Background As the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, healthcare providers struggle to manage both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients while still providing high-quality care. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with non-COVID illness and on healthcare systems compared to non-pandemic epochs. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/CENTRAL/CINAHL (inception to December 31, 2020). All study types with COVID-pandemic time period (after December 31, 2019) with comparative non-pandemic time periods (prior to December 31, 2019). Data regarding study characteristics/case-mix/interventions/comparators/ outcomes (primary: mortality; secondary: morbidity/hospitalizations/disruptions-to-care. Paired reviewers conducted screening and abstraction, with conflicts resolved by discussion. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence rating using GRADE methodology. Results Of 11,581 citations, 167 studies met eligibility. Our meta-analysis showed an increased mortality of 16% during the COVID pandemic for non-COVID illness compared with 11% mortality during the pre-pandemic period (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.28–1.50; absolute risk difference: 5% [95% CI: 4–6%], p<0.00001, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-eight studies (17%) reported significant changes in morbidity (where 93% reported increases), while 30 studies (18%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Thirty-nine studies (23%) reported significant changes in hospitalizations (97% reporting decreases), while 111 studies (66%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Sixty-two studies (37%) reported significant disruptions in standards-to-care (73% reporting increases), while 62 studies (37%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Conclusions There was a significant increase in mortality during the COVID pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times for non-COVID illnesses. When significant changes were reported, there was increased morbidity, decreased hospitalizations and increased disruptions in standards-of-care. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020201256 (Sept 2, 2020).

Background and aimWith the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.ResultsOf 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06–0.06% p &lt; 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.70, p &lt; 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07–1.30, p &lt; 0.00001). There was “very low” certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256].

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening respiratory injury with multiple physiological sequelae. Shunting of deoxygenated blood through intra-and extrapulmonary shunts may complicate ARDS management. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to determine the prevalence of sonographically detected shunts, and their association with oxygenation and mortality in patients with ARDS.DATA SOURCES: Medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane Library, and database of abstracts of reviews of effects databases on March 26, 2021. STUDY SELECTION:Articles relating to respiratory failure and sonographic shunt detection.DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were independently screened and extracted in duplicate. Data pertaining to study demographics and shunt detection were compiled for mortality and oxygenation outcomes. Risk of bias was appraised using the Joanna-Briggs Institute and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools with evidence rating certainty using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.DATA SYNTHESIS: From 4,617 citations, 10 observational studies met eligibility criteria. Sonographic detection of right-to-left shunt was present in 21.8% of patients (range, 14.4-30.0%) among included studies using transthoracic, transesophageal, and transcranial bubble Doppler ultrasonographies. Shunt prevalence may be associated with increased mortality (risk ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49; p = 0.04, very low certainty evidence) with no difference in oxygenation as measured by Pao 2 :Fio 2 ratio (mean difference, -0.7; 95% CI, -18.6 to 17.2; p = 0.94, very low certainty).CONCLUSIONS: Intra-and extrapulmonary shunts are detected frequently in ARDS with ultrasound techniques. Shunts may increase mortality among patients with ARDS, but its association with oxygenation is uncertain.

Background: Medical students are exposed to multiple factors during their academic and clinical studies that contribute to depression. Aims: This study aims to examine the prevalence and correlates of likely major depressive disorder (MDD) among medical students. Methods: This study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design. Data were collected through a self-administered online survey, which included questions on sociodemographic characteristics and likely MDD using the PHQ-9. Data were analyzed using a descriptive, Chi-square test and logistic regression model. Results: There were 246 medical students who participated in the survey. The majority were females, 155 (65.1%); Caucasian, 158 (66.4%); and in a relationship, 168 (70.5%). The prevalence of likely MDD was 29.1%. Respondents who did not feel supported and respondents who were neutral about their social support, friends, and family, were 11 and 4 times more likely to experience MDD than those who felt well supported (OR = 11.14; 95% CI: 1.14–108.80) and (OR = 4.65; 95% CI: 1.10–19.56), respectively. Conclusions: This study suggests a high prevalence of likely MDD among medical students who do not feel they have sufficient social support from friends and family. Social adjustments, including talking to friends and family and participating in leisure activities, could reduce the level of depression among medical students.