Skip header and navigation

32 records – page 1 of 2.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Some countries like Taiwan and Malaysia have created their own intubation hood design as others offered to produce or modify the original design to fit their country’s equipment. · Several countries have also created innovation in airway management such as 3D printed respirator valves for hospitals and 3D printed ventilators. · An Emergency physician in Northern Italy shared that due to influx of patients in the hospitals, “intubation and invasive mechanical ventilators in the ED are reserved for patients not responsive to NIV” although in principle can give a more favorable chance for patients if given before their condition deteriorates.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Intubation
Aerosols
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Cardiac unit
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M. Where and how are they producing and using intubation hoods? 2020 Mar 30; Document no.: EOC033001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
EOC090202 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· There are some recommendations and precautions from WHO, CDC, Canada and the UK that there is transmission of the COVID virus from the administration of nebulizer medication. · Some case studies of SARS found few instances that patients may likely be infected after aerosol generating procedures including nebulized medications, and although there are few evidences that demonstrates low risk of viral transmission from nebulizers, possibility of transmission remains
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Risk
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Fenton, M; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What is the degree of COVID-19 transmission through the administration of nebulizer medication either in clinical practice or in animal experiments? 2020 Apr 1; Document no.: EOC040101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040203 RR
Question Submitted
April 4, 2020
Date Completed
April 4, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040203 RR
Question Submitted
April 4, 2020
Date Completed
April 4, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
One study indicated a significant reduction in mortality in regions with field hospitals
Cited as an important management tool of mild to moderate cases to prevent further transmission and allow rapid referral to higher level hospitals in the case of deterioration
Ability to significantly free up scarce resources for severe to critical cases
Category
Administration
Subject
Facilities
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M. What is the evidence for early implementation of field hospitals for COVID-19? 2020 Apr 4; Document no.: EOC040203 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040601 RR
Question Submitted
April 6, 2020
Date Completed
April 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040601 RR
Question Submitted
April 6, 2020
Date Completed
April 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Surgical masks are superior to cloth masks in their ability to block particles
Small scale studies to support reduced transmission in practice
Several mechanical studies indicating meager protection
Evidence supports current national recommendations to combine mask use with proper hand hygiene and above all, proper distancing measures
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Healthcare Services
Subject
Personal Protective Equipment
Face Masks
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Priority Level
Level 1 completed within 4 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of face masks for preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the community? 2020 Apr 6; Document no.: EOC040601 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040201 RR
Question Submitted
April 7, 2020
Date Completed
April 7, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040201 RR
Question Submitted
April 7, 2020
Date Completed
April 7, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Most large scale studies quantifiying the rate of sore throat in COVID cases is under 10%, with some exceptions of small scale studies.
Only one study comparing COVID (7% incidence of sore throat) to non-COVID patients (23% incidence of sore throat)
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Symptoms
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 1 completed within 4 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C; Miller, L. What is the prevalence of sore throat as a symptom of COVID-19? 2020 Apr 7; Document no.: EOC040201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 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
EOC033102 RR
Question Submitted
March 31, 2020
Date Completed
May 11, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033102 RR
Question Submitted
March 31, 2020
Date Completed
May 11, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Current evidence mostly captures hospitalized patients · The largest study of 10,069 voluntarily reported cases found 48% hyposmia/anosmia
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Symptoms
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Young, C. What percentage of COVID-19 patients have hyposmia or anosmia? 2020 May 11; Document no.: EOC033102 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 6 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC052102 RR
Question Submitted
May 21, 2020
Date Completed
May 22, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC052102 RR
Question Submitted
May 21, 2020
Date Completed
May 22, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· There was no source of Canadian data (published or grey, federal or provincial) to address this question and differentiate between types of ventilation. · There are several studies available assessing the proportions seen in other countries and a lot of theoretical literature about using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as a first-line intervention to hopefully avoid intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), for which there is weak evidence. · Key studies include an analysis of 36 ICU patients in Wuhan in which 41.7% received NIV and 47.2% received MIV. Another large-scale study of 1,099 hospitalized patients reported IMV in 6.1% with no report of NIV.
