Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.

Biomarkers for diagnosing serious bacterial infections in older outpatients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The value of biomarkers for diagnosing bacterial infections in older outpatients is uncertain and limited official guidance exists for clinicians in this area. The aim of this review is to critically appraise and evaluate biomarkers for diagnosing bacterial infections in older adults (aged 65 years and above). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception to January 2018. We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of blood, urinary, and salivary biomarkers in diagnosing bacterial infections in older adults. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies of moderate quality (11,034 participants) including 51 biomarkers at varying thresholds for diagnosing bacterial infections. An elevated Procalcitonin (≥ 0.2 ng/mL) may help diagnose bacteraemia in older adults [+ve LR range 1.50 to 2.60]. A CRP ≥ 50 mg/L only raises the probability of bacteraemia by 5%. A positive urine dipstick aids diagnosis of UTI (+ve LR range 1.23 to 54.90), and absence helps rule out UTI (-ve LR range 0.06 to 0.46). An elevated white blood cell count is unhelpful in diagnosing intra-abdominal infections (+ve LR range 0.75 to 2.62), but may aid differentiation of bacterial infection from other acute illness (+ve LR range 2.14 to 7.12). CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggests that many diagnostic tests useful in younger patients, do not help to diagnose bacterial infections in older adults. Further evidence from high quality studies is urgently needed to guide clinical practice. Until then, symptoms and signs remain the mainstay of diagnosis in community based populations.

Medications that reduce emergency hospital admissions: an overview of systematic reviews and prioritisation of treatments.

BACKGROUND: Rates of emergency hospitalisations are increasing in many countries, leading to disruption in the quality of care and increases in cost. Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce emergency admission rates is a key priority. There have been large-scale evidence reviews to address this issue; however, there have been no reviews of medication therapies, which have the potential to reduce the use of emergency health-care services. The objectives of this study were to review systematically the evidence to identify medications that affect emergency hospital admissions and prioritise therapies for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS: This was a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews & Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Google Scholar and the websites of ten major funding agencies and health charities, using broad search criteria. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of any medication on emergency hospital admissions among adults. We assessed the quality of reviews using AMSTAR. To prioritise therapies, we assessed the quality of trial evidence underpinning meta-analysed effect estimates and cross-referenced the evidence with clinical guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 140 systematic reviews, which included 1968 unique randomised controlled trials and 925,364 patients. Reviews contained 100 medications tested in 47 populations. We identified high-to moderate-quality evidence for 28 medications that reduced admissions. Of these medications, 11 were supported by clinical guidelines in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. These 11 therapies were for patients with heart failure (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, aldosterone receptor antagonists and digoxin), stable coronary artery disease (intensive statin therapy), asthma exacerbations (early inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department and anticholinergics), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists) and schizophrenia (second-generation antipsychotics and depot/maintenance antipsychotics). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 11 medications supported by strong evidence and clinical guidelines that could be considered in quality monitoring and improvement strategies to help reduce emergency hospital admission rates. The findings are relevant to health systems with a large burden of chronic disease and those managing increasing pressures on acute health-care services.

Who breaches the four-hour emergency department wait time target? A retrospective analysis of 374,000 emergency department attendances between 2008 and 2013 at a type 1 emergency department in England.

BACKGROUND: The four-hour target is a key hospital emergency department performance indicator in England and one that drives the physical and organisational design of the ED. Some studies have identified time of presentation as a key factor affecting waiting times. Few studies have investigated other determinants of breaching the four-hour target. Therefore, our objective was to describe patterns of emergency department breaches of the four-hour wait time target and identify patients at highest risk of breaching. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of a large type 1 Emergency department at an NHS teaching hospital in Oxford, England. We analysed anonymised individual level patient data for 378,873 emergency department attendances, representing all attendances between April 2008 and April 2013. We examined patient characteristics and emergency department presentation circumstances associated with the highest likelihood of breaching the four-hour wait time target. RESULTS: We used 374,459 complete cases for analysis. In total, 8.3% of all patients breached the four-hour wait time target. The main determinants of patients breaching the four-hour wait time target were hour of arrival to the ED, day of the week, patient age, ED referral source, and the types of investigations patients receive (p < 0.01 for all associations). Patients most likely to breach the four-hour target were older, presented at night, presented on Monday, received multiple types of investigation in the emergency department, and were not self-referred (p < 0.01 for all associations). Patients attending from October to February had a higher odds of breaching compared to those attending from March to September (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.59 to 1.66). CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of independent patient and circumstantial factors associated with the probability of breaching the four-hour ED wait time target including patient age, ED referral source, the types of investigations patients receive, as well as the hour, day, and month of arrival to the ED. Efforts to reduce the number of breaches could explore late-evening/overnight staffing, access to diagnostic tests, rapid discharge facilities, and early assessment and input on diagnostic and management strategies from a senior practitioner.

