Update Alert 2: Risks and Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers on SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

3219 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Southeast Michigan: a retrospective case cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To report the clinical characteristics of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Southeast Michigan.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Eight hospitals in Southeast Michigan.

PARTICIPANTS

3219 hospitalised patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal PCR test from 13 March 2020 until 29 April 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Outcomes were discharge from the hospital or in-hospital death. Examined predictors included patient demographics, chronic diseases, home medications, mechanical ventilation, in-hospital medications and timeframe of hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3219 (90.4%) patients were discharged or died in the hospital. The median age was 65.2 (IQR 52.6-77.2) years, the median length of stay in the hospital was 6.0 (IQR 3.2-10.1) days, and 51% were female. Hypertension was the most common chronic disease, occurring in 2386 (74.1%) patients. Overall mortality rate was 16.0%. Blacks represented 52.3% of patients and had a mortality rate of 13.5%. Mortality was highest at 18.5% in the prepeak hospital COVID-19 volume, decreasing to 15.3% during the peak period and to 10.8% in the postpeak period. Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.05, p<0.001) for every increase in 1 year of age and being male (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.81, p<0.001). Certain chronic diseases increased the odds of in-hospital mortality, especially chronic kidney disease. Administration of vitamin C, corticosteroids and therapeutic heparin in the hospital was associated with higher odds of death.

CONCLUSION

In-hospital mortality was highest in early admissions and improved as our experience in treating patients with COVID-19 increased. Blacks were more likely to get admitted to the hospital and to receive mechanical ventilation, but less likely to die in the hospital than whites.