Skip header and navigation

30 records – page 1 of 2.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
November 23, 2021 - Delta dominance - Delta continues to account for most of variants sequenced from surveillance data from Public Health Ontario, Public Health England and ECDC. - The Delta sub-lineage AY.4.2 (Delta plus) accounts for a slowly increasing proportion of Delta cases in the UK. However, evidence is still emerging on its effect on vaccine efficacy and disease severity. - Increased disease severity (hospitalization) has been observed in adults 18 to 49 years during Delta variant dominance and has been attributed to the low vaccination rates among this age group. - Epidemiological models predict a new wave of infection if measures such as NPIs are relaxed due to changes in immune escape capability and transmissibility of variants. - While of moderate certainty, evidence exists to suggest the Delta variant is associated with a higher secondary attack rate, especially among unvaccinated populations.
Key Findings
November 12, 2021 - Emerging data suggest the Delta variant can initiate fast-rising outbreaks in populations with immune responses to prior variants, resulting in reinfections and vaccination breakthroughs. However, we have low certainty of evidence at this point. - A quarter of Delta-associated outbreaks in Ontario were reported in elementary school settings for the week of September 12 to September 18, 2021. - Full vaccination against COVID-19 has been reported to be more effective in protecting against Delta infection and severe illness (hospitalization and ICU admissions) than partial vaccination. - Effective protection for essential workers and prompt surveillance of occupational health in the workplace are needed due to disproportionate Delta variant infection among workers such as cleaners. - While the certainty is low, evidence exists to suggest that a lower gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, higher diabetes prevalence, higher cardiovascular disease rate, and lower percentage of fully vaccinated people have been reported as predictors of higher Delta variant Case Fatality Rate (CFR)
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Health Planning
Variants
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Badea, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Hernandez-Ronquillo L; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What is the epidemiology of variants and what are the implications for healthcare? 2021 Nov 23. Document no.: EOC031801v017 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 48 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Review History
EOC031801v16 RR
EOC031801v15 RR
EOC031801v14 RR
v012 and v013 RR were combined into v013
EOC031801v011 RR: August 27, 2021
v010 and v011 RR were combined into v011
EOC031801v9 RR: August 19, 2021
EOC031801v8 RR: July 12, 2021
EOC031801v7 RR; June 24, 2021
EOC031801v6 RR; June 17, 2021
EOC031801v5 RR; June 2, 2021
EOC031801v4 RR; May 17, 2021
EOC031801v3 RR: May 3, 2021
EOC031801v2 RR: April 20, 2021
EOC031801 RR: March 25, 2021
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
October 29, 2021
In October, WHO released a consensus definition of post COVID-19 condition that includes 12 domains. This development should lead to better standardization of reporting and contribute to more precise prevalence estimates and better understanding of associated risk factors.
The effects of Variants of Concern (VoC) and COVID vaccination on progression of Long COVID symptoms remains unclear.
Risk factors for developing Long COVID symptoms were similar but limited evidence suggests that pre-pandemic psychological distress and poor general health were associated with developing persistent symptoms. Evidence is too limited to determine whether vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID among persons with breakthrough infections.
Given the protean manifestations of Long COVID symptoms, the underlying causes are likely multifactorial; however, strong evidence to substantiate the theories of causation remains limited.
Research related to longer-term consequences of SARS CoV-2 infections in pediatric populations is growing but remains limited.
Key Findings
March 15, 2021
There is a lack of consensus around the clinical definition of Long COVID which in turn causes challenges with understanding the incidence and prevalence as well as the potential impact for the health care system
Information about the natural history of Long COVID is incomplete but limited evidence suggests that the immune response trajectories differ for those with few or no symptoms compared to those with severe disease. Individuals with severe disease are more likely to exhibit immunological marker abnormalities but anyone can experience functional limitations.
The mechanisms underlying the development of persistent symptoms in Long COVID remain an enigma. Despite multiple theories, there is little empirical evidence for specific immunological and or biochemical abnormalities in samples of individuals with symptoms consistent with Long COVID.
