Searching PubMed to Retrieve Publications on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Analysis of Search Strings

Physical activity and physical fitness among children and adolescents after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the WHO European Region: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions resulted in limitations for physical activity (PA) opportunities, which may have initiated a longer-term behavioural change. The protocol describes the methodology for a planned systematic review that aims to summarise changes in PA and physical fitness (PF) in children and adolescents in the WHO European Region after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol adheres to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols' (PRISMA-P) statement. Using a peer-reviewed search strategy according to the evidence-based checklist 'Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies' (PRESS), we will perform a systematic literature search in seven databases. Inclusion criteria are all primary studies that gathered data on children and adolescents ≤19 years living in the WHO European Region and made a comparison to pre-pandemic data. Primary outcomes are PA and PF. We will assess the risk of bias with the 'Risk of Bias Instrument for Non-Randomized Studies of Exposures' (ROBINS-E). The 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) approach will be used for the evaluation of the certainty of evidence. Also, subgroup analyses will be performed (eg, for gender, age, stringency of pandemic restrictions).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected in this study. The results will be presented in a peer-reviewed publication and at congresses relevant to the research field.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023395871.

Anxiety among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies point to a high mental health burden among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly concerning anxiety. However, the study quality and effect direction are heterogeneous in the existing primary studies with a lacking overview for the European continent. Therefore, this systematic review aims to critically synthesise the evidence regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety among children and adolescents in Europe compared to a pre-pandemic baseline.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed in six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and WHO COVID-19 database) with a peer reviewed search strategy according to the evidence-based checklist Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS). Inclusion criteria are children and adolescents ≤ 19 years living in Europe and data report during the COVID-19 pandemic with an appropriate pre-pandemic baseline. Primary outcomes are general anxiety symptoms and clinically relevant anxiety rates. Risk of bias will be assessed using the 'Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposure' (ROBINS-E). Data extraction will systematically include information on study design, population characteristics, COVID-19 determinants, pre-pandemic baseline, diagnostic instruments and outcome. The certainty of evidence for each outcome will be evaluated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach adapted to the use of non-randomised studies. All process steps will be performed independently by two reviewers; any discrepancies will be discussed and, if necessary, resolved by a third author. Also, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, publication bias analysis, and meta-regression analysis, if applicable, will be performed. The systematic review was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and the protocol was prepared in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will address the lack of a critical and comprehensive summary of findings on the COVID-19 pandemic impact on anxiety among children and adolescents in Europe. In addition, it aims to identify pandemic-policy differences, such as the effect of school-closures, and identify particularly vulnerable risk groups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42022303714 (PROSPERO).

Increase of depression among children and adolescents after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Research points to a high depression burden among youth during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, a lack of systematic evidence exists. We determine the change in depression symptoms among children and adolescents during COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic baselines. By using country differences in pandemic-related restrictions and school closures in Europe as quasi-experimental design, we evaluate policy impacts on depression.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, following the PRISMA statement, we searched six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19) using a peer-reviewed search string up until March 18, 2022 with citation tracking and grey literature searches. No limitations regarding language and effect measures existed. We included studies that compared (1) general depression symptoms or (2) clinically relevant depression rates in children and adolescents (≤ 19 years) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The validated Oxford Stringency Index was used as indicator for pandemic-related restrictions. Screening for eligibility, extracting data from published reports and from unpublished data requested directly from study authors, assessing the study risk of bias and grading certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, were all done in duplicate. Data were pooled in a random-effects model.

PROSPERO

CRD42022303714.

RESULTS

Of 7,422 nonduplicate records, 22 studies with data from 868,634 participants pre-pandemic and 807,480 during pandemic, met full inclusion criteria. For the comparison of depression symptoms before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, moderate certainty of evidence was observed for general depression symptoms (standardized mean difference, 0.21 [95%CI, 0.12-0.30]; I² = 94%) and low certainty of evidence for clinically relevant depression rates (odds ratio, 1.36 [95%CI, 1.05-1.76]; I² = 95%) for total population. Increase in general depression symptoms was higher for male adolescents, whereas increase in clinically relevant depression rates was higher for females. Effect estimates were significantly higher when pandemic-related restrictions were more stringent or school closure occurred.