Category
Administration
Clinical Management
Subject
Ventilation
Health Planning
Population
All
Clinical Setting
ICU
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. In similar jurisdictions experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic, what is the proportion of patients receiving non-invasive ventilation versus those receiving intermittent mandatory ventilation? 2020 May 22; Document no.: EOC052102 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC052101 RR
Question Submitted
May 21, 2020
Date Completed
May 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC052101 RR
Question Submitted
May 21, 2020
Date Completed
May 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The overall ‘clinical’ false negative rate (1 – sensitivity) of rt-PCR in the detection of SAR-CoV-2 in the respiratory tract is estimated to be 30%, although estimates vary from 3.5 – 50%. This rate is higher when the technique of clinical sampling is poor, higher in nasopharyngeal and oral swabs than lower respiratory tract secretions, and higher early in the course of disease (prior to symptom development) and following the first week of symptoms.
The performance of the rt-PCR test can be maximized by: 1. Timing and collecting specimens in the optimal manner 2. Applying the test in those individuals with a high pre-test probability of having COVID-19; this includes individuals living in communities with a high prevalence of disease, those with an epidemiological history linking them to a confirmed case, and those with symptoms associated with COVID-19, potentially identified with the aid of a clinical prediction rule 3. Serial testing with a repeat rt-PCR test after a specific interval such as 24-48 hours 4. In the clinical setting, the additional assessment of blood biomarkers, IgM/IgG serology and chest CT scan
These considerations apply to the decision to conduct initial rt-PCR testing as well as to the decision to re-test individuals with an initial negative result.
Category
Diagnostics
Subject
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Testing
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 1 completed within 4 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Young, C; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. What factors can be used to identify negative PCR tests that are ‘false negatives’? 2020 May 25; Document no.: EOC052101 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
EOC071001 RR
Question Submitted
July 10, 2020
Date Completed
July 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC071001 RR
Question Submitted
July 10, 2020
Date Completed
July 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· The terms cluster and outbreak both describe the occurrence of new disease cases within a particular location and time period. The number of cases within a cluster are not necessarily greater than what is expected, however in an outbreak the number of cases does exceed the usual norm. · In an outbreak the cases are confirmed to be epidemiologically linked while in a cluster an epidemiological connection is only suspected. · Not all clusters are outbreaks, however each cluster needs to be investigated
· Understanding how to characterize COVID-19 cases based on a suspected or proven epidemiological link can better guide prevention of disease spreading
Category
Administration
Epidemiology
Subject
Disease Outbreak
Public Health
Health Planning
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Emergency
Long Term Care
Other
All acute care.
Priority Level
Level 5 completed within 2 weeks
Cite As
Radu, L; Badea, A; Groot, G; Ellsworth, C; Young, C. What is the definition of an outbreak versus a cluster for COVID-19 in different clinical and community settings in Canada, the US, and the UK? 2020 Jul 27; Document no.: EOC071001 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
EOC072701 RR
Question Submitted
July 27, 2020
Date Completed
July 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC072701 RR
Question Submitted
July 27, 2020
Date Completed
July 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Physician and nursing staff members can be redeployed from various clinical areas, but in particular non-acute or elective practice areas such as ambulatory settings and surgical practices.
Providing patient-care in new clinical areas can be restructured into a task-based format that utilizes the skills already possessed by redeployed clinicians and staff.
Medical students, residents, internationally trained medical graduates and other health professionals such as respiratory therapists and pharmacists should also be considered for redeployment to high-need areas.
Scope of practice limitations, practice permit approvals and licensing may pose as potential barriers to being able to optimize our healthcare workforce in a surge.
Efficient but effective training should be provided to all staff that have volunteered for redeployment, in preparation of the next surge.
The safety of all health professionals should be ensured throughout the redeployment process.
