RESUMO
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has now rapidly spread around the world, causing an outbreak of acute infectious pneumonia. To develop effective and safe therapies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has become the major global public health concern. Traditional medicine (TM)/herbal medicines (HMs) have been used to treat multiple epidemics in human history, which brings hope for the fight against COVID-19 in some areas. For example, in China, India, and South Korea with traditional medication history and theory, the governments issued a series of guidelines to support TM/HMs in the medication of COVID-19. In contrast, other countries e.g. North American and European governments are typically silent on these practices, unless to warn of possible harm and overselling. Such difference is due to the discrepancy in culture, history and philosophical views of health care and medication, as well as unharmonized policies and standards in the regulation and legalization of TM/HMs among different areas. Herein, we reviewed the responses and scientific researches from seven selected countries on the policies and legalization of TM/HMs to treat COVID-19, and also analyzed the major challenges and concerns to utilize the traditional knowledge and resource.
Assuntos
Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , COVID-19/terapia , Terapias Complementares/legislação & jurisprudência , Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Saúde Global/legislação & jurisprudência , Medicina Tradicional , Preparações de Plantas/uso terapêutico , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Formulação de PolíticasRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there were any significant changes in surgical training volume over the past 20â¯years that might have ramifications toward preparedness for practice. METHODS: We used deidentified annual summaries of fellow case numbers for the academic years 1999 through 2018. Unpaired t-tests with Welch's correction were performed on all surgical categories for 10-year and 5-year periods. RESULTS: The total number of hysterectomies performed each year did not change significantly. The percent of hysterectomies performed by minimally invasive surgery increased significantly starting in 2008. There was a significant decline in the number of radical hysterectomies conducted starting after 2004, which then remained stable. There was also a significant decline in the number of bowel resections/anastomoses performed by fellows on the gynecologic oncology services that occurred and stabilized during the same time frame. There were other significant trends associated with the introduction of minimally invasive techniques. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest the need to reevaluate fellowship training and/or the scope of surgical practice in gynecologic oncology.