Participating as a research team during the COVID-19 pandemic benefits mental health of undergraduate medical students in Brazil.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, undergraduate medical students (UMS) exposed to isolation, social distancing and complete or partial face-to-face educational activities interruption may present increased stress, depression and anxiety. This study was undertaken to evaluate if, during isolation, UMS involved in online group activities as investigators of a research project (volunteer group) would present better mental health than their colleagues, not involved in that research (control group). A Web-based survey, via the Google Forms platform, including details on demographic data, life habits, previous health conditions, worries with the COVID-19 pandemic, sleep pattern modifications and depression, anxiety and mental stress, using the DASS-21 (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale) was implemented from 20 July to 31 August 2020. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 20.0. A p-value <0.05 was significant. A total of 684 UMS were included, 228 as a volunteer group and 456 as a control group. Mean age was 23.15 (3.16) years. The groups were paired for age, gender, ethnicity, life habits and previous health conditions. Older age, male gender, participation in the research project, unchanged sleep pattern during the pandemic, lack of fear from getting the COVID-19 and lack of previous health conditions were associated with lower DASS21 scores (better mental health). Participating as investigators of a research project foreseeing frequent interaction with patients, colleagues and professors (other investigators) lead to better mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine in Brazil.

Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their performance to detect neurosyphilis, including new technologies and the variety of existing methods. METHODS: We searched databases to select articles that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and assessed their accuracy, presenting sensitivity and specificity values. Information was synthesized in tables. The risk of bias was examined using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. The main finding was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had varied purposes, techniques, and evaluation methodologies. There was no uniform criterion or gold standard to define neurosyphilis. The current basis for its diagnosis is clinical suspicion and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. There are new promising tests such as PCR tests and chemokine measurement assays. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge, despite the variety of existing and developing tests. We believe that the multiplicity of reference standards adopted as criteria for diagnosis reveals the imprecision of the current definitions of neurosyphilis. An important next step for the scientific community is to create a universally accepted diagnostic definition for this disease.

Effects of Participating in a Research Project During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Students' Educational Routines and Mental Health: Protocol for a Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in social isolation, which has a potential negative impact on the educational routines (eg, the suspension of face-to-face appointments) and mental health of medical students. The Mario Pinotti II (MPII) study is a 24-week observational study that conducted scheduled telephone calls every 2 weeks to verify the occurrence of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases on chronic hydroxychloroquine therapy (from March 29, 2020, to September 30, 2020). The effects of voluntarily participating in a research project (ie, one that involves interactions via telephone contact with patients, professors, rheumatologists, and colleagues) on the daily lives and mental health of medical students requires evaluation. OBJECTIVE: As medical students are professionals in training and have a high level of responsibility in terms of handling the emotional and physical aspects of several diseases, this study aims to evaluate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and participation in the MPII study on the educational routines and mental health of medical students. METHODS: A web-based survey was carried out to perform a cross-sectional comparative assessment of medical students who participated in the MPII study and their colleagues who were not involved in the MPII study. Participants from both groups were matched based on sex, age, and medical school. The web questionnaire was developed by a panel composed of graduate medical students, rheumatologists, medical school professors, and a psychology professor. The questionnaire included details on demographic and life habits data and evaluated participants' impressions of the MPII study and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their educational routines and medical training. In addition, depression, anxiety, and stress were evaluated using the Brazilian version of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS)-21, and currently, the DASS-21 scores are grouped as those that indicate a low, moderate, or high risk of mental distress. This project was approved by the Federal University of São Paulo Ethics Committee (CAAE: 34034620.0.0000.5505). RESULTS: Data were collected from both medical student groups from July 20 to August 31, 2020. Data extraction was completed in September 2020. The data analysis is ongoing. We expect the results to be published in the first semester of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide insight into the effects of participating in a research project on depression, anxiety, and stress, which will be determined by applying the DASS-21 to a large sample of Brazilian undergraduate medical students. We will also evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students' educational routines and medical training. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24617.

