-
International Journal of Environmental... May 2024The aircraft-acquired transmission of SARS-CoV-2 poses a public health risk. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and analysis of articles,... (Review)
Review
The aircraft-acquired transmission of SARS-CoV-2 poses a public health risk. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and analysis of articles, published prior to vaccines being available, from 24 January 2020 to 20 April 2021 to identify factors important for transmission. Articles were included if they mentioned index cases and identifiable flight duration, and excluded if they discussed non-commercial aircraft, airflow or transmission models, cases without flight data, or that were unable to determine in-flight transmission. From the 15 articles selected for in-depth review, 50 total flights were analyzed by flight duration both as a categorical variable-short (<3 h), medium (3-6 h), or long flights (>6 h)-and as a continuous variable with case counts modeled by negative binomial regression. Compared to short flights without masking, medium and long flights without masking were associated with 4.66-fold increase (95% CI: [1.01, 21.52]; < 0.0001) and 25.93-fold increase in incidence rates (95% CI: [4.1, 164]; < 0.0001), respectively; long flights with enforced masking had no transmission reported. A 1 h increase in flight duration was associated with 1.53-fold (95% CI: [1.19, 1.66]; < 0.001) increase in the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of cases. Masking should be considered for long flights.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Aircraft; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38928901
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21060654 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2024Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) applied to the Early Visual Cortex (EVC) has demonstrated the ability to suppress the perception on visual...
BACKGROUND
Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) applied to the Early Visual Cortex (EVC) has demonstrated the ability to suppress the perception on visual targets, akin to the effect of visual masking. However, the reported spTMS suppression effects across various studies have displayed inconsistency.
OBJECTIVE
We aim to test if the heterogeneity of the spTMS effects can be attributable to variations in experimental factors.
METHODS
We conducted a meta-analysis using data collected from the PubMed and Web of Science databases spanning from 1995 to March 2024. The meta-analysis encompassed a total of 40 independent experiments drawn from 33 original articles.
RESULTS
The findings unveiled an overall significant spTMS suppression effect on visual perception. Nevertheless, there existed substantial heterogeneity among the experiments. Univariate analysis elucidated that the spTMS effects could be significantly influenced by TMS intensity, visual angle of the stimulus, coil type, and TMS stimulators from different manufacturers. Reliable spTMS suppression effects were observed within the time windows of -80 to 0 ms and 50 to 150 ms. Multivariate linear regression analyses, which included SOA, TMS intensity, visual angle of the stimulus, and coil type, identified SOA as the key factor influencing the spTMS effects. Within the 50 to 150 ms time window, optimal SOAs were identified as 112 ms and 98 ms for objective and subjective performance, respectively. Collectively, multiple experimental factors accounted for 22.9% ( = 0.3353) and 39.9% ( = 0.3724) of the variance in objective and subjective performance, respectively. Comparing univariate and multivariate analyses, it was evident that experimental factors had different impacts on objective performance and subjective performance.
CONCLUSION
The present study provided quantitative recommendations for future experiments involving the spTMS effects on visual targets, offering guidance on how to configure experimental factors to achieve the optimal masking effect.
PubMed: 38894939
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1351399 -
BMJ Global Health Jun 2024During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face...
BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN
We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.
RESULTS
We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
358991.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Community Participation; Decision Making; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Public Health
PubMed: 38830748
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404 -
GMS Hygiene and Infection Control 2024Mounting evidence supports an association between the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the risk of infection from the severe acute respiratory syndrome...
BACKGROUND
Mounting evidence supports an association between the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the risk of infection from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in dental healthcare workers (DCW). However, the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the setting of dental care remains poorly characterized.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published prior to Mai 2023 providing epidemiological data for the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 in DCW was performed. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The associated factors were narratively evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for prevalence studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine eligible studies were identified including a total of 85,274 DCW at risk; 27 studies met the criteria for the meta-analysis. Among the included DCW, the overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 11.8% (13,155/85,274; 95%CI, 7.5%-17%), whereby the degree of heterogeneity between the studies was considerable (I=99.7%). The pooled prevalence rate for dentists and dental hygienists alone was 12.7% (1943/20,860; 95%CI, 8.0%-18.0%), showing significantly increased odds of contracting a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to dental assistant personnel, the prevalence rate for which was less than half, at 5.2% (613/15,066; OR=2.42; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7). In the subgroup of 17 studies from countries with high income there was a significantly lower prevalence rate of 7.3% (95% CI, 5%-10%) in DCW compared to the prevalence rate in low- and middle-income countries, which came to 20.8% (95% CI, 14%-29%; p<0.001). In 19 out of the 29 studies (65.5%), specific information on the use of and adherence to PPE was absent while in the reports with concrete figures the wearing of N95 (or at least surgical masks) by DCW appeared to be associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 prevalence rates.
