity and progression vary widely among individuals. Alopecia areata, considered one of the most frequently occurring immune diseases, affects 0.2% of the world population at any given time. Uncertainty prevails about the most appropriate intervention for AA. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of over 80 interventions for AA, including minoxidil - one of the most promising interventions for patchy AA in children and adults of both sexes. Material and methods An extensive search was conducted of international medical literature involving randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of AA interventions. RCTs were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively according to the previously published protocol and for seven specific outcomes. Results The meta-analysis involving 5% minoxidil vs. placebo presented a significant difference in favor of 5% minoxidil with the moderate quality of evidence in children and adults with patchy AA (RR 8.37 [3.16-22.14], 95% CI). No severe adverse event was reported. Conclusions Treatment of patchy AA with 5% minoxidil proved effective, and clinically and statistically safe in studies with limited sample size; quality of evidence was moderate. Further studies with sound methodological quality, more participants and outcome observations lasting longer than 6 months are needed to address remaining uncertainties.

Contextualização e objetivos: A pandemia do novo coronavírus causou até o momento cerca de 3 milhões de mortes no mundo e mudanças significativas na rotina da população. O distanciamento social, o uso de máscaras e as restrições gerais são preconizadas pelos governos como estratégias primárias obrigatórias não medicamentosas, que devem ser incorporadas à sociedade por muito tempo. O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a eficácia das estratégias governamentais não medicamentosas para COVID-19. Desenho de estudo: Trata-se de scoping review. Metodologia: Procedeu-se à busca por estudos no Medline/PUBMED, na Cochrane Library e na EMBASE. Foram utilizados descritores do DECS e não houve restrição geográfica e temporal das publicações. Os critérios de inclusão envolveram estudos em humanos abrangendo a exposição às estratégias governamentais não medicamentosas, sendo prioridade o distanciamento social, o uso de máscaras e o lockdown. Resultados: A estratégia de busca recuperou 365 citações e, destas, 9 estudos foram incluídos nessa revisão. Discussão: A maioria dos estudos envolve estudos observacionais e sugerem que o distanciamento social, o lockdown e o uso de máscaras faciais podem reduzir a incidência de novos casos de COVID-19. Conclusão: As estratégias de distanciamento físico, de lockdown e o uso de máscaras faciais apresentaram resultado benéfico na maioria dos estudos analisados, contribuindo para a redução de novos casos de COVID-19.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy of digital health technology (DHT) for delivering and monitoring exercise programs, increasing adherence to exercise regimens and improving key clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (CF).

Objective: To synthesize the available data on the economic burden of Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Influenza-Like Illness (ILI), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-related Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI), and Parainfluenza Virus type III (PIV3)-related ARI in Upper-Middle-Income Countries (UMIC), highlighting its major causes and comparing direct costs among nations. Study design: Systematic review, following the recommendations proposed in the Cochrane Handbook, but with some adaptations from previous economic studies. Review question: Is there any economic cost of viral ARI in UMIC? Types of studies to be included: Partial economic evaluation, such as Cost-of-Illness (COI) studies and burden of illness/diseases, database analysis, observational reports (cross-sectional studies, and prospective and retrospective cohort), and economic modelling studies that discuss one of the viral ARI in UMIC. No year of publication filter or language limit will be applied. Search databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, EconLit, CRD Library, MedRxiv, and Research Square. Moreover, hand searches of the bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews identified during the screening process will be undertaken to identify any additional relevant study for inclusion in our review. Synthesis of results: Qualitative analysis. We will focus on the overall economic burden of the diseases on health systems and population; total direct cost; the contribution of different cost components to the economic burden (e.g. pharmacological therapy, hospitalization); comparative assessments of costs analysis across geographical location and time horizon; and current research gaps. Moreover, we intend to identify, when presented, prevalence and incidence rates of each disease. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020225757.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of cases of arboviral diseases have increased in tropical and subtropical regions while the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelms healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical manifestations of arboviral diseases, especially dengue fever, can be very similar to COVID-19, and misdiagnoses are still a reality. In the meantime, outcomes for patients and healthcare systems in situations of possible syndemic have not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review to understand and summarize the evidence relating to clinical manifestations, disease severity and prognoses among patients coinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and arboviruses. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis, on prospective and retrospective cohorts, case-control studies and case series of patients with confirmed diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 and arboviral infection. We followed the Cochrane Handbook recommendations. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science to identify published, ongoing and unpublished studies. We planned to extract data and assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence of the studies included, using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. RESULTS: We were able to retrieve 2,407 citations using the search strategy, but none of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The clinical presentations, disease severity and prognoses of patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and arboviruses remain unclear. Further prospective studies are necessary in order to provide useful information for clinical decision-making processes. Protocol registration number in the PROSPERO database: CRD42020183460

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia. Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

BackgroundRelapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMM) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory and immune-mediated disease that affects the central nervous system and is characterized by episodes of neurological dysfunction followed by a period of remission. The pharmacological strategy aims to delay the progression of the disease and prevent relapse. Interferon beta and glatiramer are commonly used in the Brazilian public health system and are available to patients who meet the guideline criteria. The scenario of multiple treatments available and in development brings the need for discussion and evaluation of the technologies already available before the incorporation of new drugs. This study analyses the effectiveness of first-line treatment of RRMS measured by real-world evidence data, from the Brazilian National Health System (SUS).Methods and findingsWe conducted a non-concurrent national cohort between 2000 and 2015. The study population consisted of 22,722 patients with RRMS using one of the following first-line drugs of interest: glatiramer or one of three presentations of interferon beta. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the time to treatment failure. A univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate factors associated with treatment failure. In addition, patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) in six groups of comparative first-line treatments to evaluate the effectiveness among them. The analysis indicated a higher risk of treatment failure in female patients (HR = 1.08; P = 0,01), those with comorbidities at baseline (HR = 1.20; PConclusionsThis retrospective cohort suggests that glatiramer is associated with greater effectiveness compared to the three presentations of interferon beta. When evaluating beta interferons, the results suggest that the intramuscular presentation is not effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, the right to healthcare and the incorporation of best scientific evidence in public health are universally guaranteed by law. However, the treatment offered to patients with mental disorders in custodial hospitals in this country has not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the psychiatric diagnoses and treatments implemented in three Brazilian custodial institutions. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional and descriptive study on patients held in custody in three Brazilian institutions, as judicially-determined safety measures due to their mental disorders, and the tools used in diagnoses and treatments. These institutions are in Rio de Janeiro and the Federal District. METHODS: The data from medical and judicial records that were made available were assessed regarding the diagnoses that were made and the instruments that were used. RESULTS: None of these inpatients were evaluated using validated tools, and only a few medical records presented clear descriptions of the cases. No patient with substance involvement had undergone laboratory toxicological assays. It was not possible to verify the adequacy of treatments because the procedures were inadequately described in the records. CONCLUSIONS: No standardized protocols or instruments for diagnosing mental health disorders or assessing use of psychoactive substances had been applied among the inpatients at these custodial institutions in Rio de Janeiro and the Federal District. The treatments that were prescribed to these inpatients consisted mainly of drugs.

Objectives To determine whether the generic and branded warfarins used as anticoagulants in Brazil are therapeutic equivalents based on their international normalized ratio (INR) results. Methods This crossover randomized controlled trial had four periods. We used the branded Marevan and two generic versions of warfarin sodium tablets, manufactured by União Química and Teuto laboratories, all purchased from retail drugstores. Eligible participants were outpatients from an anticoagulation clinic at a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. They had atrial fibrillation or flutter and had been using warfarin for at least 2 months with an INR therapeutic range of 2.0–3.0. Randomization was by numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Healthcare personnel and outcome assessors were blinded to treatments, but patients were not. The primary outcome was the variability in the INR (ΔINR) and secondary outcomes included mean INR. We accepted formulations as equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the comparison of ΔINR between branded and generic formulations was within the limit of ±0.49. Results One hundred patients were recruited and randomized to six sequences of treatment (four sequences with n = 17 and two sequences with n = 16). União Química generic warfarin had equivalent variability in the INR to Marevan (ΔINR +0.09 [95% CI -0.29 to +0.46], n = 84). Comparison between Teuto generic warfarin and Marevan was inconclusive (ΔINR +0.29 [95% CI -0.09 to +0.68], n = 84). Conclusions Marevan and União Química warfarin had equivalent therapeutic effectiveness and both could be confidently used for anticoagulation. The comparison between Marevan and TW was inconclusive and does not warrant a statement of equivalence. Our methods are especially important for comparing generic and branded drugs that raise concerns and may be subject of future investigations by regulatory agents. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017197.

BACKGROUND: Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective. OBJECTIVE: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment. RESULTS: Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated. CONCLUSION: Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.

This protocol is withdrawn because authors are unable to progress to the final review stage.

Introduction: The COVID-19 infection has high transmissibility and several measures have been adopted for dissemination control. Objective: To identify and summarize the evidence from the Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) on measures to control the dissemination of the COVID-19 infection. Study design: This review of Cochrane SR has carried out in the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery and in the Division of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine of the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil. Methods: A comprehensive search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews retrieved all Cochrane SR directly related to control measures for the COVID-19 dissemination. The main characteristics and results of all included SR were summarized and discussed. Results: Three Cochrane SRs were included in the qualitative synthesis and they evaluated populational and individual measures to control the dissemination of COVID-19. Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence show that quarantine of people exposed to those confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases prevented 44% - 81% of incident cases and 31% - 63% of deaths compared to no measures and as sooner the quarantine measures are implemented, greater costs are saved. High-confidence evidence showed that clear communication about infection control and prevention guidelines was vital to its implementation. Low-certainty evidence showed that people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and the coverall was more difficult to doff. Other SRs are desirable for controlling the dissemination of the COVID-19 infection.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVEDetermining prognostic factors in a context of health crises such as the COVID-19 scenario may provide the best possible care for patients and optimize the management and the resource utilization of the health system. Thus, we aim to systematically review the prognostic factors for different outcomes of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the recommendations proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. METHODS: We will include cohorts and case-control studies. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS-LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify studies. No language restrictions will be applied. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

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.