Indications for Use of Damage Control Surgery in Civilian Trauma Patients: A Content Analysis and Expert Appropriateness Rating Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize and evaluate indications for use of damage control (DC) surgery in civilian trauma patients. BACKGROUND: Although DC surgery may improve survival in select, severely injured patients, the procedure is associated with significant morbidity, suggesting that it should be used only when appropriately indicated. METHODS: Two investigators used an abbreviated grounded theory method to synthesize indications for DC surgery reported in peer-reviewed articles between 1983 and 2014 into a reduced number of named, content-characteristic codes representing unique indications. An international panel of trauma surgery experts (n = 9) then rated the appropriateness (expected benefit-to-harm ratio) of the coded indications for use in surgical practice. RESULTS: The 1107 indications identified in the literature were synthesized into 123 unique pre- (n = 36) and intraoperative (n = 87) indications. The panel assessed 101 (82.1%) of these indications to be appropriate. The indications most commonly reported and assessed to be appropriate included pre- and intraoperative hypothermia (median temperature <34°C), acidosis (median pH <7.2), and/or coagulopathy. Others included 5 different injury patterns, inability to control bleeding by conventional methods, administration of a large volume of packed red blood cells (median >10 units), inability to close the abdominal wall without tension, development of abdominal compartment syndrome during attempted abdominal wall closure, and need to reassess extent of bowel viability. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a comprehensive list of candidate indications for use of DC surgery. These indications provide a practical foundation to guide surgical practice while studies are conducted to evaluate their impact on patient care and outcomes.

Implementation of an Advanced Nursing Directive for Children With Right Lower Quadrant Pain: Identifying Those Requiring Further Investigation and Improving Flow Metrics.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced nursing directives (ANDs) empower nursing staff to provide advanced levels of care before physician assessment. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine whether an AND for right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain could identify children who required any further investigation to diagnose appendicitis and (2) to determine whether children meeting AND criteria had better emergency department (ED) flow metrics compared with those who did not meet the criteria. METHODS: Health records of children aged 3 to 17 years presenting to the ED with abdominal pain who were managed using the departmental AND for RLQ pain were reviewed. Primary outcomes included (1) the proportion of patients requiring further investigation to diagnose appendicitis and (2) the time interval from triage to blood draw. Secondary outcomes included additional ED flow metrics, perforation rate, and negative appendectomy rate. RESULTS: An AND was completed for 210 children. Those who met the AND criteria were more likely to undergo further investigation to rule out appendicitis than those who did not meet the criteria (92/137 [67.2%] vs 32/73 [43.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-4.90). Time to blood draw was significantly lower for those children meeting the AND criteria (74 vs 162 minutes, P < 0.001) as was time to hospital admission (271 vs 395 minutes, P = 0.008) and appendectomy (498 vs 602 minutes, P = 0.015). The negative appendectomy rate was 8.6% (5/58) for children meeting the AND criteria and 9.1% (2/22) for those not meeting the criteria (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.14-10.67); the perforation rate was 29.3% (17/58) and 4.5% (1/22), respectively (OR, 8.17; 95% CI, 1.17-380.86). CONCLUSIONS: Children presenting to the ED with RLQ pain who meet the AND criteria are more likely to require further investigation to rule out appendicitis and have better department flow metrics than those who do not meet the criteria. Our results provide further evidence of the utility of ANDs in the ED.

The use of cognitive interviews to revise the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

PURPOSE: The "Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure" is the first measure of patient experiences with overall injury care. The objective of this study was to use cognitive interviews to inform revision of the measure into a parsimonious set of items that function as intended, in preparation for multicenter testing. METHODS: Concurrent and retrospective cognitive interviews with injured patients (n = 17) and family members (n = 13) using semi-structured interview guides. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six broad themes were identified and guided revisions: (1) participants did not have the information to answer items (n = 9); (2) items were ambiguous or were inconsistently interpreted (n = 13); (3) items did not measure the intended constructs (n = 6); (4) items included assumptions about healthcare processes (n = 4); (5) items measured non-priority aspects of injury care (n = 8); and (6) items were redundant (n = 5). Two issues resulted in key conceptual and content changes: participants' difficulty to evaluate pre-hospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit services due to recall issues and the challenge to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care. In total, 39 items were deleted, 28 new items developed, and the final instrument included 63 items. CONCLUSIONS: Our results informed changes to item content, format, and response options. This study highlights key issues to consider when incorporating patient/family perspectives into quality measurement, most notably, that few participants can assess the quality of care in the pre-hospital and emergency department phases of care and that novel methods are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and equity of care.

Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. METHODS: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or -affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared. RESULTS: All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of timeliness of care (23% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Non-teaching centres were more likely to use indicators whose content evaluated triage and patient flow (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) as well as the Institute of Medicine aim of efficiency of care (25% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). While over 80% of teaching centres used time to laparotomy, pulmonary complications, in hospital mortality, and appropriate admission physician/service as quality indicators, only two of these (in hospital mortality and appropriate admission physician/service) were used by over half of non-teaching trauma centres. The majority of centres reported using morbidity and mortality conferences (96% vs. 97%, p = 0.61) and quality of care audits (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.08) while approximately half used report cards (51% vs. 43%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres.

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 Seroepidemiologic Studies to the ROSES-S Reporting Guideline During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness. METHODS: A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

A systematic review of tools for predicting severe adverse events following patient discharge from intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: The discharge of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is a common transition of care that is associated with error and adverse events. Risk stratification tools may help identify high-risk patients for targeted interventions, but it is unclear if proper tools have been developed. METHODS: We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through March 2013, plus reference lists and citations of all studies included in the systematic review. Cohort studies were selected that described the derivation, validation or clinical impact of tools for predicting medical emergency team activation, ICU readmission or mortality following patient discharge from the ICU. Data were extracted on the study design, setting, population, sample size, tool (components, measurement properties) and outcomes. RESULTS: The literature search identified 9,926 citations, of which eight studies describing eight tools met the inclusion criteria. Reported outcomes included ICU readmission (n=4 studies), hospital mortality (n=3 studies) and both ICU readmission and hospital mortality (n=1 studies). Seven of the tools were comprised of distinct measurable component variables, while one tool used subjective scoring of patient risk by intensive care physicians. The areas under receiver operator curves were reported for all studies and ranged from 0.66 to 0.92. A single study provided a direct comparative analysis between two tools. We did not find any studies evaluating the impact of risk prediction on processes and outcomes of care. CONCLUSIONS: Eight risk stratification tools for predicting severe adverse events following patient discharge from ICU have been developed, but have undergone limited comparative evaluation. Although risk stratification tools may help clinician decision-making, further evaluation of the existing tools' effects on care is required prior to clinical implementation.

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centeredness is a key component of health care quality. However, patient-centered measures of quality have not been developed in injury care. In response to this challenge, we developed the Quality of Trauma Adult Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM) to measure injured patient experiences with trauma care and pilot-tested the instrument at a single Level 1 trauma centre. The objective of this study is to test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of the QTAC-PREM in multiple Canadian trauma centers and to refine the measure based on the results. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a prospective cohort study of consecutive adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients discharged from three trauma centres in Alberta, Canada with a primary diagnosis of injury. The target sample size is 400 participants to ensure precision for evaluating test-retest reliability. We will assess the psychometric properties of the measure (test-retest reliability, construct validity, internal consistency) and whether these properties vary by patient characteristics. We will also evaluate the predictive validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measure against other established tools (HCAHPS). DISCUSSION: A reliable and valid measure of patient reported experiences with injury care may be a valuable tool to evaluate quality of care and guide improvement efforts.

A real-world evaluation of the implementation of NLP technology in abstract screening of a systematic review.

The laborious and time-consuming nature of systematic review production hinders the dissemination of up-to-date evidence synthesis. Well-performing natural language processing (NLP) tools for systematic reviews have been developed, showing promise to improve efficiency. However, the feasibility and value of these technologies have not been comprehensively demonstrated in a real-world review. We developed an NLP-assisted abstract screening tool that provides text inclusion recommendations, keyword highlights, and visual context cues. We evaluated this tool in a living systematic review on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, conducting a quality improvement assessment of screening with and without the tool. We evaluated changes to abstract screening speed, screening accuracy, characteristics of included texts, and user satisfaction. The tool improved efficiency, reducing screening time per abstract by 45.9% and decreasing inter-reviewer conflict rates. The tool conserved precision of article inclusion (positive predictive value; 0.92 with tool vs. 0.88 without) and recall (sensitivity; 0.90 vs. 0.81). The summary statistics of included studies were similar with and without the tool. Users were satisfied with the tool (mean satisfaction score of 4.2/5). We evaluated an abstract screening process where one human reviewer was replaced with the tool's votes, finding that this maintained recall (0.92 one-person, one-tool vs. 0.90 two tool-assisted humans) and precision (0.91 vs. 0.92) while reducing screening time by 70%. Implementing an NLP tool in this living systematic review improved efficiency, maintained accuracy, and was well-received by researchers, demonstrating the real-world effectiveness of NLP in expediting evidence synthesis.