Head and Neck Practice in the COVID-19 Pandemics Today: A Rapid Systematic Review

Abstract Introduction Head and neck specialists and otorhinolaryngologists are greatly exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in their everyday praxis. Many articles are being published regarding medical staff protection and patient management during the pandemic. Objective To provide an easy access to and a trustful review of the main aspects that have changed in the head and neck surgery and otorhinolaryngology practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data Synthesis The search terms used were: (head and neck or otorhinolaryngology or ORL or thyroid) AND (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-COV-2] or COVID-19 or CORONAVIRUS). The results were limited to the year of 2020. Articles were read in English, Portuguese, French, German, and Spanish or translated from Chinese. All included articles were read by at least two authors. Thirty-five articles were included. Most articles suggest postponing elective surgeries, with exception to cancer surgeries, which should be evaluated separately. Twenty-five articles recommended some kind of screening prior to surgery, using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and epidemiological data. Extra precautions, such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), are suggested for both tracheostomies and endoscopies. Fifteen articles give recommendation on how to use telemedicine. Conclusion The use of PPE (N95 or powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) during procedures should be mandatory. Patients should be evaluated about their COVID-19 status before hospital admission. Cancer should be treated. Tracheostomy tube cuff should be inflated inside the tracheal incision. All COVID-19 precautions should be kept until there is a validated antiviral treatment or an available vaccine.

Head and Neck Practice in the COVID-19 Pandemics Today: A Rapid Systematic Review.

Introduction Head and neck specialists and otorhinolaryngologists are greatly exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in their everyday praxis. Many articles are being published regarding medical staff protection and patient management during the pandemic. Objective To provide an easy access to and a trustful review of the main aspects that have changed in the head and neck surgery and otorhinolaryngology practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data Synthesis The search terms used were: ( head and neck or otorhinolaryngology or ORL or thyroid ) AND ( severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [ SARS-COV-2] or COVID-19 or CORONAVIRUS ). The results were limited to the year of 2020. Articles were read in English, Portuguese, French, German, and Spanish or translated from Chinese. All included articles were read by at least two authors. Thirty-five articles were included. Most articles suggest postponing elective surgeries, with exception to cancer surgeries, which should be evaluated separately. Twenty-five articles recommended some kind of screening prior to surgery, using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and epidemiological data. Extra precautions, such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE), are suggested for both tracheostomies and endoscopies. Fifteen articles give recommendation on how to use telemedicine. Conclusion The use of PPE (N95 or powered air-purifying respirator [PAPR]) during procedures should be mandatory. Patients should be evaluated about their COVID-19 status before hospital admission. Cancer should be treated. Tracheostomy tube cuff should be inflated inside the tracheal incision. All COVID-19 precautions should be kept until there is a validated antiviral treatment or an available vaccine.

Surgical Practice in the Current COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Systematic Review.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and evolved into a global problem in a short period. The pandemic has led to many social and health-care challenges. In this context, surgery is an area that is facing the need for many adaptations. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed different perspectives concerning this situation, aiming to provide recommendations that could guide surgeons and entities toward screening, elective and emergency surgeries, decision making, and operating room management. A computerized search in PubMed, Scopus, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) for relevant literature up to April 4, 2020, was performed. Articles were included if they were related to surgery dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 281 articles found in our initial search and 15 articles from alternative sources, 39 were included in our review after a systematic evaluation. Concerning preoperative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, 29 (74.4%) articles recommended some kind of screening. Another major suggestion was postponing all (or at least selected) elective operations (29 articles, 74.4%). Several additional recommendations with respect to surgical practice or surgical staff were also assessed and discussed, such as performing laparoscopic surgeries and avoiding the use of electrocauterization. On the basis of the current literature, we concluded that any surgery that can be delayed should be postponed. COVID-19 screening is strongly recommended for all surgical cases. Moreover, surgical staff should be reduced to the essential members and provided with institutional psychological support.

Surgical practice in the current COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid systematic review

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak </mac_aq>started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and evolved into a global problem in a short period. The pandemic has led to many social and health-care challenges. In this context, surgery is an area that is facing the need for many adaptations. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed different perspectives concerning this situation, aiming to provide recommendations that could guide surgeons and </mac_aq>entities toward screening, elective and emergency surgeries, decision making, and operating room management. A computerized search in PubMed, Scopus, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) for relevant literature up to April 4, 2020, was performed. Articles were included if they were related to surgery dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 281 articles found in our initial search and 15 articles from alternative sources, 39 were included in our review after a systematic evaluation. Concerning preoperative testing </mac_aq>for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, 29 (74.4%) articles recommended some kind of </mac_aq>screening. Another major suggestion was postponing all (or at least selected) elective operations (29 articles, </mac_aq>74.4%). Several additional recommendations with respect to surgical practice or surgical staff were also assessed and discussed, such as performing laparoscopic surgeries and avoiding the use of electrocauterization. On the basis of the current literature, we concluded that any surgery that can be delayed should be postponed. COVID-19 screening is strongly recommended for all surgical cases. Moreover, surgical staff should be reduced to the essential members and provided with institutional psychological support.