CONCLUSIONS
DCW were, depending in each case on their proximity to patients, at particular risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Until a significant level of vaccination protection against newer SARS-CoV-2 variants can be built up in the population, dental healthcare facilities should further maintain their focus on using PPE according to current guidelines.
PubMed: 38655123
DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000464 -
Nursing Reports (Pavia, Italy) Feb 2024(1) Background: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increasing number of women giving birth while also grappling with SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this review is... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increasing number of women giving birth while also grappling with SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this review is to examine the possibility of transmission of the virus from mother to infant through breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact, and rooming-in and to explore methods for managing COVID-19-positive mother-infant dyads. (2) Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was employed that covered pertinent studies from the Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and Scopus databases. The Matrix Method and PRISMA guidelines were utilized by the researchers, with the search being updated until 20 December 2021, one year after the initial vaccine delivery. The inclusion criteria for the study involved articles published in English, those employing broad search terms, and those comprising full-text reviews. Additionally, the researchers required that the articles be published from December 2019 onwards. To further analyze the data, a meta-analysis was performed to estimate the rate of infant infection from mothers who engaged in breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact, and rooming-in practices. (3) Results: Eighteen studies were analyzed in this review, with an infected infant rate of 2.8%. The maternal practices used in these studies ranged from direct separation of the infant to direct skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and exclusive breastfeeding. One study investigated the factors associated with positive test results in newborns and found that only the maternal social vulnerability index >90 was a significant predictor. The type of delivery, rooming-in, and the mother's symptom status were not associated with positive neonatal outcomes. (4) Conclusions: According to current data, the incidence of perinatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low. It is advised that mothers adhere to several supportive care measures, including engaging in breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact, and rooming-in. These measures ought to be complemented by diligent hand hygiene, the wearing of masks, and the cleansing of breasts solely when necessary.
PubMed: 38535712
DOI: 10.3390/nursrep14010040 -
Radiation Oncology (London, England) Mar 2024Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered standard of care for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Improved conformity of IMRT and smaller... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered standard of care for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Improved conformity of IMRT and smaller margins, however, have led to concerns of increased rates of marginal failures. We hypothesize that while patterns of failure (PoF) after IMRT for HNSCC have been published before, the quality of patient positioning and image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) have rarely been taken into account, and their importance remains unclear. This work provides a systematic review of the consideration of IGRT in PoF studies after IMRT for HNSCC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines was performed on PubMed for HNSCC, IMRT and PoF terms and conference abstracts from ESTRO and ASTRO 2020 and 2021 were screened. Studies were included if they related PoF of HNSCC after IMRT to the treated volumes. Data on patient and treatment characteristics, IGRT, treatment adaptation, PoF and correlation of PoF to IGRT was extracted, categorized and analyzed.
RESULTS
One-hundred ten studies were included. The majority (70) did not report any information on IGRT. The remainder reported daily IGRT (18), daily on day 1-3 or 1-5, then weekly (7), at least weekly (12), or other schemes (3). Immobilization was performed with masks (78), non-invasive frames (4), or not reported (28). The most common PoF classification was "in-field/marginal/out-of-field", reported by 76 studies. Only one study correlated PoF in nasopharyngeal cancer patients to IGRT.
CONCLUSION
The impact of IGRT on PoF in HNSCC is severely underreported in existing literature. Only one study correlated PoF to IGRT measures and setup uncertainty. Further, most PoF studies relied on outdated terminology ("in/out-of-field"). A clearly defined and up-to-date PoF terminology is necessary to evaluate PoFs properly, as is systematic and preferably prospective data generation. PoF studies should consistently and comprehensively consider and report on IGRT.
Topics: Humans; Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Head and Neck Neoplasms
PubMed: 38444011
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-024-02421-w -
The Journal of Hospital Infection May 2024Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) burden healthcare globally. Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, intensified infection control measures, such as mask usage and hand... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) burden healthcare globally. Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, intensified infection control measures, such as mask usage and hand hygiene, were implemented.
AIM
To assess the efficacy of these measures in preventing HAIs among hospitalized patients.
METHODS
Using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), the study focused on hospitalized patients and the effectiveness of anti-COVID-19 measures in preventing HAIs. A systematic review of literature published in 2020-2022 was conducted, examining interventions such as mask usage, hand hygiene, and environmental cleaning.