SeroTracker-RoB: A decision rule-based algorithm for reproducible risk of bias assessment of seroprevalence studies.

Risk of bias (RoB) assessments are a core element of evidence synthesis but can be time consuming and subjective. We aimed to develop a decision rule-based algorithm for RoB assessment of seroprevalence studies. We developed the SeroTracker-RoB algorithm. The algorithm derives seven objective and two subjective critical appraisal items from the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence studies and implements decision rules that determine study risk of bias based on the items. Decision rules were validated using the SeroTracker seroprevalence study database, which included non-algorithmic RoB judgments from two reviewers. We quantified efficiency as the mean difference in time for the algorithmic and non-algorithmic assessments of 80 randomly selected articles, coverage as the proportion of studies where the decision rules yielded an assessment, and reliability using intraclass correlations comparing algorithmic and non-algorithmic assessments for 2070 articles. A set of decision rules with 61 branches was developed using responses to the nine critical appraisal items. The algorithmic approach was faster than non-algorithmic assessment (mean reduction 2.32 min [SD 1.09] per article), classified 100% (n = 2070) of studies, and had good reliability compared to non-algorithmic assessment (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.80). We built the SeroTracker-RoB Excel Tool, which embeds this algorithm for use by other researchers. The SeroTracker-RoB decision-rule based algorithm was faster than non-algorithmic assessment with complete coverage and good reliability. This algorithm enabled rapid, transparent, and reproducible RoB evaluations of seroprevalence studies and may support evidence synthesis efforts during future disease outbreaks. This decision rule-based approach could be applied to other types of prevalence studies.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and synthesise studies of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence by occupation prior to the widespread vaccine roll-out. METHODS: We identified studies of occupational seroprevalence from a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020183634). Electronic databases, grey literature and news media were searched for studies published during January-December 2020. Seroprevalence estimates and a free-text description of the occupation were extracted and classified according to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2010 system using a machine-learning algorithm. Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We identified 196 studies including 591 940 participants from 38 countries. Most studies (n=162; 83%) were conducted locally versus regionally or nationally. Sample sizes were generally small (median=220 participants per occupation) and 135 studies (69%) were at a high risk of bias. One or more estimates were available for 21/23 major SOC occupation groups, but over half of the estimates identified (n=359/600) were for healthcare-related occupations. 'Personal Care and Service Occupations' (median 22% (IQR 9-28%); n=14) had the highest median seroprevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Many seroprevalence studies covering a broad range of occupations were published in the first year of the pandemic. Results suggest considerable differences in seroprevalence between occupations, although few large, high-quality studies were done. Well-designed studies are required to improve our understanding of the occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 and should be considered as an element of pandemic preparedness for future respiratory pathogens.

Between paradigms: Comparing experiences for adolescents treated at pediatric and adult trauma centres.

INTRODUCTION: Injured adolescents may be treated at pediatric trauma centres (PTCs) or adult trauma centres (ATCs). Patient and parent experiences are an integral component of high-quality health care and can influence patient clinical trajectory. Despite this knowledge, there is little research on differences between PTCs and ATCs with respect to patient and caregiver-reported experience. We sought to identify differences in patient and parent-reported experiences between the regional PTC and ATC using a recently developed Patient and Parent-Reported Experience Measure. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients (caregivers) aged 15-17 (inclusive), admitted to the local PTC and ATC for injury management (01/01/2020 - 31/05/2021) We provided a survey 8-weeks post-discharge to query acute care and follow-up experience. Patient and parent experiences were compared between the PTC and ATC using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests for categorical and independent t-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: We identified 90 patients for inclusion (51 PTC, and 39 ATC). From this population, we had 77 surveys (32 patient and 35 caregiver) completed at the PTC, and 41 (20 patient and 21 caregiver) at the ATC. ATC patients tended to be more severely injured. We identified few differences in reported experience on the patient measure but identified lower ratings from caregivers of adolescents treated in ATCs for the domains of information and communication, follow-up care, and overall hospital scores. Patients and parents reported poorer family accommodation at the ATC. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences were similar between centres. However, caregivers report poorer experiences at the ATC in several domains. These differences are multifaceted, and may reflect differing patient volumes, effects of COVID-19, and healthcare paradigms. However, further work should target information and communication improvement in adult paradigms given its impact on other domains of care.

Protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against the omicron variant and severe disease: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605). FINDINGS: 11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected. FUNDING: WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Development of the quality of teen trauma acute care patient and parent-reported experience measure.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) provide valuable patient feedback on quality of care and have been associated with clinical outcomes. We aimed to test the reliability of a modified adult trauma care PREM instrument delivered to adolescents admitted to hospital for traumatic injuries, and their parents. Modifications included addition of questions reflecting teen-focused constructs on education supports, social network maintenance and family accommodation. RESULTS: Forty adolescent patients and 40 parents participated. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa, weighted kappa, and percent agreement between responses. Directionality of changed responses was noted. Most of the study ran during the COVID-19 pandemic. We established good reliability of questions related to in-hospital and post-discharge communication, clinical and ancillary care and family accommodation. We identified poorer reliability among constructs reflecting experiences that varied from the norm during the pandemic, which included "maintenance of social networks", "education supports", "scheduling clinical follow-ups" and "post-discharge supports". Parents, but not patients, demonstrated more directionality of change of responses by responding with more negative in-hospital and more positive post-discharge experiences over time between the test and retest periods, suggesting risk of recall bias. Situational factors due to the COVID-19 pandemic and potential risks of recall bias may have limited the reliability of some parts of the survey.

Timeliness of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results and their utility for infectious disease surveillance.

Seroprevalence studies have been used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to monitor infection and immunity. These studies are often reported in peer-reviewed journals, but the academic writing and publishing process can delay reporting and thereby public health action. Seroprevalence estimates have been reported faster in preprints and media, but with concerns about data quality. We aimed to (i) describe the timeliness of SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance reporting by publication venue and study characteristics and (ii) identify relationships between timeliness, data validity, and representativeness to guide recommendations for serosurveillance efforts. We included seroprevalence studies published between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 from the ongoing SeroTracker living systematic review. For each study, we calculated timeliness as the time elapsed between the end of sampling and the first public report. We evaluated data validity based on serological test performance and correction for sampling error, and representativeness based on the use of a representative sample frame and adequate sample coverage. We examined how timeliness varied with study characteristics, representativeness, and data validity using univariate and multivariate Cox regression. We analyzed 1844 studies. Median time to publication was 154 days (IQR 64-255), varying by publication venue (journal articles: 212 days, preprints: 101 days, institutional reports: 18 days, and media: 12 days). Multivariate analysis confirmed the relationship between timeliness and publication venue and showed that general population studies were published faster than special population or health care worker studies; there was no relationship between timeliness and study geographic scope, geographic region, representativeness, or serological test performance. Seroprevalence studies in peer-reviewed articles and preprints are published slowly, highlighting the limitations of using the academic literature to report seroprevalence during a health crisis. More timely reporting of seroprevalence estimates can improve their usefulness for surveillance, enabling more effective responses during health emergencies.

Serology Assays Used in SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Surveys Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Assay Features, Testing Algorithms, and Performance.

Background: Many serological assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the detection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays limited the comparability of seroprevalence estimates for populations being tested. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of serological assays used in SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence surveys, searching for published articles, preprints, institutional sources, and grey literature between 1 January 2020, and 19 November 2021. We described features of all identified assays and mapped performance metrics by the manufacturers, third-party head-to-head, and independent group evaluations. We compared the reported assay performance by evaluation source with a mixed-effect beta regression model. A simulation was run to quantify how biased assay performance affects population seroprevalence estimates with test adjustment. Results: Among 1807 included serosurveys, 192 distinctive commercial assays and 380 self-developed assays were identified. According to manufacturers, 28.6% of all commercial assays met WHO criteria for emergency use (sensitivity [Sn.] >= 90.0%, specificity [Sp.] >= 97.0%). However, manufacturers overstated the absolute values of Sn. of commercial assays by 1.0% [0.1, 1.4%] and 3.3% [2.7, 3.4%], and Sp. by 0.9% [0.9, 0.9%] and 0.2% [−0.1, 0.4%] compared to third-party and independent evaluations, respectively. Reported performance data was not sufficient to support a similar analysis for self-developed assays. Simulations indicate that inaccurate Sn. and Sp. can bias seroprevalence estimates adjusted for assay performance; the error level changes with the background seroprevalence. Conclusions: The Sn. and Sp. of the serological assay are not fixed properties, but varying features depending on the testing population. To achieve precise population estimates and to ensure the comparability of seroprevalence, serosurveys should select assays with high performance validated not only by their manufacturers and adjust seroprevalence estimates based on assured performance data. More investigation should be directed to consolidating the performance of self-developed assays.