Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented policymakers with time-sensitive decision problems and a rapidly increasing volume of research, not all of which was robust, or relevant to local contexts. A bespoke evidence review process supporting stakeholder engagement was developed as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC), which could flexibly react to the needs of decision-makers, to address urgent requests within days or months as required. Aims: To describe and appraise the WCEC review process and methods and identify key learning points. Methods: Three types of rapid review products were used, which could accommodate the breadth of decision problems and topics covered. Stakeholder (including public) engagement was integrated from the onset and supported throughout. The methods used were tailored depending on the needs of the decision-maker, type of research question, timeframe, and volume and type of evidence. We appraised the overall process and compared the methods used with the most recent and relevant best practice guidance. Results: The remote collaboration between research teams, establishing a clear pathway to impact upfront, and the strong stakeholder involvement embedded in the review process were considered particular strengths. Several key learning points were identified, which focused on: enhancing stakeholders' abilities to identify focused policy-relevant research questions; the collection and storage of review protocols at a central location; tightening quality assurance process regarding study selection, data extraction and quality assessment; adequate reporting of methodological shortcuts and understanding by stakeholders; piloting of an algorithm for assigning study design descriptors, and a single quality assessment tool covering multiple study designs; and incorporate, where appropriate an assessment of the confidence in the overall body of evidence using GRADE or similar framework. Conclusions: The review process enabled a high volume of questions that were directly relevant to policy and clinical decision making to be addressed in a timely manner using a transparent and tailored approach.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 has seriously affected the whole society, and vaccines were the most effective means to contain the epidemic. This paper aims to determine the top 100 articles cited most frequently in COVID-19 vaccines and to analyze the research status and hot spots in this field through bibliometrics, to provide a reference for future research. We conducted a comprehensive search of the Web of Science Core Collection database on November 29, 2023, and identified the top 100 articles by ranking them from highest to lowest citation frequency. In addition, we analyzed the year of publication, citation, author, country, institution, journal, and keywords with Microsoft Excel 2019 and VOSviewer 1.6.18. Research focused on vaccine immunogenicity and safety, vaccine hesitancy, and vaccination intention.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, as reflected in the growing literature. However, Indigenous Peoples are often homogenised, with key differences often overlooked, failing to capture the complexity of issues and may lead to suboptimal public health policy-making. The objective of this review was to assess the extent to which the heterogeneity of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA has been reflected in COVID-19 research. Design: This study took the form of a scoping review. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating COVID-19 pandemic outcomes among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. The search dates included January 2019 to January 2024. Eligibility criteria: All citations yielded by this search were subjected to title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction. We included original, peer-reviewed research investigating COVID-19-related outcomes among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the USA. Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction was conducted as an iterative process, reaching consensus between two of the study authors. All included studies were analysed through a combination of quantitative descriptive summary and qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of the 9795 citations found by the initial search, 428 citations were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these citations: 72.9% compared Indigenous participants to non-Indigenous participants; 10.0% aggregated Indigenous and non-white participants; and 17.1% provided findings for Indigenous participants exclusively. Conclusions: By overlooking the heterogeneity that exists among Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, researchers and policy-makers run the risk of masking inequities and the unique needs of groups of Indigenous Peoples. This may lead to inefficient policy recommendations and unintentionally perpetuate health disparities during public health crises.

Problem and background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was substantial reconfiguration of maternity care services, affecting both users and healthcare providers (HCPs), in the United Kingdom (UK) and globally. Aim: To further our understanding of the impact of maternity service reconfigurations in the UK, from the perspective of maternity HCPs. Methods: Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane COVID Study Register were searched for relevant studies reporting qualitative data from the UK, published in English between 01 June 2021 and 30 September 2023. Qualitative data on HCPs' experiences of maternity care reconfiguration during the pandemic were extracted from 15 studies. Data were subjected to thematic synthesis according to key service reconfigurations. Results: Nine themes were identified: Care-seeking and Care Experience: Changes to existing care, Limitations placed on the partner, Mental health and lack of support networks, and Barriers to successful implementation of reconfiguration strategies; Virtual Care: Impact on quality of care, Increased convenience and flexibility, and Digital exclusion; and Ethical Future of Maternity Care Services: Optimising patient care, and Service users and staff as the driving force for change. No studies reported on the concepts of Self-monitoring or COVID-19 vaccination. Discussion and conclusion: The review findings highlight HCPs' views of the need for greater inclusion of partners, choice of virtual or in-person care for women and birthing people; and a need for co-designed services for future policy-making.

