Menstrual abnormalities after COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nazir M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9294036 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Menstrual abnormalities after COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review.
Nazir Maheen M Asghar Shumaila S Rathore Muhammad Ali MA Shahzad Asima A Shahid Anum A Ashraf Khan Alishba A Malik Asmara A Fakhar Tehniat T Kausar Hafsa H Malik Jahanzeb J
Vacunas 20220719
The objective of this systematic review is to give a comprehensive interpretation of menstrual cycle changes after the COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, it is imperative to assess reports of menstrual changes following vaccination to dispel concerns that COVID-19 vaccines hinder the likelihood of pregnancy in the long run. A literature review was conducted using digital databases to systematically identify the studies reporting any menstrual abnormalities after the COVID-19 vaccine. Detailed p ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The objective of this systematic review is to give a comprehensive interpretation of menstrual cycle changes after the COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, it is imperative to assess reports of menstrual changes following vaccination to dispel concerns that COVID-19 vaccines hinder the likelihood of pregnancy in the long run. A literature review was conducted using digital databases to systematically identify the studies reporting any menstrual abnormalities after the COVID-19 vaccine. Detailed patient-level study characteristics including the type of study, sample size, administered vaccines, and menstrual abnormalities were abstracted. A total of 78 138 vaccinated females were included in this review from 14 studies. Of these, 39 759 (52.05%) had some form of a menstrual problem after vaccination. Due to the lack of published research articles, preprints were also included in this review. Menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, and polymenorrhea were the most commonly observed problems and the overall study-level rate of menstrual abnormality ranged from 0.83% to 90.9%. Age, history of pregnancy, systemic side-effects of COVID-19, smoking, and second dose of COVID-19 vaccine were predictors of menstrual problems after vaccination.
| S-EPMC9683843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Computed tomography (CT) of the chest is one of the main diagnositic tools for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To document the chest CT findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 and their association with the clinical severity, we searched related literatures through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (inception to May 4, 2020) and reviewed reference lists of previous systematic reviews. A total of 31 case reports (3768 patients) on CT findings of COVID-19 were included. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (18.4%) and diabetes mellitus (8.3%). The most common symptom was fever (78.7%), followed by cough (60.2%). It took an average of 5.6 days from symptom onset to admission. The most common chest CT finding was vascular enlargement (84.8%), followed by ground-glass opacity (GGO) (60.1%), air-bronchogram (47.8%), and consolidation (41.4%). Most lung lesions were located in the lung periphery (72.2%) and involved bilateral lung (76%). Most patients showed normal range of laboratory findings such as white blood cell count (96.4%) and lymphocyte (87.2%). Compared to previous published meta-analyses, our study is the first to summarize the different radiologic characteristics of chest CT in a total of 3768 COVID-19 patients by compiling case series studies. A comprehensive diagnostic approach should be adopted for patients with known COVID-19, suspected cases, and for exposed individuals.
| S-EPMC8436104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePregnancy is a known risk factor for severe Coronavirus disease 2019. It is important to develop safe vaccines that elicit strong maternal and fetal antibody responses.MethodsRegistries (ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO Clinical Trial Registry, and the European Union Clinical Trial Registry) and databases (MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Proquest, Springer, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) were systematically searched in June 20-22, 2021, for research articles pertaining to Covid-19 and pregnancy. Manual searches of bioRxiv and medRxiv were also conducted. Inclusion criteria were studies that focused on Covid-19 vaccination among pregnant women, while review articles and non-human studies were excluded. Infection rate, maternal antibody response, transplacental antibody transfer, and adverse events were described.ResultsThere were 13 observational studies with a total of 48,039 pregnant women who received mRNA vaccines. Of those, three studies investigated infection rate, six studies investigated maternal antibody response, seven studies investigated antibody transfer, three studies reported local adverse events, and five studies reported systemic adverse events. The available data suggested that the mRNA-based vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) can prevent future SARS-CoV-2 infection. These vaccines did not show clear harm in pregnancy. The most commonly encountered adverse reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache, but these were transient. Antibody responses were rapid after the first vaccine dose. After the booster, antibody responses were stronger and associated with better transplacental antibody transfer. Longer intervals between first vaccination dose and delivery were also associated with higher antibody fetal IgG and a better antibody transfer ratio.ConclusionsThe SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines are encouraged for pregnancy. These vaccines can be a safe option for pregnant women and their fetuses. Two vaccine doses are recommended for more robust maternal and fetal antibody responses. Longer latency is associated with higher fetal antibody responses. Further research about its long-term effect on pregnancy is needed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42021261684).