Category
Administration
Healthcare Services
Subject
Health Personnel
Facilities
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Other
All
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Radu, L; Badea, A; Groot, G; Fox, L; Howell-Spooner, B; Young, C. What are the existing policies for the re-deployment or deployment of healthcare workers whose regular work has been disrupted by COVID-19 in high-resource clinical settings? 2020 Jul 29; Document no.: EOC072701 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
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
EOC090202 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 8, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC090202 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 8, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· The Intubation box was originally invented by Dr. Lai Hsien-yung, an anesthesiologist in Taiwan. · The main function of the intubation box is intended to prevent exposure of care providers to COVID-19 from aerosol droplets during intubation. · The intubation box concept emerged during the pandemic to address the challenge of adequate supply of PPEs in resource limited settings in particular but presents limitations and poses significant safety risk to the patient. · limitations include increased incubation time, discomfort from restricted hand movements for the intubation procedure, reduced first-pass intubation rates, limitation for certain body habitus and possible injury to patient · With regards to aerosol exposure, intubation boxes have been reported to increase rather than decrease airborne particle exposure.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Intubation
Risk
Personal Protective Equipment
Aerosols
Transmission
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Groot, G; Badea, A; Ellsworth, C; Fox, L. What are the safety risks or disinfection concerns with the use of intubation boxes? 2020 Sep 8; Document no.: EOC090202 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
EOC033001 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC091101 RR
Question Submitted
September 11, 2020
Date Completed
September 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC091101 RR
Question Submitted
September 11, 2020
Date Completed
September 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The evidence to support medical exemptions for mask wearing is limited. The predominant discourse revolves around a risk-based approach that considers the potential benefits and harms for individuals; few absolute exceptions to masking have been advocated. Masks are one part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the spread of SARS CoV-2 infection and should be viewed in the context of other public health measures including physical distancing, hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Face Masks
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; McLean, M; Groot, G; Young, C; Mueller, M; Miller, L. What evidence is there to support medical exemptions for mask wearing? 2020 Sep 17; Document no.: EOC091101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 20 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
EOC102001 RR
Question Submitted
October 20, 2020
Date Completed
October 26, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC102001 RR
Question Submitted
October 20, 2020
Date Completed
October 26, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Mask wearing causes respiratory changes in respiration efforts, air resistance and sensation of dyspnea, but these do not appear to be clinically significant
A number of studies have assessed the use of N95 masks under low-moderate work conditions, concluding that mask wearing is well tolerated by healthy individuals
Limited evidence in special populations indicates that those with very severe conditions may be unable to tolerate mask wearing
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Risk
Face Masks
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Young, C; Miller, L. What are the risks of long-term and/or continuous mask use? 2020 Oct 20; Document no.: EOC102001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 21 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC032401v3 RR
Question Submitted
March 24, 2020
Date Completed
November 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC032401v3 RR
Question Submitted
March 24, 2020
Date Completed
November 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Emerging evidence indicates that there may be a possibility of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2
Several cases with genomic sequencing have found variant strains in re-infection cases
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Immunity
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Dalidowicz, M. What is the risk of reinfection from COVID-19? 2020 Nov 2; Document no.: EOC032401v3 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
EOC032401v2 RR: August 1, 2020
EOC032401 RR: May 14, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC111201 RR
Question Submitted
November 12, 2020
Date Completed
November 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC111201 RR
Question Submitted
November 12, 2020
Date Completed
November 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Systematic reviews with pooled analysis found a statistical difference between probiotic and placebo groups in days of respiratory tract illness, number of antibiotic prescriptions and days of missed work/school · The evidence for the use of probiotics while statistically significant, is of low quality with high levels of heterogeneity · No significant difference in SAEs between groups, side effects of probiotic use mainly mild GI symptoms
Category
Clinical Management
Subject
Treatment
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 4 Three weeks (21 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Young, C. Are probiotics effective for prevention or therapy of respiratory tract infections in all ages? 2020 Nov 25; Document no.: EOC111201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062301v3 RR
Question Submitted
June 23, 2020
Date Completed
December 1, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062301v3 RR
Question Submitted
June 23, 2020
Date Completed
December 1, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Systematic reviews indicate there is a growing evidence in support of a correlation between mask use and lowered risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Case-control and observational studies have demonstrated a positive effect on community transmission rates
Masks provide the greatest community impact when implemented early, adherence is high and when combined with social distancing and hand hygiene
Individual protection is largely impacted by mask material and fit
Mask use is considered an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, other non-pharmaceutical public health measures (social distancing, hand-washing)
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Personal Protective Equipment
Face Masks
Public Health
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Howell-Spooner, B; Young, C. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of universal mask use by the public? 2020 Dec 1; Document no.: EOC062301v3 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
EOC062301 RR: August 9, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC011101 RR
Question Submitted
January 11, 2021
Date Completed
January 13, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC011101 RR
Question Submitted
January 11, 2021
Date Completed
January 13, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Overall, data are insufficient to recommend for or against the use of ECMO in patients with COVID-19 and refractory hypoxemia.
The best available evidence points to an overall combined mortality rate of 46% among COVID-19 patients placed on ECMO (n=331). This rate is similar to the overall 40% mortality rate for extracorporeal life support in pulmonary failure. However, mortality rates among COVID-19 patients on ECMO range widely due to patient factors, site specific factors, and small sample sizes in available studies.
Recommendations for strategies and patient indications/contraindications are available to help guide centres intending to offer ECMO to COVID-19 patients.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Critical Care
Treatment
Population
All
Clinical Setting
ICU
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What are the outcomes of ECMO and COVID, particularly in small centers? 2021 Jan 13; Document no.: EOC011101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

32 records – page 1 of 2.