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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of standardised seroprevalence studies, from January 2020 to December 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy. METHODS: We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. RESULTS: We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions. CONCLUSION: We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations.

Adapting Serosurveys for the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Era.

Population-level immune surveillance, which includes monitoring exposure and assessing vaccine-induced immunity, is a crucial component of public health decision-making during a pandemic. Serosurveys estimating the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in the population played a key role in characterizing SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology during the early phases of the pandemic. Existing serosurveys provide infrastructure to continue immune surveillance but must be adapted to remain relevant in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine era. Here, we delineate how SARS-CoV-2 serosurveys should be designed to distinguish infection- and vaccine-induced humoral immune responses to efficiently monitor the evolution of the pandemic. We discuss how serosurvey results can inform vaccine distribution to improve allocation efficiency in countries with scarce vaccine supplies and help assess the need for booster doses in countries with substantial vaccine coverage.

SARS-CoV-2 shedding dynamics across the respiratory tract, sex, and disease severity for adult and pediatric COVID-19.

Background: Previously, we conducted a systematic review and analyzed the respiratory kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Chen et al., 2021). How age, sex, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity interplay to influence the shedding dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, however, remains poorly understood. Methods: We updated our systematic dataset, collected individual case characteristics, and conducted stratified analyses of SARS-CoV-2 shedding dynamics in the upper (URT) and lower respiratory tract (LRT) across COVID-19 severity, sex, and age groups (aged 0-17 years, 18-59 years, and 60 years or older). Results: The systematic dataset included 1266 adults and 136 children with COVID-19. Our analyses indicated that high, persistent LRT shedding of SARS-CoV-2 characterized severe COVID-19 in adults. Severe cases tended to show slightly higher URT shedding post-symptom onset, but similar rates of viral clearance, when compared to nonsevere infections. After stratifying for disease severity, sex and age (including child vs. adult) were not predictive of respiratory shedding. The estimated accuracy for using LRT shedding as a prognostic indicator for COVID-19 severity was up to 81%, whereas it was up to 65% for URT shedding. Conclusions: Virological factors, especially in the LRT, facilitate the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19. Disease severity, rather than sex or age, predicts SARS-CoV-2 kinetics. LRT viral load may prognosticate COVID-19 severity in patients before the timing of deterioration and should do so more accurately than URT viral load. Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant, NSERC Senior Industrial Research Chair, and the Toronto COVID-19 Action Fund.

Global seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. RESULTS: We identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4-8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64-4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96-3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01-32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60-2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18-64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28-3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9-38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames. DISCUSSION: Most of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response.

Heterogeneity in transmissibility and shedding SARS-CoV-2 via droplets and aerosols.

Background: Which virological factors mediate overdispersion in the transmissibility of emerging viruses remains a long-standing question in infectious disease epidemiology. Methods: Here, we use systematic review to develop a comprehensive dataset of respiratory viral loads (rVLs) of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1 and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. We then comparatively meta-analyze the data and model individual infectiousness by shedding viable virus via respiratory droplets and aerosols. Results: The analyses indicate heterogeneity in rVL as an intrinsic virological factor facilitating greater overdispersion for SARS-CoV-2 in the COVID-19 pandemic than A(H1N1)pdm09 in the 2009 influenza pandemic. For COVID-19, case heterogeneity remains broad throughout the infectious period, including for pediatric and asymptomatic infections. Hence, many COVID-19 cases inherently present minimal transmission risk, whereas highly infectious individuals shed tens to thousands of SARS-CoV-2 virions/min via droplets and aerosols while breathing, talking and singing. Coughing increases the contagiousness, especially in close contact, of symptomatic cases relative to asymptomatic ones. Infectiousness tends to be elevated between 1 and 5 days post-symptom onset. Conclusions: Intrinsic case variation in rVL facilitates overdispersion in the transmissibility of emerging respiratory viruses. Our findings present considerations for disease control in the COVID-19 pandemic as well as future outbreaks of novel viruses. Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant program, NSERC Senior Industrial Research Chair program and the Toronto COVID-19 Action Fund.