Risk factors for Long COVID include female gender, older age, higher body mass index, pre-existing asthma and the number of symptoms.
Few studies explored the short-term impact of Long COVID on health care utilization patterns and found a higher impact for those with severe disease compared with mild disease.
Category
Healthcare Services
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Long Covid
Clinical Presentation
Health Planning
Symptoms
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Long Term Care
Primary care
Priority Level
Level 5 Four weeks+ (28 days+)
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Dalidowicz, M. Long COVID: What does it mean for the healthcare system and programs? 2021 Oct 29. Document no.: EOC021901v2 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
EOC210903 RR
Question Submitted
September 29, 2021
Date Completed
October 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210903 RR
Question Submitted
September 29, 2021
Date Completed
October 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Consequences of delayed surgeries have potential patient-level and system-level consequences
Modelling indicates that even complete resumption of services requires additional resources to clear the backlogs caused by service disruptions
Retrospective data analysis indicates that minor delays for most cancer surgeries does not negatively impact patients, however the length of time to safely delay is largely dependent on condition and urgency
Category
Administration
Healthcare Services
Subject
Health Planning
Decision Making
Risk
Surgical Procedures
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Other
Perioperative units
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Young, C; Mueller, M. What have been the consequences of delayed surgeries due to the COVID-19 pandemic? 2021 Oct 18. Document no.: EOC210903 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
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Emerging evidence suggesting waning levels of immune markers with time, particularly against more virulent variants. How this will correlate to functional immunity is yet to be documented.
Immunocompromised populations with lower levels of responses to standard 2-dose regimens may benefit from a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccine as a part of the primary series, though their response may still be lower than what is expected in the general population
Current recommendation for populations to receive a 3rd dose include adults over a certain age (depending on jurisdiction), those living in long-term care settings, frontline health and social workers and/or people working in high risk settings, those with immune compromising conditions leading to increased risk of severe disease/poor outcomes if infected
Safety trials have indicated that side effects to 3rd/booster doses are similar to those following the 2nd dose in initial vaccination series
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Tian, K. What is the current evidence and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccine booster shots (exceeding 2 doses) for the general population? 2021 Oct 07, Document no.: EOC210902 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210501v2 RR
Question Submitted
May 17, 2021
Date Completed
August 24, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210501v2 RR
Question Submitted
May 17, 2021
Date Completed
August 24, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
August 18, 2021 - Proof of vaccine “freebies” to customers are slowing - Many vaccine “lotteries” have now ended with prizes being given out, retrospective analysis of vaccine numbers and assumptions regarding causality will likely follow in the near future - More state-sponsored incentives such as partnerships with ride-share companies, childcare centers, etc. - Post-secondary institutions offering incentives mostly in the form of raffles with grand prizes of cash/scholarships for staff/students with proof of vaccination - ESN evidence synthesis found 8 systematic reviews providing some evidence of positive impact of financial incentives with or without other interventions for non-COVID-19 vaccines, 3 reviews found no effect - Several European countries (Greece, France, Italy) mandating vaccination for healthcare workers with refusers facing sanctions/fines/suspensions/job loss - Ontario requiring hospitals, licensed care homes and other high-risk settings such as post-secondary institutions, women’s shelters, youth care facilities, etc. to establish vaccination policies – while vaccination will not likely be mandatory, those who are not vaccinated will be subject to frequent antigen testing. - In Pakistan, the government will be blocking the SIM cards of vaccine refusers, and allowing business to resume in areas with a vaccination rate of greater than 20% - In Indonesia, vaccine refusers will have any social aid suspended and face fines - In the Philippines, the President is threatening to find ways to legalize arresting and forcing vaccination for refusers - A retrospective analysis of vaccination data in Israel found a peak of 2nd dose vaccinations correlating with the exemption of quarantine for vaccinated individuals beginning January 17th, and high rates continued following the day with the highest new daily cases as well as the day of highest fatality rates - Israeli survey of 500 individuals found that 21% of respondents were not intending to vaccinate. The implementation of the ‘Green Pass’ would possibly or definitely convince 31% of respondents, but 46% of respondents indicated that it would not.
