Skip header and navigation

8 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH092301 RR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
October 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH092301 RR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
October 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
The evidence for alternative active monitoring schedules for confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their cases is limited
The prevailing consensus is that confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their high-risk close contacts should undergo active daily monitoring
When public health resources are limited, active monitoring programs should consider prioritizing vulnerable populations, incorporating passive monitoring practices and adopting virtual monitoring platforms
Category
Administration
Subject
Screening
Contact Tracing
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
McLean, M; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. Are less frequent (than daily) follow-up/monitoring used in COVID or other communicable diseases? 2020 Oct 6; Document no.:PH092301 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 31 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC082502 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC082502 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Infrared thermometers detect the infrared waves emitted by an object and convert into an electrical signal to display the distribution of temperature · Infrared thermometers do not emit radiation, however many are equipped with a laser tracker beam, similar to that found in television remote controls · The Pineal Gland is located deep inside the brain, separated from the forehead by the presence of the skull and several centimeters of brain tissue
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Infrared Thermometers
Screening
Public Health
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Ellsworth, C; Fox, L. Is there evidence of risks for using infrared thermometers? 2020 Aug 29; Document no.: EOC082502 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 12 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211126 RR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211126 RR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Most of the reference exposure studies observed the morbidity/mortality of individuals working in sterilization plants with direct, chronic exposure to high concentrations of ethylene oxide gas prior to changes in allowable environmental levels in 1985, and also formed the basis for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) findings of cancer causation
Meta-analyses of more recent observational cohort studies performed in the 2000s and 2010s of sterilization workers directly exposed to ethylene oxide gas in the workplace do not support the association between ethylene oxide exposure and increased risk of lymphohematopoietic or breast cancers
The elimination half-life of ethylene oxide in humans is approximately 42 minutes – thus almost 90% of any ethylene oxide in a single exposure would be eliminated from the body in two hours
In order to gain FDA approval, testing swabs need to have demonstrated to meet tolerable contact limits of ethylene oxide residuals – experts claim that once packaged for a period of time and aerated prior to use, it is unlikely to contain any ethylene oxide residuals; corroborated by a study assessing the residuals on DNA swabs, finding no detectable levels of ethylene oxide on swabs 3 weeks after sterilization treatment
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Risk
Testing
Population
All adults
Other
Healthcare workers
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Fox, L; Mueller, M. What are the risks associated with repeated exposure to Ethylene Oxide from ongoing use of the Abbott Panbio AG COVID-19 Nasal swabs? 2021 Nov 30. Document no.: EOC211126 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 14 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC042202 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC042202 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
There are no published or grey literature that directly address the review questions · A number of principle based guidelines/recommendations/criteria are available and reviewed. It appears that the WHO interim guidance "Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19" is the best piece of evidence available right now. It is included in the reference list below.
Notes
INTERIM Rapid Review
Category
Administration
Subject
Closures
Reopening
Health Planning
Outcome Assessment
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Young, C. What is the best evidence to guide the sequence or priority of re-opening each type of healthcare service and how have the closures impacted patients? 2020 Apr 24; Document no.: EOC042202 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 11 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC092401 RR
Question Submitted
September 24, 2020
Date Completed
September 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC092401 RR
Question Submitted
September 24, 2020
Date Completed
September 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· The significance of rhinorrhea as a presenting/predictive clinical feature of COVID-19 is unclear at this time with rates ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 60% in the published literature · Rhinorrhea generally associated with less severe disease · No reports of sneezing as a clinical symptom of COVID-19
Category
Clinical Presentation
Administration
Subject
Symptoms
Screening
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Howell-Spooner, B; Young, C. What is the evidence that runny nose or sneezing are symptoms of COVID-19? 2020 Sep 29; Document no.: EOC092401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 16 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH082501 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH082501 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
· The CDC does not recommend universal symptom screening (all students in K-12 grades) to be done by schools prior to entry · Schools/districts should individually work with public health officials to determine the necessity and details of implementing any testing strategies · European CDC recommends that all symptomatic individuals and asymptomatic high-risk close contacts should be referred for testing – fast and effective contact tracing following testing is key · Large scale universal testing in school settings has not been studied and it’s efficacy compared to implementation of other infection prevention control measures is unknown · Large scale testing in school settings to date has largely been done in response to an outbreak, not as routine surveillance
Category
Diagnostics
Administration
Subject
Risk
Schools
Testing
Screening
Population
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Badea, A; Muhajarine, N; Howell-Spooner, B; Mueller, M. What laboratory surveillance testing strategies are effective for COVID-19 in school settings? 2020 Aug 27; Document no.: PH082501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 23 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LAB040802v3 RR
Question Submitted
April 8, 2020
Date Completed
June 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Laboratory
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LAB040802v3 RR
Question Submitted
April 8, 2020
Date Completed
June 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Laboratory
Key Findings
Several references provide estimates of the proportion of HCW infected with SARS-CoV2 that range from 0.9% -20%. A recent review from Alberta Health Services that examined the COVID-19 rt-PCR test results among HCW indicates that in that province 2.4% of physicians and 0.9% of non-MD HCW who were tested were positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 3.5% of the general population.
In the studies reviewed, the majority of cases are confirmed by RT-PCR, while only one reference also used serology testing.
Category
Diagnostics
Administration
Subject
Testing
Serology
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Health Personnel
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Reeder, B; Duncan, V; Howell-Spooner, B. What proportion of healthcare workers are rt-PCR positive and IgM or IgG positive? 2020 Jun 2; Document no.: LAB040802v3 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
LAB040802v2 RR: May 19, 2020
LAB040802 RR: April 9, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC110401 RR
Question Submitted
November 4, 2020
Date Completed
November 10, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC110401 RR
Question Submitted
November 4, 2020
Date Completed
November 10, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
An optimal surveillance strategy for COVID-19 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) has yet to be determined.
Weekly screening of HCWs for infection through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing would reduce their contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by approximately one quarter.
Any testing surveillance strategy should be in addition to other strategies already in place to identify symptomatic HCW.
Any strategy needs to take into consideration the availability of testing (i.e. feasibility) and the level of community transmission (i.e. the risk of asymptomatic HCWs entering the facility and spreading the virus).
HCWs could be categorized as high, medium, or low risk based upon their exposure to COVID-19 and the frequency of surveillance could be designed accordingly.
Category
Diagnostics
Administration
Subject
Testing
Screening
Health Personnel
Risk
Population
Other
Clinical Setting
Other
All
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Newaz, S; Lee, S; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Young, C; Fox, L. What surveillance strategy is most effective for COVID-19 testing in healthcare workers? 2020 Nov 10; Document no.: EOC110401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 26 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

8 records – page 1 of 1.