COVID-19 is not only associated with substantial acute liver and kidney injuries, but also with an elevated risk of post-acute sequelae involving the kidney and liver system. We aimed to investigate whether COVID-19 exposure increases the long-term risk of kidney and liver disease, and what are the magnitudes of these associations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, , and the Living Overview of the Evidence COVID-19 Repository for cohort studies estimating the association between COVID-19 and kidney and liver outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Fifteen cohort studies with more than 32 million participants were included in the systematic review COVID-19 was associated with a 35% greater risk of kidney diseases (10 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence) and 54% greater risk of liver disease (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty evidence). The absolute increases due to COVID-19 for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and liver test abnormality were 3, 8, and 3 per 1000 persons, respectively. Subgroup analyses found no differences between different type of kidney and liver diseases. The findings provide further evidence for the association between COVID-19 and incident kidney and liver conditions. The absolute magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on kidney and liver outcomes was, however, relatively small.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic posed a detrimental impact on the conduct of non-COVID-19 related clinical trials, raising concerns about the completeness of these studies and waste of resources. While several measures and strategies have been suggested to address these issues, a thorough and timely summarisation is still lacking. Therefore, our aim is to conduct a scoping review to summarise the negative effects of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials, outline the effective measures for mitigating these impacts, and provide insights for future pandemics.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodological framework, and the results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Relevant articles will be searched in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1 December 2019 to 1 July 2023. We will also screen the reference lists of the included studies manually to identify more potentially relevant articles. Articles focusing on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19 clinical trials and effective measures for mitigating them will be included. Two investigators will perform study selection and data extraction independently. A narrative summary as well as a descriptive analysis of the basic characteristics and key results of the included studies will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this scoping review will be completed based only on published literature. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and/or conference presentations.

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been extensively employed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is demand for discovering more SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors with diverse scaffolds to optimize anti-SARS-CoV-2 lead compounds. In this study, comprehensive in silico and in vitro assays were utilized to determine the potential inhibitors from TCM compounds against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, which is an important therapeutic target for SARS-CoV-2. The ensemble docking analysis of 18263 TCM compounds against 15 SARS-CoV-2 Mpro conformations identified 19 TCM compounds as promising candidates. Further in vitro testing validated three compounds as inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and showed IC50 values of 4.64 ± 0.11, 7.56 ± 0.78, and 11.16 ± 0.26 μM, with EC50 values of 12.25 ± 1.68, 15.58 ± 0.77, and 29.32 ± 1.25 μM, respectively. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations indicated that the three complexes remained stable over the last 100 ns of production run. An analysis of the binding mode revealed that the active compounds occupy different subsites (S1, S2, S3, and S4) of the active site of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro via specific poses through noncovalent interactions with key amino acids (e.g., HIS 41, ASN 142, GLY 143, MET 165, GLU 166, or GLN 189). Overall, this study provides evidence indicating that the three natural products obtained from TCM could be further used for anti-COVID-19 research, justifying the investigation of Chinese herbal medicinal ingredients as bioactive constituents for therapeutic targets.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Background Molnupiravir has been considered a promising candidate for COVID-19. Its efficacy and safety in non-severe COVID-19 patients and the differences between patients with different risk factors need further evaluation. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that allocated adult patients with non-severe COVID-19 to molnupiravir or a control. We used random-effects models, and conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression for COVID-19 patients with high-risk factors. The GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Results Fourteen trials with 34 570 patients were included. Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed that molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalization (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85), risk of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72) and time to symptom resolution (mean differences [MD] = -2.91 days, 95% CI: -3.66 to -2.16). However, no significant differences were found in adverse events, all-cause mortality, rate of and time to viral clearance, or duration of hospitalization. For the rate of viral clearance, subgroup effects were found between trials with low and high risk of bias (P = 0.001) and between trials with male or female majority (P < 0.001). For admission to hospital, subgroup effects were also found between trials with & GE;50% and <50% of the participants being female (P = 0.04). Meta-regression showed a significant association between higher trial mean age and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011), and female majority and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011). Conclusions Molnupiravir was found to be effective in non-severe COVID-19, but the efficacy varied with age and sex.