To understand how viruses spread scientists look at two things. One is ­ on average ­ how many other people each infected person spreads the virus to. The other is how much variability there is in the number of people each person with the virus infects. Some viruses like the 2009 influenza H1N1, a new strain of influenza that caused a pandemic beginning in 2009, spread pretty uniformly, with many people with the virus infecting around two other people. Other viruses like SARS-CoV-2, the one that causes COVID-19, are more variable. About 10 to 20% of people with COVID-19 cause 80% of subsequent infections ­ which may lead to so-called superspreading events ­ while 60-75% of people with COVID-19 infect no one else. Learning more about these differences can help public health officials create better ways to curb the spread of the virus. Chen et al. show that differences in the concentration of virus particles in the respiratory tract may help to explain why superspreaders play such a big role in transmitting SARS-CoV-2, but not the 2009 influenza H1N1 virus. Chen et al. reviewed and extracted data from studies that have collected how much virus is present in people infected with either SARS-CoV-2, a similar virus called SARS-CoV-1 that caused the SARS outbreak in 2003, or with 2009 influenza H1N1. Chen et al. found that as the variability in the concentration of the virus in the airways increased, so did the variability in the number of people each person with the virus infects. Chen et al. further used mathematical models to estimate how many virus particles individuals with each infection would expel via droplets or aerosols, based on the differences in virus concentrations from their analyses. The models showed that most people with COVID-19 infect no one because they expel little ­ if any ­ infectious SARS-CoV-2 when they talk, breathe, sing or cough. Highly infectious individuals on the other hand have high concentrations of the virus in their airways, particularly the first few days after developing symptoms, and can expel tens to thousands of infectious virus particles per minute. By contrast, a greater proportion of people with 2009 influenza H1N1 were potentially infectious but tended to expel relatively little infectious virus when the talk, sing, breathe or cough. These results help explain why superspreaders play such a key role in the ongoing pandemic. This information suggests that to stop this virus from spreading it is important to limit crowd sizes, shorten the duration of visits or gatherings, maintain social distancing, talk in low volumes around others, wear masks, and hold gatherings in well-ventilated settings. In addition, contact tracing can prioritize the contacts of people with high concentrations of virus in their airways.

Evidence for use of damage control surgery and damage control interventions in civilian trauma patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). METHODS: We searched 11 databases (1950-April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. RESULTS: Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. CONCLUSIONS: Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.

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.

Benefits and Harms in Pivotal Trials of Oral Centrally Acting Antiobesity Medicines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of oral centrally acting antiobesity medicinal products in pivotal trials. METHODS: The European Medicines Agency and Federal Drug Administration websites, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify pivotal trials used to gain marketing authorizations. Pivotal phase III trials on which marketing authorizations were based were included. The data were analyzed by using Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan), and quality assessments for each outcome were performed by using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Five products (16 trials with 24,555 participants) were included. Significantly more participants who took the antiobesity products achieved ≥ 5% reduction in body weight (risk ratio [RR] 2.39; 95% CI: 2.09-2.74; GRADE = low). However, the products significantly increased the risk of adverse events (RR 1.12; 95% CI: 1.07-1.17; GRADE = very low) and the risk of discontinuation because of adverse events (RR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.33-1.74; GRADE = low). There were no significant differences for most outcomes between currently approved and withdrawn products. CONCLUSIONS: Although oral centrally acting antiobesity products generate modest weight losses, they also increase the risks of adverse events and discontinuations because of adverse events. The premarketing benefit-to-harm profiles of currently available products and products that were later withdrawn because of harms are similar. Targeted study designs, better outcomes reporting, and improved postmarketing monitoring of harms are needed.

Short form version of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SF QTAC-PREM).

OBJECTIVE: To enable the valid and reliable measurement of patient experiences we previously published a multicenter multi-center validation of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM). The purpose of this study was to derive a simplified, short form version of the QTAC-PREM to further enhance the feasibility of measuring patient experiences in injury care. To identify candidate items for the short form we reviewed the results of the original multi-center long form validation cohort study, which included 400 injury care patients and their family members recruited from three trauma centers. We only included the best performing items on the revised short form. RESULTS: The acute care component of the measure was shortened by 30% and the post-acute care component was shortened by 42%. We identified two subscales on the acute measure (information and communication; clinical and ancillary care) and one subscale on the post-acute measure (post-discharge information and communication). The measurement properties of the short form measure were similar to that of the validated long form. This short form assessment of patient injury care experiences offers a useful, practical, and easy tool for trauma centers to implement for service evaluation, quality improvement, and injury care research.