Background Warfarin is a commonly used anticoagulant. Whether a given dose of the different formulations of Brazilian warfarin will result in the same effect on the international normalized ratio (INR) is uncertain. The aim of the WARFA trial is to determine whether the branded and two generic warfarins available in Brazil differ in their effect on the INR. Methods WARFA is a cross-over RCT comparing three warfarins. The formulations tested are the branded Marevan® (Uniao Quimica/Farmoquimica) and two generic warfarin (manufactured respectively by Uniao Quimica Farmaceutica Nacional and Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro). All of them were manufactured in Brazil, are available in all settings of the Brazilian healthcare system and were purchased from retail drugstores. Eligible participants had atrial fibrillation or flutter, had been using warfarin for at least 2 months with a therapeutic range of 2.0–3.0 and had low variability in INR results during the 1st period of the trial. Our primary outcome, for which we have an equality hypothesis, is the difference between warfarins in the mean absolute difference between two INR results, obtained after three and 4 weeks with each drug. Our secondary outcomes, that will be tested for inequality (except for the mean INR, which will be tested for equality), include the difference in the warfarin dose, and time in therapeutic range. Clinical events and adherence were also recorded and will be reported. Discussion To our knowledge, WARFA will be the first comparison of the more readily applicable INR results between branded and generic warfarins in Brazil. WARFA is important because warfarins are commonly switched between in the course of a chronic treatment in Brazil. Final results of WARFA are expected in May 2017. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017197 . Registered 11 December 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0584-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This cross-sectional, observational, and descriptive study was conducted to evaluate the association between age at menarche in the adolescent population and the age at sexual initiation, age at first pregnancy, and experience of sexual violence in the adolescent population visiting a primary health unit in Brazil. We recruited 201 female adolescents who visited the gynecology outpatient clinic of a Basic Health Unit in the Federal District of Brazil. These adolescents answered a questionnaire with regard to sexual and reproductive health during doctor’s appointments. To calculate the association, we recorded data for age at menarche, age at first sexual intercourse, age at first pregnancy, and experience of sexual violence. Pearson and Mann–Whitney correlation coefficient statistical tests were performed to evaluate the association between these variables. Mean age at menarche was lower among adolescents who became pregnant (p=0.0004) and those who experienced sexual violence (p=0.0008). Further, there was a strong association between age at menarche and age at first sexual intercourse (p<0.0001). This study also demonstrated that the earlier the age at menarche, the earlier was the age at sexual initiation and age at first unintended pregnancy and the greater was the risk of experiencing sexual violence. Early menarche may be considered a vulnerability factor during adolescence.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has emerged as a tool for overcoming the challenges of healthcare systems and is likely to become increasingly viable, since information and communication technologies have become more sophisticated and user-friendly. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on telemedicine within healthcare and to summarize the current evidence regarding its use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of CSRs, developed at the Discipline of Emergency and Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: We searched for studies that compared use of telemedicine with conventional treatment or management of diseases within healthcare. Diagnostic telemedicine studies or studies using automatic text, voice-text or even self-managed care were excluded. The main characteristics and the certainty of evidence were synthetized and critically discussed by all authors. RESULTS: We included 10 CSRs that investigated a broad range of diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to determine what types of telemedicine interventions are effective, for which patients and in which settings, and whether such interventions can be used as a replacement for the standard treatment. Harm relating to telemedicine technologies needs to be better investigated and addressed. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine might be an excellent way to facilitate access to treatment, monitoring and dissemination of important clinical knowledge. However, given the recognition of systematic reviews as the best evidence resource available for decision-making, further randomized controlled trials with stricter methods are necessary to reduce the uncertainties in evidence-based use of telemedicine.

Objective: To review and assess the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered in faith-based organizations. Data Source: We searched the Cochrane Library, DoPHER, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases until January 2016, without restriction of language or publication date. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating physical activity interventions for adults delivered in faith-based organizations. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study methodological quality. Data Synthesis: We used relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence interval to estimate the effect of the interventions on measures of physical activity, physical fitness, and health. Results: The review included 18 studies. Study participants were predominantly female, and the majority of trials were conducted in the United States. Study heterogeneity did not allow us to conduct meta-analyses. Although interventions delivered in faith-based organizations increased physical activity and positively influenced measures of health and fitness in participants, the quality of the evidence was very low. Conclusion: Faith-based organizations are promising settings to promote physical activity, consequently addressing health disparities. However, high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to adequately assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered in faith-based organizations.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta- analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91, 621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.