IntroductionHealth information literacy is critical for individuals to obtain, understand, screen, and apply health information. However, there is currently no specific tool available to evaluate all four dimensions of health information literacy in China. Public health emergencies can present an opportunity to evaluate and monitor the health information literacy level of residents. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the level of health information literacy and to measure the reliability and validity. MethodsThe development process of the questionnaire consisted of the determination of questionnaire items, expert consultation, and validation. Based on the National Residents Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire (2020) and the 2019 Informed Health Choices key concepts, the researchers drafted the questionnaire, including all four dimensions of health information literacy. Experts in relevant fields were invited to evaluate the draft questionnaire, and revisions were made accordingly. Finally, the reliability and validity of the finalized version were examined in Gansu Province, China. ResultsThe research team preliminarily formulated 14 items encompassing the four dimensions of health information literacy. After consulting with 28 experts, modifications were made. A convenience sample of 185 Chinese residents was invited to participate. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.715 and McDonald's omega was 0.739 for internal consistency, and the test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient after 4 weeks was 0.906, indicating that the questionnaire content and measurement structure was relatively stable. ConclusionThis questionnaire is the first evidence-based assessment tool developed for monitoring health information literacy in China, and it has shown good reliability and validity. It can help to monitor the health information literacy levels of Chinese residents, promote evidence-based decision-making, and guide interventions to improve health information literacy.

Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases " has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management.Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, , gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management.Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias " and five SRs as "high quality. " Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups.Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

This scoping review compiled information concerning digital health technologies (DHTs) evolution to support primary health care (PHC) during COVID-19 and lessons for the future of PHC. The identified literature was published during the COVID-19 peak years (2019-2021), retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, as well as hand searched on the internet. Predefined inclusion criteria were used, thematic analysis was applied, and reporting followed the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews. A total of 46 studies were included in the final synthesis (40 articles, one book, two book chapters, one working paper, and two technical reports). These studies scrutinized various aspects of DHTs, entailing 19 types of DHTs with 20 areas of use that can be compressed into five bigger PHC functions: general PHC service delivery (teleconsultations, e-diagnosis, e-prescription, etc.); behavior promotion and digital health literacy (e.g., combating vaccine hesitancy); surveillance functions; vaccination and drugs; and enhancing system decision-making for proper follow-up of ongoing PHC interventions during COVID-19. DHTs have the potential to solve some of the problems that have plagued us even prior to COVID-19. Therefore, this study uses a forward-looking viewpoint to further stimulate the use of evidence-based DHT, making it more inclusive, educative, and satisfying to people's needs, both under normal conditions and during outbreaks. More research with narrowed research questions is needed, with a particular emphasis on quality assurance in the use of DHTs, technical aspects (standards for digital health tools, infrastructure, and platforms), and financial perspectives (payment for digital health services and adoption incentives). Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12553-023-00725-7.

Background: COVID-19 might be a risk factor for various chronic diseases. However, the association between COVID-19 and the risk of incident diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to meta-analyze evidence on the relative risk of incident diabetes in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to June 8, 2022. We included cohort studies that provided data on the number, proportion, or relative risk of diabetes after confirming the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the relative risk with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. We converted the relative risk to the absolute risk difference to present the evidence. This study was registered in advance (PROSPERO CRD42022337841). Main findings: Ten articles involving 11 retrospective cohorts with a total of 47.1 million participants proved eligible. We found a 64 % greater risk (RR = 1.64, 95%CI: 1.51 to 1.79) of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls, which could increase the number of diabetes events by 701 (558 more to 865 more) per 10,000 persons. We detected significant subgroup effects for type of diabetes and sex. Type 2 diabetes has a higher relative risk than type 1. Moreover, men may be at a higher risk of overall diabetes than women. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence was found for publication bias. Conclusions: COVID-19 is strongly associated with the risk of incident diabetes, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We should be aware of the risk of developing diabetes after COVID-19 and prepare for the associated health problems, given the large and growing number of people infected with COVID-19. However, the body of evidence still needs to be strengthened.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.

