Correction: Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241955.].

Clinical practice guideline for transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis in Latin America

In elderly (75 years or older) patients living in Latin America with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis candidates for transfemoral approach, the panel suggests the use of transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This is a conditional recommendation, based on moderate certainty in the evidence. This recommendation does not apply to patients in which there is a standard of care, like TAVI for patients at very high risk for cardiac surgery or inoperable patients, or SAVR for non-elderly patients (eg, under 65 years old) at low risk for cardiac surgery. The suggested age threshold of 75 years old is based on judgement of limited available literature and should be used as a guide rather than a determinant threshold. The conditional nature of this recommendation means that the majority of patients in this situation would want a transfemoral TAVI over SAVR, but some may prefer SAVR. For clinicians, this means that they must be familiar with the evidence supporting this recommendation and help each patient to arrive at a management decision integrating a multidisciplinary team discussion (Heart Team), patient's values and preferences through shared decision-making, and available resources. Policymakers will require substantial debate and the involvement of various stakeholders to implement this recommendation.

Clinical practice guideline for transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis in Latin America.

In elderly (75 years or older) patients living in Latin America with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis candidates for transfemoral approach, the panel suggests the use of transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This is a conditional recommendation, based on moderate certainty in the evidence (⨁⨁⨁Ο).This recommendation does not apply to patients in which there is a standard of care, like TAVI for patients at very high risk for cardiac surgery or inoperable patients, or SAVR for non-elderly patients (eg, under 65 years old) at low risk for cardiac surgery. The suggested age threshold of 75 years old is based on judgement of limited available literature and should be used as a guide rather than a determinant threshold.The conditional nature of this recommendation means that the majority of patients in this situation would want a transfemoral TAVI over SAVR, but some may prefer SAVR. For clinicians, this means that they must be familiar with the evidence supporting this recommendation and help each patient to arrive at a management decision integrating a multidisciplinary team discussion (Heart Team), patient's values and preferences through shared decision-making, and available resources. Policymakers will require substantial debate and the involvement of various stakeholders to implement this recommendation.

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome. RESULTS: We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score). CONCLUSION: Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.

Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach.

INTRODUCTION: Using the best current evidence to inform clinical decisions remains a challenge for clinicians. Given the scarcity of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations to answer clinicians' daily questions, clinical decision support systems (ie, assistance in question identification and answering) emerge as an attractive alternative. The trustworthiness of the recommendations achieved by such systems is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the trustworthiness of a question identification and answering system that delivers timely recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We compared the responses to 100 clinical questions related to inpatient management provided by two rapid response methods with 'Gold Standard' recommendations. One of the rapid methods was based on PubMed and the other on Epistemonikos database. We defined our 'Gold Standard' as trustworthy published evidence-based recommendations or, when unavailable, recommendations developed locally by a panel of six clinicians following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations provided by the rapid strategies were classified as potentially misleading or reasonable. We also determined if the potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided with the appropriate implementation of searching and evidence summary tools. RESULTS: We were able to answer all of the 100 questions with both rapid methods. Of the 200 recommendations obtained, 6.5% (95% CI 3% to 9.9%) were classified as potentially misleading and 93.5% (95% CI 90% to 96.9%) as reasonable. 6 of the 13 potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided by the appropriate usage of the Epistemonikos matrix tool or by constructing summary of findings tables. No significant differences were observed between the evaluated rapid response methods. CONCLUSION: A question answering service based on the GRADE approach proved feasible to implement and provided appropriate guidance for most identified questions. Our approach could help stakeholders in charge of managing resources and defining policies for patient care to improve evidence-based decision-making in an efficient and feasible manner.