Browsing by Author "Vergara-Merino, Laura"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemMaternal and perinatal outcomes related to COVID-19 and pregnancy: An overview of systematic reviews(2021) Vergara-Merino, Laura; Meza, Nicolás; Couve-Pérez, Constanza; Carrasco, Cynthia; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Madrid, Eva; Bohorquez-Blanco, Sandra; Bracchiglione, JavierIntroduction: Evidence about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy has rapidly increased since December 2019, making it difficult to make rigorous evidence-based decisions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on prognosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women. Material and methods: We used the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform for COVID-19, which continually retrieves studies from 46 data sources (including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, other electronic databases, clinical trials registries, and preprint repositories, among other sources relevant to COVID-19), mapping them into PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) questions. The search covered the period from the inception date of each database to 13 September 2020. We included systematic reviews assessing outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and/or their newborns. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, assessed full texts to select the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We measured the overlap of primary studies included among the selected systematic reviews by building a matrix of evidence, calculating the corrected covered area, and assessing the level of overlap for every pair of systematic reviews. Results: Our search yielded 1132 references. 52 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Only one review had a low risk of bias, three had an unclear risk of bias, and 48 had a high risk of bias. Most of the included reviews were highly overlapped among each other. In the included reviews, rates of maternal death varied from 0% to 11.1%, admission to intensive care from 2.1% to 28.5%, preterm deliveries before 37 weeks from 14.3% to 61.2%, and cesarean delivery from 48.3% to 100%. Regarding neonatal outcomes, neonatal death varied from 0% to 11.7% and the estimated infection status of the newborn varied between 0% and 11.5%. Conclusions: Only one of 52 systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. Results were heterogeneous and the overlap of primary studies was frequently very high between pairs of systematic reviews. High-quality evidence syntheses of comparative studies are needed to guide future clinical decisions.
- ItemPrognosis of COVID-19 in pregnancy: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews(2020) Vergara-Merino, Laura; Pérez-Bracchiglione, Javier; Meza, Nicolás; Constanza, Couve; Carrasco, Cynthia; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Rada G., GabrielObjective: We aim to map and summarise the current evidence about COVID-19 prognosis in pregnant women. Design: This is the protocol of an overview of systematic reviews. Data sources: We will conduct comprehensive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO evidence questions from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand its COVID-19 repository evidence as a way to gather it 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 and overviews of systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include all systematic reviews about COVID-19 in pregnant women. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. Ethics and dissemination: No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this overview will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.
- ItemRapid reviews: definitions and uses(2021) Tapia-Benavente, Luis; Vergara-Merino, Laura; Garegnani, Luis Ignacio; Ortiz Muñoz, Luis Eugenio; Loézar Hernández, Cristóbal; Vargas-Peirano, ManuelEste artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.