Introduction: The urgent need to acquire medical supplies amidst the COVID-19 pandemic has led to bypassing of controls that govern the global pharmaceutical supply chain, increasing the risk of corruption. Hence, promoting anti-corruption, transparency, and accountability (ACTA) in supply chain and procurement has never been more important. The adoption of digital tools, if designed and implemented appropriately, can reduce the risks of corruption. Areas covered: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted an interdisciplinary systematic review of health/medicine, humanities/social sciences, engineering, and computer science literature, with the aims of identifying technologies used for pharmaceutical supply chain and procurement optimization and reviewing whether they address ACTA mechanisms to strengthen pharmaceutical governance. Our review identified four distinct categories of digital solutions: e-procurement and open contracting; track-and-trace technology; anti-counterfeiting technology; and blockchain technology. Expert opinion: Findings demonstrate an increase in research of technologies to improve pharmaceutical supply chain and procurement functions; however, most technologies are not being leveraged to directly address ACTA or global health outcomes. Some blockchain and RFID technologies incorporated ACTA mechanisms and mentioned specific policy/governance frameworks, but more purposeful linkage is needed. Findings point to the need for targeted policy development and governance to activate these innovative technologies to improve global health .

Objectives: This study aimed to: (1) Map existing evidence about the use of collaborative writing applications (CWAs) during pandemics; (2) Describe CWAs' positive and negative effects on knowledge translation (KT) and knowledge management (KM) during pandemics; and (3) Inventory the barriers and facilitators that affect CWAs' use to support KT and KM during pandemics. Materials and methods: Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews, we conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting the use of CWAs during pandemics published between 2001 and 2021. Two reviewers undertook the screening, study selection and qualitative thematic analysis. Results: We identified a total of 46 studies. CWAs were used for the following two purposes: KT and KM (23 of 46) anddisease surveillance and infodemiology (20 of 46). Three studies addressed both purposes. Influenza was the focus of most studies (15 of 46), followed by COVID-19 (10 of 46).We identified and classified 24 barriers and 66 facilitators into four categories (factors related to the CWAs, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 74 positive and 7 negative effects that were classified into processes and outcomes. Conclusion: CWAs offer the potential to accelerate KT and KM during pandemics. Their scalability and adaptability to different contexts makes them well suited to support the urgent KT and KM needed in the context of rapidly changing knowledge during pandemics. While their speed and cost as disease surveillance systems compare favorably with existing surveillance systems, the primary challenge is to ensure the accuracy of information shared.

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group" was adopted for controlled pre-post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre-post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -4.78 days, 95% CI: -5.79 to -3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = -7.95 days, 95% CI: -14.66 to -1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = -1.51 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.09), cough (MD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.36) and chest CT (MD = -2.23 days, 95% CI: -2.46 to -2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP. Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Coronaviruses (CoV) cause respiratory and intestinal infections. We conducted this bibliometric analysis and systematical review to explore the CoV-related research trends from before COVID-19. We systematically searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) databases for published bibliometric analyses of CoV from database inception to January 24, 2021. The WOS Collection was searched from inception to January 31, 2020, to acquire the CoV-related publications before COVID-19. One-Way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple-comparison tests were used to compare differences. Visualization mapping and keyword cluster graphs were made to illustrate the research topics and hotpots. We included 14,141 CoV-related publications for the bibliometric analysis and 16 (12 articles) CoV-related bibliometric analyses for the systematic review. Both the systematic review and bibliometric analysis showed (1) the number of publications showed two steep upward trajectories in 2003–2004 and in 2012–2014; (2) the research hotpots mainly focused on the mechanism, pathology, epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of the coronavirus in MERS-CoV and SARS-Cov; (3) the USA, and China; the University of Hong Kong; and Yuen KY, came from the University of Hong Kong contributed most; (4) the Journal of Virology had the largest number of CoV related studies. More studies should focus on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the future.

Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by numerous complications, complex disease, and high mortality, making its treatment a top priority in the treatment of COVID-19. Integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine played an important role in the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of COVID-19 during the epidemic. However, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for the integrated treatment of severe COVID-19 with TCM and western medicine. Therefore, it is important to develop an evidence-based guideline on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with integrated TCM and western medicine, in order to provide clinical guidance and decision basis for healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and scientific researchers involved in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of COVID-19 patients. We developed and completed the guideline by referring to the standardization process of the "WHO handbook for guideline development", the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).