CONCLUSION

An increase in depression symptoms occurred in a pre-pandemic vs. during-pandemic comparison within the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby pandemic-related restrictions (such as school closures) resulted in a considerable effect increase. Ensuring adequate supply of mental health recovery services and long-term monitoring is of high public health relevance.

Aetiological and prognostic roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics in the development of SARS-CoV-2 health outcomes: protocol for systematic reviews of population-based studies

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that the impact of COVID-19 crisis may be stronger for individuals with multimorbidity, frailty and lower socioeconomic status. Existing reviews focus on few, mainly short-term effects of COVID-19 illness and patients with single chronic disease. Information is also largely missing for population representative samples.Applying population-based approach, the systematic reviews will have two objectives: (1) to evaluate the aetiological roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic status on SARS-CoV-2 infection probability, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and COVID-19 related mortality among general population and (2) to investigate the prognostic roles of frailty, multimorbidity and socioeconomic characteristics on the risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 mortality, functioning, quality of life, disability, mental health and work absence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

For this ongoing work, four databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and PsycINFO, for the period between January 2020 and April 7 2021. Peer-reviewed published literature in English and all types of population-based studies will be considered. Studies using standard tools to assess multimorbidity such as disease count, comorbidity indices or disease combinations will be retained, as well as studies with standard scales and scores for frailty or measurement of a socioeconomic gradient. Initial search included 10 139 articles, 411 for full-text reading. Results will be summarised by risk factor, objective and outcome. The feasibility of meta-analysis will be determined by the findings and will aim to better understand uncertainties of the results. Quality of studies will be assessed using standardised scales.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be based on published evidence, and it is exempt from the ethical approval. This work is part of the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI) project. Dissemination of the results will imply conference presentation, submission for scientific publication and PHIRI project report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021249444.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to and utilisation of services for sexual and reproductive health: a scoping review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted health systems globally and widened preexisting disparities. We conducted a scoping review on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women and girls’ access to and utilisation of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for contraception, abortion, gender-based and intimate partner violence (GBV/IPV) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Methods

We systematically searched peer reviewed literature and quantitative reports, published between December 2019 and July 2021, focused on women and girls’ (15–49 years old) access to and utilisation of selected SRH services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Included studies were grouped based on setting, SRH service area, study design, population and reported impact. Qualitative data were coded, organised thematically and grouped by major findings.

Results

We included 83 of 3067 identified studies and found that access to contraception, in-person safe abortion services, in-person services for GBV/IPV and STI/HIV testing, prevention and treatment decreased. The geographical distribution of this body of research was uneven and significantly less representative of countries where COVID-19 restrictions were very strict. Access was limited by demand and supply side barriers including transportation disruptions, financial hardships, limited resources and legal restrictions. Few studies focused on marginalised groups with distinct SRH needs.

Conclusion

Reports indicated negative impacts on access to and utilisation of SRH services globally, especially for marginalised populations during the pandemic. Our findings call for strengthening of health systems preparedness and resilience to safeguard global access to essential SRH services in ongoing and future emergencies.

Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?

This study explores the evolution of publication practices associated with the SARS-CoV-2 research papers, namely, peer-reviewed journal and review articles indexed in PubMed and their associated preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers: a total of 4,031 journal article-preprint pairs. Our assessment of various publication delays during the January 2020 to March 2021 period revealed the early bird effect that lies beyond the involvement of any publisher policy action and is directly linked to the emerging nature of new and 'hot' scientific topics. We found that when the early bird effect and data incompleteness are taken into account, COVID-19 related research papers show only a moderately expedited speed of dissemination as compared with the pre-pandemic era. Medians for peer-review and production stage delays were 66 and 15 days, respectively, and the entire conversion process from a preprint to its peer-reviewed journal article version took 109.5 days. The early bird effect produced an ephemeral perception of a global rush in scientific publishing during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. We emphasize the importance of considering the early bird effect in interpreting publication data collected at the outset of a newly emerging event.

