Search

Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE[R], Embase[R], Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews' methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people's digital and health literacy. [phrase omitted] Objectif Comparer et synthetiser la litterature consacree a l'infodemie et a la desinformation sanitaire, mais aussi identifier les defis et opportunites inherents a la lutte contre cette problematique. Methodes Nous avons explore les bases de donnees MEDLINE[R], Embase[R], Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus et Epistemonikos le 6 mai 2022 a la recherche de revues systematiques analysant les infodemies, la desinformation, les fausses informations et les <> liees a la sante. Nous avons ensuite regroupe les etudes en fonction de leurs similitudes et en avons extrait des elements probants relatifs aux defis et opportunites. Nous avons employe l'approche AMSTAR-2 afin de mesurer la qualite methodologique des differentes revues. Enfin, pour evaluer la qualite des elements probants, nous avons utilise les criteres du systeme GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, soit <>). Resultats Nos recherches nous ont permis de denicher 31 revues systematiques, dont 17 ont ete publiees. Sur les reseaux sociaux, le pourcentage d'informations fallacieuses concernant la sante etait compris entre 0,2 et 28,8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube et Instagram jouent un role preponderant dans la propagation rapide d'informations a grande echelle. Cette desinformation entraine de multiples consequences negatives: hausse du nombre d'interpretations erronees ou trompeuses des preuves existantes, impact sur la sante mentale mauvaise affectation des ressources en sante et mefiance croissante vis-a-vis de la vaccination. La proliferation des informations sanitaires non fiables retarde la prise en charge tout en alimentant les reticences et les discours clivants. Neanmoins, les reseaux sociaux peuvent aussi se reveler utiles dans la lutte contre la desinformation lors des crises. Les revues examinees soulignent la qualite mediocre des etudes publiees durant les crises sanitaires. Conclusion Tout porte a croire que les infodemies qui surgissent dans le cadre des urgences sanitaires sont nefastes pour la societe. Des actions multisectorielles sont necessaires pour combattre les fausses informations, notamment le developpement de politiques juridiques l'elaboration et le deploiement de campagnes de sensibilisation l'amelioration des contenus dedies a la sante dans les medias de masse et une meilleure education a la culture numerique et a la sante. [phrase omitted] La infodemia y la informacion erronea sobre la salud: una revision sistematica de las revisiones Objetivo Comparar y resumir la literatura relacionada con la infodemia y la informacion erronea sobre la salud, e identificar los desafios y las oportunidades para abordar los problemas de la infodemia. Metodos Se realizaron busquedas en MEDLINE[R], Embase[R], la Biblioteca Cochrane de Revisiones Sistematicas, Scopus y Epistemonikos el 6 de mayo de 2022 para obtener revisiones sistematicas que analizaran la infodemia, la informacion erronea, la desinformacion y las noticias falsas relacionadas con la salud. Se agruparon los estudios en funcion de la similitud y se recuperaron las pruebas sobre los desafios y las oportunidades. Se utilizo el enfoque AMSTAR-2 para valorar la calidad metodologica de las revisiones. Ademas, para evaluar la calidad de las pruebas, se utilizaron los criterios del sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, o bien, el grado asignado a las recomendaciones, la valoracion, el desarrollo y la evaluacion). Resultados Nuestra busqueda identifico 31 revisiones sistematicas, de las que 17 estaban publicadas. El porcentaje de informacion erronea relacionada con la salud en las redes sociales oscilo entre el 0,2 y el 28,8 %. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube e Instagram son fundamentales en la difusion de la informacion rapida y de gran alcance. Las consecuencias mas negativas de la informacion erronea sobre la salud son el aumento de las interpretaciones enganosas o incorrectas de las pruebas disponibles, el impacto en la salud mental, la asignacion inadecuada de los recursos sanitarios y el aumento de las dudas sobre la vacunacion. El aumento de la informacion sanitaria poco fiable retrasa la prestacion de cuidados y aumenta la aparicion de una retorica de rechazo y division. Por otra parte, los medios sociales podrian ser una herramienta util para combatir la informacion erronea durante las crisis. Las revisiones incluidas destacan la mala calidad de los estudios publicados durante las crisis sanitarias. Conclusion Las pruebas disponibles sugieren que la infodemia durante las emergencias sanitarias tiene un efecto adverso en la sociedad. Se necesitan acciones multisectoriales para contrarrestar la infodemia y la informacion erronea sobre la salud, como el desarrollo de politicas legales, la creacion y promocion de campanas de sensibilizacion, la mejora de los contenidos relacionados con la salud en los medios de comunicacion y el aumento de la alfabetizacion digital y sanitaria de la poblacion., Introduction During crises, such as infectious disease outbreaks and disasters, the overproduction of data from multiple sources, the quality of the information and the speed at which new information is [...]

Background and Aims: Transient neurologic syndrome (TNS) is a postoperative pain in the back and buttock that can occur after spinal anesthesia. The spinal needle design may have an impact on the occurrence of TNS. We decided to compare the incidence of TNS and related factors between two spinal needle types. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 150 patients aged 18–60 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I who underwent lower abdomen or lower extremity surgeries with spinal anesthesia and supine position were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two groups (25 G Quincke or Sprotte needle) with 0.5% bupivacaine (12.5 mg). After the operation, the patients were asked to report any pain in the lower back, buttock, and thigh areas. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was also used to record the severity of the pain. Results: Overall, 45 patients developed TNS. Twenty‐nine patients in the Sprotte group (38.7%) and 16 patients in the Quincke group (21.3%) developed TNS (p = 0.75). More patients in the Sprotte group (25.3%) had severe pain (VAS score of 8–10) when compared with the Quincke group (6.7%). There was no significant difference in TNS symptoms duration between the two groups. In about half of patients (51.9%) in the Sprotte group and 57.3% of patients in the Quincke group, the symptoms resolved after 2–3 h. Conclusion: Although the incidence of TNS did not differ significantly, patients for whom a Sprotte spinal needle had been used had more severe pain. This suggests that the Quincke needle caused less severe pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews' methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people's digital and health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]