Key Findings
May 27, 2021
Vaccine incentives are beginning to emerge in North America in various forms due to a lagging vaccine uptake combined with the threat of SARS-CoV-2 variants
Vaccine incentives range from free items and discounts offered by businesses to customers to financial incentives offered by companies to employees such as paid time off or cash bonuses
Some states/provinces have developed vaccine incentive programs offering large lotteries with cash prizes or scholarship awards, cash incentives or offers for free/discounted entertainment options
Some incentives are specifically geared to high priority populations, for example offering gift cards to anyone within a certain age demographic that receives a vaccine at certain sites, or offering the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine at walk-up vaccination sites in subway stations with the addition of free transit passes
Category
Administration
Subject
Decision Making
Vaccines
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Ellsworth, C. What are other jurisdictions offering for incentive-based COVID-19? 2021 Aug 24, Document no.: EOC210501v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Requiring proof of vaccination for entry into another country is not a new idea. There are regulations that need to be followed to set up a “vaccine passport” in relation to international travel (International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005))
At present the World Health Organization does not recommend vaccine passports for international travel, but they are working on a standard Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specification and standards to allow for harmonised processes to include COVID-19 vaccines into an updated version of the IHR (2005)
Countries around the world are beginning to put vaccine passports into place for international travel, as well as in some countries within country travel and access to services or businesses including Israel, France, Italy, Denmark, and the EU
The Canadian Federal government is supportive of a vaccine passport for international travel but recognize the issuing of vaccine passports will need to be province led
As of May 13, 2021, the province of Quebec has begun issuing a downloadable QR code that individual can keep on their smart phone.
As of June 9, 2021, the Federal government of Canada discussed easing restrictions for fully vaccinated Canadian citizens returning to the country
Ethical considerations in the use of vaccine passports include equitable access to vaccination (domestically and internationally), access to technology (eg. Smartphone passports), marginalization, or stigmatization especially among historically racialized groups, and socially isolated populations
Legal considerations include o Clarifying who has the legal authority to require proof of vaccination, o Ensuring that if new legislation is created and implemented it is in line with all pre-existing legislation (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Human Rights Codes, privacy legislation, employment legislation), o Ensuring that, if created by the government, there is coordination of the Provincial and Federal governments for international travel with respect to jurisdictional overlap, security of information, fraud
Health care facilities should be able to legally enact vaccination policies for patient-facing employees so long as they allow for exemptions due to medical inability or bona fide religious, or conscientious beliefs
Six in ten Canadians (61%) expect vaccine passports to be widely used in Canada by the end of 2021, the same proportion (61%) of Canadians also agreed that only vaccinated people should be allowed to engage in events involving larger crowds such as public transit, air travel, or attending cultural and sports events
Category
Administration
Subject
Ethics
Decision Making
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Lashta E, von Tigerstrom B, Reeder B, Groot G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the ethical/legal aspects of vaccine requirements? 2021 Jun 21, Document no.: EOC210503 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 25 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210502 RR
Question Submitted
May 27, 2021
Date Completed
June 10, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210502 RR
Question Submitted
May 27, 2021
Date Completed
June 10, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Only agreed upon contraindications against COVID-19 vaccination is for individuals with a history of allergic reactions to a component of the vaccine or an allergic reaction to a previous dose
Where allergies to components exist, vaccination with an alternative COVID-19 vaccine should be considered
Autoimmune conditions and treatments are not considered contraindications, however timing of vaccines in relation to treatment regimens should be considered
Category
Administration
Subject
Vaccination
Decision Making
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Young, C; Ellsworth, C. What are legitimate exemptions/contraindications for COVID-19 vaccines from a medical point of view? 2021 Jun 10, Document no.: EOC210502 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The group designated in Saskatchewan as Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) is a heterogenous clinical population with factors that impair their immune response to differing degrees.
