Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate.

BACKGROUND: Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate. SEARCH METHODS: The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist. RESULTS: A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking. REGISTRATION: A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).

COVID-19 infection, and reinfection, and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection among health care workers in the setting of omicron variant transmission in New Delhi, India.

Background: Surge of SARS CoV-2 infections ascribed to omicron variant began in December 2021 in New Delhi. We determined the infection and reinfection density in a cohort of health care workers (HCWs) along with vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection within omicron transmission period (considered from December 01, 2021 to February 25, 2022. Methods: This is an observational study from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Data were collected telephonically. Person-time at risk was counted from November 30, 2021 till date of infection/ reinfection, or date of interview. Comparison of clinical features and severity was done with previous pandemic periods. VE was estimated using test-negative case-control design [matched pairs (for age and sex)]. Vaccination status was compared and adjusted odds ratios (OR) were computed by conditional logistic regression. VE was estimated as (1-adjusted OR)X100-. Findings: 11474 HCWs participated in this study. The mean age was 36⋅2 (±10⋅7) years. Complete vaccination with two doses were reported by 9522 (83%) HCWs [8394 (88%) Covaxin and 1072 Covishield (11%)]. The incidence density of all infections and reinfection during the omicron transmission period was 34⋅8 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 33⋅5-36⋅2] and 45⋅6 [95% CI: 42⋅9-48⋅5] per 10000 person days respectively. The infection was milder as compared to previous periods. VE was 52⋅5% (95% CI: 3⋅9-76⋅5, p = 0⋅036) for those who were tested within 14-60 days of receiving second dose and beyond this period (61-180 days), modest effect was observed. Interpretation: Almost one-fifth of HCWs were infected with SARS CoV-2 during omicron transmission period, with predominant mild spectrum of COVID-19 disease. Waning effects of vaccine protection were noted with increase in time intervals since vaccination. Funding: None.

SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection Rate and Estimated Effectiveness of the Inactivated Whole Virion Vaccine BBV152 Against Reinfection Among Health Care Workers in New Delhi, India.

Importance: A surge of COVID-19 occurred from March to June 2021, in New Delhi, India, linked to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out for health care workers (HCWs) starting in January 2021. Objective: To assess the incidence density of reinfection among a cohort of HCWs and estimate the effectiveness of the inactivated whole virion vaccine BBV152 against reinfection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study among HCWs working at a tertiary care center in New Delhi, India. Exposures: Vaccination with 0, 1, or 2 doses of BBV152. Main Outcomes and Measures: The HCWs were categorized as fully vaccinated (with 2 doses and ≥15 days after the second dose), partially vaccinated (with 1 dose or 2 doses with <15 days after the second dose), or unvaccinated. The incidence density of COVID-19 reinfection per 100 person-years was computed, and events from March 3, 2020, to June 18, 2021, were included for analysis. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Estimated vaccine effectiveness (1 - adjusted HR) was reported. Results: Among 15 244 HCWs who participated in the study, 4978 (32.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 36.6 (10.3) years, and 55.0% were male. The reinfection incidence density was 7.26 (95% CI: 6.09-8.66) per 100 person-years (124 HCWs [2.5%], total person follow-up period of 1696 person-years as time at risk). Fully vaccinated HCWs had lower risk of reinfection (HR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.08-0.23]), symptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.24]), and asymptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05-0.53]) compared with unvaccinated HCWs. Accordingly, among the 3 vaccine categories, reinfection was observed in 60 of 472 (12.7%) of unvaccinated (incidence density, 18.05 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 14.02-23.25), 39 of 356 (11.0%) of partially vaccinated (incidence density 15.62 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 11.42-21.38), and 17 of 1089 (1.6%) fully vaccinated (incidence density 2.18 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.35-3.51) HCWs. The estimated effectiveness of BBV152 against reinfection was 86% (95% CI, 77%-92%); symptomatic reinfection, 87% (95% CI, 76%-93%); and asymptomatic reinfection, 84% (95% CI, 47%-95%) among fully vaccinated HCWs. Partial vaccination was not associated with reduced risk of reinfection. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that BBV152 was associated with protection against both symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection in HCWs after a complete vaccination schedule, when the predominant circulating variant was B.1.617.2.