| S-EPMC8809595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 lockdowns produced psychological and lifestyle consequences for women of reproductive age and changes in their menstrual cycles. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to characterize changes in menstrual cycle length associated with lockdowns compared to non-lockdown periods. A search on 5 May 2022 retrieved articles published between 1 December 2019, and 1 May 2022, from Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. The included articles were peer-reviewed observational studies with full texts in English, that reported menstrual cycle lengths during lockdowns and non-lockdowns. Cross-sectional and cohort studies were appraised using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Cohort Studies, respectively. Review Manager was used to generate a forest plot with odds ratios (OR) at the 95% confidence interval (CI), finding a significant association between lockdown and menstrual cycle length changes for 21,729 women of reproductive age (OR = 9.14, CI: 3.16-26.50) with a significant overall effect of the mean (Z = 4.08, p < 0.0001). High heterogeneity with significant dispersion of values was observed (I 2 = 99%, τ = 1.40, χ2 = 583.78, p < 0.0001). This review was limited by the availability of published articles that favored high-income countries. The results have implications for adequately preparing women and assisting them with menstrual concerns during lockdown periods.
| S-EPMC9580671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The main aim of this study is to investigate the current evidence regarding the association between COVID-19 vaccination and ocular vascular events. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022358133). On 18 August 2022, an electronic search was conducted through five databases. All original articles reporting individuals who were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and developed ophthalmic vascular events were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the NIH tool. A total of 49 studies with 130 ocular vascular cases were included. Venous occlusive events were the most common events (54.3%), which mostly occurred following the first dose (46.2%) and within the first five days following vaccination (46.2%). Vascular events occurred more with the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines (81.6%), and mostly presented unilaterally (73.8%). The most frequently reported treatment was intravitreal anti-VEGF (n = 39, 30.4%). The majority of patients (90.1%) demonstrated either improvement (p = 0.321) or persistence (p = 0.414) in the final BCVA. Ophthalmic vascular events are serious vision-threatening side effects that have been associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Clinicians should be aware of the possible association between COVID-19 vaccines and ocular vascular events to provide early diagnosis and treatment.
| S-EPMC9786009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous vaccines are under clinical development and implementation for the prevention of severe course and lethal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aims to summarize and integrated the findings of studies regarding cutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. This systematic review conducted by searching the scientific databases of PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, and Web of knowledge from the beginning of the COVID-19 to May 10, 2021. Articles were reviewed and analyzed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Seventeen studies on cutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines were included after the screening of search results based on to the eligibility criteria. The results showed that the most common injection site reactions and delayed large local reactions, arising from all vaccine types, were redness/erythema (39%), followed by: itchiness (28%), urticarial rash (17%) on the neck, upper limbs, and trunk, morbilliform eruptions (6.5%), Pityriasis rosea (3%), swelling, and burning, and so forth. Most cutaneous reactions occurred in women (84%), and middle-aged people, after the first dose of vaccine, with the onset ranged from 1 to 21 days after vaccination. In addition, cutaneous reactions were generally self-limiting, and needed little or no therapeutic intervention, that were not regarded as a barrier to injecting a second dose. In conclusion, severe cutaneous side effects are very rare and approved vaccines have satisfactory safety profiles. Therefore, mild or moderate cutaneous reactions should not discourage people from vaccination. In certain groups such as patients with allergies and a history of local injection reactions, pre-vaccination counseling and assurance, also use of appropriate medications may be helpful. However, more studies are needed to investigate the side effect profile of all COVID-19 vaccines.
