No abstract

Background The aim of the study is to compare the emotional effects of COVID-19 among three different groups, namely: health personnel, medical students, and a sample of the general population. Methods 375 participants were recruited for this study, of which 125 were medical students (preclinical studies, 59; clinical studies, 66), 125 were health personnel (COVID-19 frontline personnel, 59; personnel not related with COVID-19, 66), and 125 belonged to the general population. The PHQ-9, GAD-7, and CPDI scales were used to assess the emotional impact. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to measure differences between groups, considering potential confounding factors. Results Regarding CPDI values, all other groups showed reduced values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. However, the general population, preclinical and clinical medical students showed increased PHQ-9 values compared to COVID-19 frontline personnel. Finally, confounding factors, gender and age correlated negatively with higher CPDI and PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions Being frontline personnel is associated with increased COVID-19-related stress. Depression is associated, however, with other groups not directly involved with the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Female gender and younger age correlated with COVID-19-related depression and stress.

Content-based validity can be defined as the evidence of the degree to which the items of an instrument represent the construct to be inferred. It is the initial and unavoidable step for evaluating other sources of validity. However, it is one of the least reported psychometric properties in development of health measurement scales. That is why it is considered a challenge that must be overcome with the recognition of its value. In this narrative review, the concept of content as evidence of validity is revised and methods for evaluation are synthesized with an algorithm.

Aim To examine the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs (AED) for the inpatient treatment of patients with moderate to severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Methods We searched in databases and gray literature to include randomized controlled clinical trials in adults that compare the use of AED versus placebo or any other medication. Studies that did not specify severity or were performed on an outpatient basis were excluded. The outcomes were improvement of symptoms, delirium tremens, seizures and adverse events. Two researchers independently selected the references, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was made and, when the heterogeneity was mild or moderate, a meta-analysis was performed. The quality of the evidence obtained was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Results In total, 26 studies with 1709 patients were included. No benefit is described in withdrawal syndrome severity measured by scales or in the development of delirium tremens. The only possible meta-analysis showed that there are no differences in the incidence of seizures (risk ratio [RR] = 1.0; confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.76–1.33), even when compared with placebo (RR = 0.95; CI95% 0.57–1.57). There were also no differences in adverse events, although a higher proportion of some mild cases were described with the use of carbamazepine and valproic acid. Conclusions The routine use of AED is not suggested in the treatment of patients with moderate or severe AWS unless indicated for comorbidity (weak recommendation against using moderate quality of evidence).