Very Limited evidence is currently available to assess the immune response following vaccination is selected clinical populations; no evidence is available to assess vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in these populations. The clinical relevance of measured immune response with respect to protection from disease is still uncertain.
In considering the immune response of the CEV population, it is recommended that the absolute difference in immune response between 1 and 2 doses be considered, as it is possible some patient groups will have lowered protection regardless of vaccine strategy.
In terms of clinical subgroups: oOrgan transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive medication: solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression therapy were less likely to develop an antibody response to an mRNA vaccine, compared to those receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy only 10.8% became seropositive at 28 days after a single dose of mRNA vaccine. oCancer: A study of 151 elderly patients with solid and hematological malignancies and 54 healthy controls who received one or two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine shows approximately 39% of solid cancer patients, 13% of hematological cancer patients, and 97% of healthy controls (p<0.0001) developed anti-S IgG 21 days following a single dose vaccine. However, response in solid cancer patients increased to 95% within 2 weeks of the second dose at 21 days. oOther immunocompromising conditions (e.g., auto-immune disorders and therapy): some level of immunity is generated with vaccination; however, what this means clinically is unknown. It seems that ensuring the dosing is properly timed around biologic therapy is important.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Current recommendations suggest phased distribution of authorized vaccines and prioritization of the recipients (e.g., health care workers, frontline essential workers, and elderly population).
A concern that could exist with using AstraZeneca on critical populations is that it may have little coverage for mild-moderate B.1.351, which may have implications in transmission. This could be a concern in critical workforces if the variant becomes predominant, especially given the potentially higher transmissibility of variant. The literature is mixed but it is possible that AstraZeneca has lower efficacy than the mRNA vaccines.
Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that in the context of limited vaccine supply, initial doses of mRNA vaccines should be prioritized for those at highest risk of severe illness and death and highest risk of exposure to COVID-19. On the other hand, US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends no product preference for the vaccines.
Just recently, NACI has expanded its recommendation for the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to all people over the age of 18, now including those 65 years of age and over.
While Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines and need special logistical and transportation considerations, AstraZeneca and Johnson&Johnson (J&J) vaccines are viral vector vaccines that are easier to transport.
J&J is a single dose vaccine thus may be more appropriate in certain settings (such as homeless shelters and correctional facilities). Of note, there is no empirical evidence yet available to support this use; this suggestion is based simply on the nature of the vaccine.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Shumilak, G; Lee, S; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the differences between COVID-19 vaccines and how they should be distributed based on population group(s)? 2021 Mar 18; Document no.: EOC031001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 19 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062201v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2020
Date Completed
January 22, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062201v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2020
Date Completed
January 22, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
Generally speaking, data indicate that adult cancer patients and those who have recently received or are receiving anti-cancer therapy are at a higher risk of severe outcomes and death resulting from COVID-19 compared to those without cancer. However, more data are beginning to elucidate the nuances of these risks depending on patient specific factors.
Limited data indicate that pediatric cancer patients are not at a high level of risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
Limited evidence indicates some differences in the course and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection depending on the type of immunosuppressive therapy a patient receives.
Key Findings
Generally speaking, data indicate that adult cancer patients and those who have recently received or are receiving anti-cancer therapy are at a higher risk of severe outcomes and death resulting from COVID-19 compared to those without cancer.
Pediatric cancer populations may not be at the same level of risk as adult populations.
There is not enough evidence at this time to determine if there are differences in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients receiving chemotherapy vs. those who are not aside from outcomes and severity.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Chemotherapy
Cancer
Comorbidities
Natural History
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Groot, G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the differences in the clinical course of COVID-19 between patients undergoing chemotherapy and otherwise healthy individuals? 2021 Jan 22; Document no.: EOC062201v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 5 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
EOC062201 RR: June 29, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

30 records – page 1 of 2.