Dataset Information

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Contemporary, original research should be utilised to inform guidelines in urology relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review aimed to: identify all up-to-date original publications relating to urology and COVID-19, characterise where publications were from, and outline what topics were investigated. METHODS:This review utilised a search strategy that assessed five electronic databases, additional grey literature, and global trial registries. All current published, in-press, and pre-print manuscripts were included. Eligible studies were required to be original research articles of any study design, reporting on COVID-19 or urology, in any of study population, intervention, comparison, or outcomes. Included studies were reported in a narrative synthesis format. Data were summarised according to primary reported outcome topic. A world heatmap was generated to represent where included studies originated from. RESULTS:Of the 6617 search results, 48 studies met final inclusion criteria, including 8 pre-prints and 7 ongoing studies from online registries. These studies originated from ten countries according to first author affiliation. Most studies originated from China (n?=?13), followed by Italy (n?=?12) and USA (n?=?11). Topics of the study included pathophysiological, administrative, and clinical fields: translational (n?=?14), COVID-19-related outcomes (n?=?5), urology training (n?=?4), telemedicine (n?=?7), equipment and safety (n?=?2), urology in general (n?=?4), uro-oncology (n?=?3), urolithiasis (n?=?1), and kidney transplantation (n?=?8). CONCLUSION:This review has outlined available original research relevant to COVID-19 and urology from the international community. This summary may serve as a guide for future research priorities in this area.

SUBMITTER: Qu LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7480207 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

Qu Liang G LG Perera Marlon M Lawrentschuk Nathan N Umbas Rainy R Klotz Laurence L

World journal of urology 20200909 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>Contemporary, original research should be utilised to inform guidelines in urology relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review aimed to: identify all up-to-date original publications relating to urology and COVID-19, characterise where publications were from, and outline what topics were investigated.<h4>Methods</h4>This review utilised a search strategy that assessed five electronic databases, additional grey literature, and global trial registries. All current ...[more]

PMID: 32909171

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.DesignRapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.SettingHospital and community care.ParticipantsCOVID-19 patients of all ages.InterventionsCOVID-19 treatment.ResultsThe literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.ConclusionsThis rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented many multi-faceted challenges to the maintenance of service quality and safety, highlighting the need for resilient and responsive healthcare systems more than ever before. This review examined empirical investigations of Resilient Health Care (RHC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to: identify key areas of research; synthesise findings on capacities that develop RHC across system levels (micro, meso, macro); and identify reported adverse consequences of the effort of maintaining system performance on system agents (healthcare workers, patients).MethodsThree academic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) from 1st January 2020 to 30th August 2022 using keywords pertaining to: systems resilience and related concepts; healthcare and healthcare settings; and COVID-19. Capacities that developed and enhanced systems resilience were synthesised using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.ResultsFifty publications were included in this review. Consistent with previous research, studies from high-income countries and the use of qualitative methods within the context of hospitals, dominated the included studies. However, promising developments have been made, with an emergence of studies conducted at the macro-system level, including the development of quantitative tools and indicator-based modelling approaches, and the increased involvement of low- and middle-income countries in research (LMIC). Concordant with previous research, eight key resilience capacities were identified that can support, develop or enhance resilient performance, namely: structure, alignment, coordination, learning, involvement, risk awareness, leadership, and communication. The need for healthcare workers to constantly learn and make adaptations, however, had potentially adverse physical and emotional consequences for healthcare workers, in addition to adverse effects on routine patient care.ConclusionsThis review identified an upsurge in new empirical studies on health system resilience associated with COVID-19. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine RHC in practice, and uncovered emerging new evidence on RHC theory and system factors that contribute to resilient performance at micro, meso and macro levels. These findings will enable leaders and other stakeholders to strengthen health system resilience when responding to future challenges and unexpected events.

Project description:ObjectivesGood social connection is associated with better health and wellbeing. However, social connection has distinct considerations for people living in long-term care (LTC) homes. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize research literature linking social connection to mental health outcomes, specifically among LTC residents, as well as research to identify strategies to help build and maintain social connection in this population during COVID-19.DesignScoping review.Settings and participantsResidents of LTC homes, care homes, and nursing homes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid), Emcare Nursing (Ovid), and AgeLine (EBSCO) for research that quantified an aspect of social connection among LTC residents; we limited searches to English-language articles published from database inception to search date (July 2019). For the current analysis, we included studies that reported (1) the association between social connection and a mental health outcome, (2) the association between a modifiable risk factor and social connection, or (3) intervention studies with social connection as an outcome. From studies in (2) and (3), we identified strategies that could be implemented and adapted by LTC residents, families and staff during COVID-19 and included the articles that informed these strategies.ResultsWe included 133 studies in our review. We found 61 studies that tested the association between social connection and a mental health outcome. We highlighted 12 strategies, informed by 72 observational and intervention studies, that might help LTC residents, families, and staff build and maintain social connection for LTC residents.Conclusions and implicationsPublished research conducted among LTC residents has linked good social connection to better mental health outcomes. Observational and intervention studies provide some evidence on approaches to address social connection in this population. Although further research is needed, it does not obviate the need to act given the sudden and severe impact of COVID-19 on social connection in LTC residents.

Project description:ObjectivesIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications.DesignScoping review.SettingPopulation-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials.ParticipantsEligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresData were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables.Results11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF.ConclusionsThe majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

Dataset Information

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

Publications

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets