Interest Groups as an Alternative for Medical Education in Sleep Medicine: Experience Report at a Brazilian Medical School.

Sleep medicine classes and teachings are usually deficient and insufficient during undergraduate medical education. In order to circumvent the educational deficits in sleep medicine, students at a Brazilian Medical School created a sleep medicine interest group-an academic organization for teaching purposes whose administration is carried out by the undergraduate students themselves. This study aims to describe the establishment of a sleep medicine interest group, as well as to evaluate the results of its first edition on the knowledge about sleep medicine among undergraduate medical students. Classes were taken biweekly and consisted of lectures by invited professors, presentation of clinical cases, and discussion with the students. By the end of the course, both attendees and non-attendees were invited to fill out a questionnaire including an objective assessment of knowledge (15 multiple choice questions). The questionnaire was filled out by 32 participants, of which 18 were attendees and 14 were non-attendees. The average result on the final exam was significantly higher among the attendees (6.1 ± 1.2) in comparison with non-attendees (4.9 ± 1.3-p = 0.015). The results demonstrate that an interest group proved to be feasible as a source of complementary information to undergraduate medical students and a valid alternative to circumvent the educational deficits.

COVID-19 meta-analyses: a scoping review and quality assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a scoping review of the meta-analyses published regarding about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evaluating their main characteristics, publication trends and methodological quality. METHODS: A bibliometric search was performed in PubMed®, Scopus and Web of Science, focusing on meta-analyses about COVID-2019 disease. Bibliometric and descriptive data for the included articles were extracted and the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 348 meta-analyses were considered eligible. The first meta-analysis about COVID-19 disease was published on February 26, 2020, and the number of meta-analyses has grown rapidly since then. Most of them were published in infectious disease and virology journals. The greatest number come from China, followed by the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom. On average, these meta-analyses included 23 studies and 15,200 participants. Overall quality was remarkably low, and only 8.9% of them could be considered as of high confidence level. CONCLUSION: Although well-designed meta-analyses about COVID-19 disease have already been published, the majority are of low quality. Thus, all stakeholders playing a role in COVID-19 deseases, including policy makers, researchers, publishers and journals, should prioritize well-designed meta-analyses, performed only when the background information seem suitable, and discouraging those of low quality or that use suboptimal methods.

COVID-19 meta-analyses: a scoping review and quality assessment / Metanálises sobre COVID-19: revisão de escopo e análise de qualidade

ABSTRACT Objective: To carry out a scoping review of the meta-analyses published regarding about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evaluating their main characteristics, publication trends and methodological quality. Methods: A bibliometric search was performed in PubMed®, Scopus and Web of Science, focusing on meta-analyses about COVID-2019 disease. Bibliometric and descriptive data for the included articles were extracted and the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Results: A total of 348 meta-analyses were considered eligible. The first meta-analysis about COVID-19 disease was published on February 26, 2020, and the number of meta-analyses has grown rapidly since then. Most of them were published in infectious disease and virology journals. The greatest number come from China, followed by the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom. On average, these meta-analyses included 23 studies and 15,200 participants. Overall quality was remarkably low, and only 8.9% of them could be considered as of high confidence level. Conclusion: Although well-designed meta-analyses about COVID-19 disease have already been published, the majority are of low quality. Thus, all stakeholders playing a role in COVID-19 deseases, including policy makers, researchers, publishers and journals, should prioritize well-designed meta-analyses, performed only when the background information seem suitable, and discouraging those of low quality or that use suboptimal methods.

RESUMO Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão de escopo das metanálises publicadas sobre a doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), avaliando suas principais características, tendências de publicação e qualidade metodológica. Métodos: Uma busca bibliométrica foi realizada em PubMed®, Scopus e Web of Science, com foco em metanálises sobre a doença pelo COVID-19. Foram extraídos dados bibliométricos e descritivos dos artigos incluídos, e a qualidade metodológica foi avaliada usando a ferramenta A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Resultados: Um total de 348 metanálises foram consideradas elegíveis. A primeira delas foi publicada em 26 de fevereiro de 2020, e, desde então, o número dessas publicações cresceu rapidamente. A maioria foi publicada em periódicos de infectologia e virologia. Grande parte é proveniente da China, seguida dos Estados Unidos, da Itália e do Reino Unido. Em média, as metanálises incluíram 23 estudos e 15.200 participantes. Em geral, a qualidade metodológica foi baixa, e apenas 8,9% delas podem ser consideradas de algum grau de confiabilidade Conclusão: Embora algumas metanálises bem conduzidas sobre a doença pelo COVID-19 tenham sido publicadas, a maioria apresenta baixa qualidade. Todos os envolvidos na abordagem da doença pelo COVID-19, incluindo formuladores de políticas, pesquisadores, editoras e periódicos, devem dar prioridade a metanálises de alta qualidade, realizadas apenas quando os dados são viáveis, e desencorajar as de baixa qualidade ou conduzidas com métodos subótimos.