COVID-19 Diagnostics: A Panoramic View on Its Present Scenario, Challenges and Solutions

The initial strategy to curb the surge of novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, is prevention and quarantine, which are dependent on early diagnosis. The latest commercial diagnostic methods include AI/ML-based imaging methods and laboratory diagnosis, which differ in their efficiency. The former requires lung imaging and is useful for last stage patients. It was ensured to overcome the limitation of availability of laboratory-based kits, while the latter involves the collection of the suitable sample from an individual (blood sample, nasal or oral swab). Laboratory methods include methods like RT-PCR which is contemporarily contemplated as the benchmark for its quick and efficient SARS-CoV-2 infection detection. Other diagnosis alternatives include Serum Viral Neutralization (SVN) assays involving antigen–antibody reaction with much lower efficiency contrasted to RT-PCR. Apart from these methods, early detection has been key to the treatment of COVID-19, but the lack of sensitive assays to detect low viral titers acts as an impediment. This review presents an overview of detecting COVID-19 with the aid of several diagnostic techniques along with their benefits and limitations.

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

This paper introduces a novel scientometrics method and applies it to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia. The method uses query results as a common denominator to compare a wide variety of search engines, repositories, digital libraries, and other bibliographic databases. The method extends existing sampling-based approaches that analyze smaller sets of database coverages. The findings show the relative and absolute subject coverages of 56 databases—information that has often not been available before. Knowing the databases’ absolute subject coverage allows the selection of the most comprehensive databases for searches requiring high recall/sensitivity, particularly relevant in lookup or exploratory searches. Knowing the databases’ relative subject coverage allows the selection of specialized databases for searches requiring high precision/specificity, particularly relevant in systematic searches. The findings illustrate not only differences in the disciplinary coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science, but also of less frequently analyzed databases. For example, researchers might be surprised how Meta (discontinued), Embase, or Europe PMC are found to cover more records than PubMed in Medicine and other health subjects. These findings should encourage researchers to re-evaluate their go-to databases, also against newly introduced options. Searching with more comprehensive databases can improve finding, particularly when selecting the most fitting databases needs particular thought, such as in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This comparison can also help librarians and other information experts re-evaluate expensive database procurement strategies. Researchers without institutional access learn which open databases are likely most comprehensive in their disciplines.

Searching and analyzing patent-relevant Covid-19 information

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted several institutions to offer free, dedicated websites and tools to foster research and access to urgently needed innovative solutions by facilitating the search and analysis of information within the large amount of scientific and patent literature which was published since January 2020. This situation is clearly exceptional and challenging for patent information users searching for relevant disclosures at a given date in a reliable manner. This article provides an overview of search criteria and strategies, main databases and websites, number of publications, biological sequence information and experimental data sets covering COVID-19 findings within scientific and patent literature have been disclosed between January and August 2020. The analysis of non-patent literature has been focused on the identification, date assignment, disambiguation, and access to experimental data. The analysis of patent literature has been focused on the trends found within the earliest filed and published patent documents in representative jurisdictions worldwide. Some practical advice and strategies for technical, medical, or patentability assessment of COVID-19-related innovations across different information formats and resources are proposed.

Management of symptomatic patients with suspected mild-moderate COVID-19 in general practice. What was published within the first year of the pandemic? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Most COVID-19 patients experience a mild course of the disease and can be managed in general practice. However, in the early pandemic, most research was conducted in secondary care.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aimed to identify original research published within the first year of the pandemic relevant to general practice regarding symptomatic, non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease to provide an overview of published research.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies written in English, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian published before 1 April 2021. Two authors screened all titles and abstracts and identified full texts.

RESULTS

We screened 1303 titles and abstracts and retrieved 128 full texts. An additional 44 full-texts were obtained from references. After full-text reading, 79 articles were included, six of which were conducted in general practice, 20 in the community, 42 in hospitals, and 11 in other settings. Therapy and harm were investigated in randomised controlled trials in 11 out of 17 studies; the diagnosis was investigated using a diagnostic accuracy design in four out of 26 studies and prognosis in prospective studies in 10 out of 21 studies. The remaining 15 studies had other research questions.

CONCLUSION

Although general practitioners in most countries must have been involved in managing patients with COVID-19, little research has been published from general practice during the first year of the pandemic. General practice research environments must be able to respond quickly in case of future pandemics.

Redundancy of Terms in Search Strategies. Comment on "Searching PubMed to Retrieve Publications on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Analysis of Search Strings"

Collapse