FINDINGS
This systematic review analysed 42 studies: two in 2020, 21 in 2021, and 19 in 2022. Most studies were from high-income countries (28). Most studies (30 out of 42) reported a reduction in HAIs after implementing anti-COVID-19 measures. Gastrointestinal infections and respiratory tract infections showed significant reduction, unlike bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections. Some wards, like cardiology and neurology, experienced reduced HAIs, unlike intensive care units and coronary care units. There was an increase in studies reporting no effect of hygiene measures on HAIs in 2022, eventually indicating a shift in effectiveness over time.
CONCLUSION
Anti-COVID-19 measures have shown selective efficacy in preventing HAIs. The study emphasizes the need for context-specific strategies and increased focus on regions with limited resources. Continued research is essential to refine infection control practices, especially in high-risk settings.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Cross Infection; Infection Control; SARS-CoV-2; Hand Hygiene; Masks
PubMed: 38423132
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.02.008 -
Archives of Disease in Childhood Feb 2024Mask mandates for children during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in different locations. A risk-benefit analysis of this intervention has not yet been performed. In this...
BACKGROUND
Mask mandates for children during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in different locations. A risk-benefit analysis of this intervention has not yet been performed. In this study, we performed a systematic review to assess research on the effectiveness of mask wearing in children.
METHODS
We performed database searches up to February 2023. The studies were screened by title and abstract, and included studies were further screened as full-text references. A risk-of-bias analysis was performed by two independent reviewers and adjudicated by a third reviewer.
RESULTS
We screened 597 studies and included 22 in the final analysis. There were no randomised controlled trials in children assessing the benefits of mask wearing to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias; all six were potentially confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups and two were shown to have non-significant results when reanalysed. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask wearing and infection or transmission.
CONCLUSIONS
Real-world effectiveness of child mask mandates against SARS-CoV-2 transmission or infection has not been demonstrated with high-quality evidence. The current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against COVID-19.
Topics: Child; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Bias; Antibodies
PubMed: 38050026
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2023-326215 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine (Dex) and oral midazolam in the preoperative medication of children by using a method of meta-analysis.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intranasal Dex vs. oral midazolam in pediatric premedication were collected. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to analyze the collected data. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies with 824 children were included, containing 415 patients in the Dex group and 409 patients in the midazolam group. Compared with the oral midazolam group, the intranasal Dex group had a better preoperative sedation effect at parent-child separation (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.14-1.64) and anesthesia induction (RR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of analgesia remedy (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-1.00) the acceptance of anesthesia masks (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12), and incidence of adverse events between (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.06-1.13, = 0.072) between the intranasal Dex and oral midazolam groups.
CONCLUSION
Compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex has better sedative effects of parent-child separation and anesthesia induction in pediatric premedication, but there was no difference in the incidence of anesthesia remedy, anesthesia mask acceptance, and incidence of adverse events. Therefore, compared with oral midazolam, intranasal Dex is a better choice for premedication in children.
PubMed: 38027288
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1264081 -
Atencion Primaria Mar 2024A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressants in reducing the poor evolution of COVID-19 disease (a composite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE, AND MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressants in reducing the poor evolution of COVID-19 disease (a composite variable including death, hospitalization and need for mechanical ventilation), and mortality, according the guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Interventions published by the Cochrane library.
SOURCE OF DATA
MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE LIBRARY were consulted up to February 25, 2022. Unpublished studies were searched on clinicaltrials.gov platform.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
Seven masked and unmasked, observational and experimental studies evaluating death, hospitalization and need for mechanical ventilation were selected. A second subgroup analysis with mortality variable was performed.
DATA EXTRACTION
A full risk of bias assessment was performed addressing issues such as information and confounding bias. ROB2 and Robins-I tools for randomized and no randomized studies were employed respectively. In the quantitative analysis, the risk of publication bias, heterogeneity, estimation of pooled measure and a sensitivity analysis was performed. The pooled final measure was calculated as odds ratio with its correspondent 95% confidence interval. A random effects model was used for this purpose due to the heterogeneity between included studies. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of final pooled measure.
RESULTS
Seven studies were finally considered to calculate the final pooled measure. The effect of intervention was OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.94.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of antidepressants, and specially SSRI could be effective for reducing the risk of poor progression of COVID-19 disease.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Prognosis; Antidepressive Agents; Hospitalization; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 38016405
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2023.102771