IntroductionAntidepressant drugs are the most frequently prescribed medication for mental disorders. They are also used off-label and for non-psychiatric indications. Prescriptions of antidepressants have increased in the last decades, but no systematic review exists on the extent of their use in the community.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. We will search for studies published from 1 January 2010 in the Embase and MEDLINE databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords adjusted for each database without any language restriction. The main inclusion criterion is the presence of prevalence data of antidepressant utilization. Thus, we will include all studies with a descriptive observational design reporting the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. Study selection (by title/abstract and full-text screening) and data extraction for included studies will be independently conducted by pairs of reviewers. We will then synthesize the data on the prevalence of antidepressant use in individuals living in the community. If possible, we will perform a meta-analysis to generate prevalence-pooled estimates. If the data allows it, we will conduct subgroup analyses by antidepressant class, age, sex, country and other sociodemographic categories. We will evaluate the risk of bias for each included study through a quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool: Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. DistillerSR software will be used for the management of this review.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review as it will not directly involve human or animal subjects. The findings of our systematic review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, the Qualaxia Network (https://qualaxia.org), presentations at international conferences on mental health and pharmacoepidemiology, as well as general public events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021247423.

Introduction: The survivability of mass casualties exposed to a chemical attack is dependent on clinical knowledge, evidence-based practice, as well as protection and decontamination capabilities. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the knowledge gaps that relate to an efficient extraction and care of mass casualties caused by exposure to chemicals. Methods: This systematic review was conducted from November 2018 through September 2020 in compliance with Cochrane guidelines. Five databases were used (MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL) to retrieve studies describing interventions performed to treat victims of chemical attacks (protection, decontamination, and treatment). The outcomes were patient’s health condition leading to his/her stabilization (primary) and death (secondary) due to interventions applied (medical, protection, and decontamination). Results: Of the 2,301 papers found through the search strategy, only four publications met the eligibility criteria. According to these studies, the confirmed chemical poisoning cases in acute settings resulting from the attacks in Matsumoto (1994), Tokyo (1995), and Damascus (2014) accounted for 1,333 casualties including 11 deaths. No study reported comprehensive prehospital clinical data in acute settings. No mention was made of the integration of specialized capabilities in medical interventions such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and decontamination to prevent a secondary exposure. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform the planned meta-analysis. Conclusions: This study demonstrated gaps in clinical knowledge application regarding the medical extraction of casualties exposed during a chemical attack. Further research is required to optimize clinical practice integrating mixed capabilities (protection and decontamination) for the patient and medical staff.

No abstract