Background In December 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then. Aim This study aims to understand the research gaps related to COVID-19 and propose recommendations for future research. Methods We undertook a scoping review of COVID-19, comprehensively searching databases and other sources to identify literature on COVID-19 between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020. We analysed the sources, publication date, type and topic of the retrieved articles/studies. Results We included 249 articles in this scoping review. More than half (59.0%) were conducted in China. Guidance/guidelines and consensuses statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) posted online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 while the topics of molecular studies varied. Nine of 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 infection (R0). Of all identified guidance/guidelines (n = 35), only ten fulfilled the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January. Conclusion The number of articles on COVID-19 steadily increased before 6 February 2020. However, they lack diversity and are almost non-existent in some study fields, such as clinical research. The findings suggest that evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and public health policies will be improved when more results from clinical research becomes available.

Aim: To identify the safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published studies and ongoing clinical studies related to the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children or adolescents (aged < 18 years). Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched on 23 July 2021. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched to identify ongoing studies. Results: Eight published studies with a total of 2852 children and adolescents and 28 ongoing clinical studies were included. Of the eight published studies, two were RCTs, two case series, and four case reports. The investigated COVID-19 vaccines had good safety profiles in children and adolescents. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and chest pain were the most common adverse events. A limited number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The RCTs showed that the immune response to BNT162b2 in adolescents aged 12–15 years was non-inferior to that in young people aged 16–25 years, while with 3 μg CoronaVac injection the immune response was stronger than with 1.5 μg. The efficacy of BNT162b2 was 100% (95% CI: 75.3 to 100), based on one RCT. Of the 28 ongoing clinical studies, twenty-three were interventional studies. The interventional studies were being conducted in fifteen countries, among them, China (10, 43.5%) and United States(9, 39.1%) had the highest number of ongoing trials. BNT162b2 was the most commonly studied vaccine in the ongoing trials. Conclusion: Two COVID-19 vaccines have potential protective effects in children and adolescents, but awareness is needed to monitor possible adverse effects after injection. Clinical studies of the COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents with longer follow-up time, larger sample size, and a greater variety of vaccines are still urgently needed.

Background Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19. Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results Overall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I 2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.80-3.29, I 2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I 2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I 2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I 2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I 2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low. Conclusion The combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.

Aims Chinese men who have sex with men (MSM) are at high risk for depression, anxiety and suicide. The estimated prevalence of these problems is essential to guide public health policy, but published results vary. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and suicide among Chinese MSM. Methods Systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CNKI and Wanfang databases with languages restricted to Chinese and English for studies published before 10 September 2019 on the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, suicidal ideation, suicide plans and suicide attempts among Chinese MSM. Studies that were published in the peer-reviewed journals and used validated instruments to assess depression and anxiety were included. The characteristics of studies and the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms, suicidal ideation, suicide plans and suicide attempts were independently extracted by authors. Random-effects modelling was used to estimate the pooled rates. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. This study followed the PRISMA and MOOSE. Results Sixty-seven studies were included. Fifty-two studies reported the prevalence of depressive symptoms, with a combined sample of 37 376 people, of whom 12 887 [43.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 38.9–47.5] reported depressive symptoms. Twenty-seven studies reported the prevalence of anxiety symptoms, with a combined sample of 10 531 people, of whom 3187 (32.2%; 95% CI, 28.3–36.6) reported anxiety symptoms. Twenty-three studies reported the prevalence of suicidal ideation, with a combined sample of 15 034 people, of whom 3416 (21.2%; 95% CI, 18.3–24.5) had suicidal ideation. Nine studies reported the prevalence of suicide plans, with a combined sample of 5271 people, of whom 401 (6.2%; 95% CI, 3.9–8.6) had suicide plans. Finally, 19 studies reported the prevalence of suicide attempts, with a combined sample of 27 936 people, of whom 1829 (7.3%; 95% CI, 5.6–9.0) had attempted suicide. Conclusions The mental health of Chinese MSM is poor compared with the general population. Efforts are warranted to develop interventions to prevent and alleviate mental health problems among this vulnerable population.

No abstract