Browsing by Author "Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro"

Now showing 1 - 11 of 11
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for COVID-19: A living systematic review of randomized clinical trialsAngiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for COVID-19: A living systematic review of randomized clinical trials
    (2021) Meza, Nicolás; Pérez-Bracchiglione, Javier; Pérez, Ignacio; Carvajal, Cristhian; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Olguín, Pablo; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro; Madrid, Eva
    Objective: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sources: We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence), which retrieves articles from multiple sources such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, among other pre-print and protocols repositories. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) was adapted to expand the range of evidence and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place on a daily search basis. The search covered a period of time up to July 31, 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel living systematic reviews to this question's specificities. We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of either suspension or indication of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers as monotherapy, or in combination versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We pooled the results using meta-analysis and applied the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We will resubmit results every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results: We screened 772 records, but none was considered for eligibility. We identified 55 ongoing studies, including 41 randomized trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: We did not find a randomized clinical trial meeting our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence for supporting the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies would provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020182495. Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vp9nj.Objetivo: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el rol de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina (iECA) y los bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II (ARA-II) en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Fuentes de datos: Realizamos búsquedas en PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) que recupera artículos de múltiples fuentes como PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, entre otros repositorios de preprints y protocolos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) se adaptó para ampliar el rango de información que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar toda la evidencia en torno a COVID-19 en un solo lugar, en una base de búsqueda diaria. La búsqueda cubrió el período hasta el 31 de julio de 2020. Criterios de elegibilidad para la selección de estudios y métodos: Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas vivas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Se incluyeron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban el efecto de la suspensión o la indicación de inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina o bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II, como monoterapia o en combinación, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento, en pacientes con COVID-19. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaran el efecto de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Los resultados se agruparon mediante un metanálisis y se aplicó GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o hayan actualizaciones sustanciales, volveremos a enviar un reporte. Resultados: Analizamos 772 artículos, pero ninguno cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. Identificamos 55 estudios en curso, incluidos 41 ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II para pacientes con COVID-19. Conclusiones: No encontramos ningún ensayo clínico aleatorizado que cumpliera con nuestros criterios de inclusión y, por lo tanto, no hay pruebas que respalden el papel de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina y los bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Identificamos un número considerable de estudios en curso que podría proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y a los responsables de la toma de decisiones en un futuro próximo.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Gloves for COVID-19: A living systematic review
    (2021) Morales Ferrer, María Belén Elizabeth; Ortiz Muñoz Luis Eugenio; Duarte, Giuliano; Riquelme-Uribe, Daniel; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Methods: we adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for studies evaluating the effect of glove use in healthy population to prevent COVID-19. We conducted searches using the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository, maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until November 30, 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied.Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardised form.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results Our search strategy yielded 362 references. Finally, only 1 non-randomised study evaluating the use of gloves among other preventive measures was considered eligible. We were not able to perform a meta-analyses, thus the results were presented as a narrative synthesis.In healthy population, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the use of gloves on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations for COVID-19, respiratory failure and all cause-mortality. Conclusions The evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of gloves in healthy population to prevent COVID-19. There should appear well designed studies addressing the question of this review to provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision makers in the near future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Hallazgos histopatológicos pulmonares asociados a COVID-19: Una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis
    (2023) Rodríguez Funes, María Virginia; Herrera Huezo, Héctor A.; Ortiz Segura, Andrea; Osorio, Cecilia Belem; Molina González, Dennys; Reina Meléndez, Verónica; Vindell González, Juan José; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Introducción. La COVID-19 es una nueva enfermedad que requería resultados prontos provenientes de la investigación. Un abordaje para la comprensión de su fisiopatología es conocer el daño a nivel histopatológico que genera en los pulmones de los afectados. Objetivo. Proveer un resumen riguroso de la evidencia disponible sobre los hallazgos histopatológicos pulmonares en pacientes con COVID-19. Metodología. Se desarrolló una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis de proporciones. Se incluyeron estudios primarios de cualquier diseño que tuvieran datos primarios de hallazgos histopatológicos de pulmones en pacientes COVID-19. Se excluyeron revisiones y guías. Las fuentes de información fueron el repositorio centralizado Living OVerview of Evidence, PubMed/Medline, LitCovid, la base de datos COVID-19 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y medRxiv hasta el 3 de abril 2021. La evaluación del riesgo de sesgos se realizó utilizando las herramientas del Instituto Joanna Briggs para series de casos y reportes de casos. Se extrajo cada dato de hallazgo pulmonar histopatológico. Se calcularon las frecuencias encontradas y los datos de los hallazgos más frecuentes fueron resumidas en metaanálisis usando el método de efectos aleatorios de Der Simmonian-Liard. Se midió la heterogeneidad. Resultados. Los criterios de inclusión fueron cumplidos por 69 artículos sumando 594 sujetos. Presentaron bajo riesgo de sesgos 35 artículos. El metaanálisis de proporciones mostro daño alveolar difuso en 0,62 (IC 95 % 0,51-0,72), I2 59 % (p < 0,01), en su fase temprana (85,14 %). Conclusión. El daño alveolar difuso temprano fue el hallazgo histopatológico más frecuente en muestras pulmonares de pacientes con COVID-19.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ivermectin for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol
    (2020) Ortiz Muñoz, Luis; Verdugo Paiva, Francisca; Bravo Jeria, Rocío; Morel, Macarena; Acuña, María Paz; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Objetive : This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of patients with COVID-19
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Overweight and obesity as potential prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol
    (2020) Bonilla-Untiveros, Catherine; Camacho-López, Saby; Baladia, Eduard; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary about the impact of overweight or obesity as a prognostic factor for severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Design This is a protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources We will conduct searches in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include all primary studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected infection with SARS-CoV-2 and inform the relation of overweight or obesity with death or disease severity. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Protocol of a Living systematic review: gloves for the prevention of COVID-19 in healthy population
    (2020) Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Duarte, Giuliano; Morales Ferrer, María Belén Elizabeth; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro; Epistemonikos Foundation
    Objective: To determine the efficacy of the use of gloves in the prevention of COVID-19 disease in healthy population. Design: This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources: We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence).L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In responseto the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves in healthy population to prevent COVID-19 disease. Randomised trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves during outbreaks caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocolRehabilitación pulmonar en COVID-19: protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva
    (2021) Arce Pardo, Stefanie Giselle; Lai Guerrero, Shuheng Alice; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Bravo-Jeria, Rocío; Verdugo-Paiva, Francisca; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Objective: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Design: This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources: We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination: No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.Objetivo: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de la rehabilitación pulmonar en el tratamiento de los pacientes con COVID-19. Diseño: Es el protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva. Fuente de datos: Realizaremos búsquedas en la plataforma L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) para COVID-19, un sistema que mapea los componentes de las preguntas de investigación (PICO) en un repositorio mantenido a través de búsquedas regulares en bases de datos electrónicas, servidores de pre-impresión, registros de ensayos y otros recursos relevantes para COVID-19. No se aplicarán restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. Criterios de elegibilidad para la selección de estudios y métodos: Se adaptó un protocolo común ya publicado para revisiones sistemáticas paralelas múltiples a las especificidades de la pregunta. Se incluirán ensayos aleatorios que evalúen el efecto de la rehabilitación pulmonar como monoterapia o en combinación con otras intervenciones frente a un tratamiento simulado o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinarán de forma independiente cada estudio para determinar su elegibilidad, extraerán los datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Se agruparán los resultados mediante un metaanálisis y se aplicará el sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) para evaluar la certeza de las pruebas para cada resultado. Ética y difusión: No se considera necesaria la aprobación ética. Los resultados de esta revisión se difundirán ampliamente a través de publicaciones revisadas por pares, redes sociales y medios de comunicación tradicionales.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Resumen de políticas: Evidencias para mejorar la tasa de vacunación del adulto mayor
    (2018) Pérez Bracchiglione, Javier; Bravo Rojas, Gonzalo Sebastián; Madrid, Eva; Meza, Nicolás; Olguín, Pablo; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Arancibia, Marcelo; Vergara, Laura; Loézar, Cristóbal; Papuzinski, Cristián; Verdejo, Catalina; Morel Marambio, Juana Macarena; Villarroel, Bastián; Ramírez, Muriel; Cortés, Marcela; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocolSexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its role in the spread of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol
    (2020) Duarte, Giuliano; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Morales Ferrer, María Belén Elizabeth; Acuña, María Paz; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Objective: To provide a review of the literature on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the sexual fluids of patients with COVID-19 and to observe its possible sexual transmission in a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated manner. Data sources: We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Randomized trials evaluating the sexual transmission of other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched if no direct evidence from randomized trials is found or if the direct evidence provides a low to a very low level of certainty for critical outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit the review if the conclusions change or if there are substantial updates. PROSPERO Registration: (CRD42020189368).Objetivo: Proporcionar una revisión de la literatura sobre la presencia de SARS-CoV-2 en los fluidos sexuales de pacientes con COVID-19 y su posible transmisión sexual de manera oportuna, rigurosa y continuamente actualizada. Fuentes de datos: Realizaremos búsquedas en PubMed / Medline, Embase, Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en un repositorio centralizado en L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L · OVE es una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO a la evidencia de la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L · OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar todas las pruebas de COVID-19 en un solo lugar. La búsqueda cubrirá el período hasta el día anterior al envío a una revista. Criterios de elegibilidad para la selección de estudios y métodos: Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Incluiremos ensayos aleatorios que evalúen la transmisión sexual del virus SARS-CoV-2. Se buscarán ensayos aleatorizados que evalúen la transmisión sexual de otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV, y estudios no aleatorizados en COVID-19 en caso de que no se encuentre evidencia directa de ensayos aleatorizados, o si la evidencia directa proporciona una - o certeza muy baja para resultados críticos. Dos revisores evaluarán de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extraerán datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Realizaremos metanálisis de efectos aleatorios y utilizaremos GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Una versión viva basada en la web de esta revisión estará disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Lo volveremos a enviar si las conclusiones cambian o hay actualizaciones sustanciales. Registro PROSPERO: (CRD42020189368).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of gloves for the prevention of COVID-19 in healthy population: A living systematic review protocol
    (WILEY, 2021) Morales Ferrer, Maria Belén Elizabeth; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Anselmi, Giuliano Duarte; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro; COVID 19 Love Working Group
    Background and aims The efficacy of using gloves by the general population to prevent COVID-19 is unknown. We aim to determine the efficacy of routine glove use by the general healthy population in preventing COVID-19. This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L center dot OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L center dot OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L center dot OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves in healthy population to prevent COVID-19 disease. Randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves during outbreaks caused by MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomized trials is found. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Vitamin C for COVID-19: A living systematic review
    (2020) Baladia, Eduard; Pizarro, Ana Beatriz; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Rada Giacaman, Gabriel Alejandro
    Objective: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of vitamin C in treating patients with COVID-19.Data sources: We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it comprises and has been customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 29, 2020 (one day before submission).Study selection and methods: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect, in patients with COVID-19, of vitamin C versus placebo or no treatment. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we will resubmit it to the journal whenever there are substantial updates.Results: We screened 95 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 20 ongoing studies, including 13 randomized trials evaluating vitamin C in COVID-19.Conclusions: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.