| S-EPMC9111405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines can lead to diverse local and systemic side effects, but there is limited evidence concerning their association with menstrual cycle changes. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of menstrual cycle alterations after COVID-19 vaccination among adult women.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Science Direct databases for observational studies that included adult women and investigated the range of menstrual alterations. The quality of the studies was evaluated via the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. All the data were analyzed via Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 4.0. Forest plots were created to calculate the individual and pooled prevalence rates of different types of menstrual changes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) via fixed-effects and random-effects models, as appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q statistics and the I2 test.ResultsEleven studies, encompassing 26,283 adult women, met our eligibility criteria. Among the selected studies, five were cohort studies, five were cross-sectional studies, and one employed a case‒control design. The menstrual changes included abnormal cycle duration, dysmenorrhea, irregular cycles, and abnormal cycle flow (heavy and light flow), with pooled percentages of 27.3% (CI: 7.2-64.6%), 22% (CI: 5.2-59.4%), 16% (CI: 5.8-37.2%), 11.7% (CI: 5.8-22%), and 5.5% (CI: 2.3-12.5%), respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the prevalence of menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination and emphasizes the importance of considering menstrual health as an integral part of postvaccination monitoring and health care interventions. However, longitudinal studies are essential for establishing a definitive causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual alterations.
| S-EPMC11412023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to synthesize early data on typology and topography of brain abnormalities in adults with COVID-19 in acute/subacute phase.MethodsWe performed systematic literature search via PubMed, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect on articles published between January 1 and July 05, 2020, using the following strategy and key words: ((covid[Title/Abstract]) OR (sars-cov-2[Title/Abstract]) OR (coronavirus[Title/Abstract])) AND (brain[Title/Abstract]). A total of 286 non-duplicate matches were screened for original contributions reporting brain imaging data related to SARS-Cov-2 presentation in adults.ResultsThe selection criteria were met by 26 articles (including 21 case reports, and 5 cohort studies). The data analysis in a total of 361 patients revealed that brain abnormalities were noted in 124/361 (34%) reviewed cases. Neurologic symptoms were the primary reason for referral for neuroimaging across the studies. Modalities included CT (-angiogram, -perfusion, -venogram), EEG, MRI (-angiogram, functional), and PET. The most frequently reported brain abnormalities were brain white matter (WM) hyperintensities on MRI 66/124 (53% affected cases) and hypodensities on CT (additional 23% affected cases), followed by microhemorrhages, hemorrhages and infarcts, while other types were found in <5% affected cases. WM abnormalities were most frequently noted in bilateral anterior and posterior cerebral WM (50% affected cases).ConclusionAbout a third of acute/subacute COVID-19 patients referred for neuroimaging show brain abnormalities suggestive of COVID-19-related etiology. The predominant neuroimaging features were diffuse cerebral WM hypodensities / hyperintensities attributable to leukoencephalopathy, leukoaraiosis or rarefield WM.
| S-EPMC7366124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments, COVID-19, and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.ResultsThe search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.ConclusionsOur review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7.
| S-EPMC11319885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOnce the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, the world was waiting for the clue that would be able to cut down the progression of the disease. Vaccines play a crucial role in reducing the disease and saving many people worldwide. However, there are several side effects of these vaccines, like pain, fatigue, fever, and neurological defects like Bell's palsy. In this systematic review, we presented evidence about the occurrence of Bell's palsy followed by COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception till October 2022. The quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute, National Institute of Health, and Newcastle-Ottawa. The analysis was conducted on SPSS.ResultsThirty-five records were involved in our study. The results of our cases revealed that most of the patients (62.8%) experienced unilateral facial paralysis. Also, the majority of the cases were reported after the first dose, and most cases were after Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V vaccines, respectively. The patients who were treated with corticosteroids, IVIG, and anti-viral drugs, showed marked recovery afterward.ConclusionThe rate ratio of Bell's palsy after COVID-19 vaccination was 25.3 per 1,000,000. The ratio was higher after the first dose compared to the second dose and was higher among those who took Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine compared to other vaccines. However, this condition was reported in a small number of cases among a large number of vaccinated people worldwide. It is important to note that the benefits of getting vaccinated far outweigh any potential risks.
| S-EPMC9961047 | biostudies-literature