ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2020
Perioperative management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: review and recommendations for perioperative management from a retrospective cohort study.
Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative lymphopaenia, mortality, and morbidity after elective surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2021Pooled it
- Pneumonia Deterioration Occurring After C-section in a Preeclamptic Patient: A Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
- Identifying and addressing pill aversion in adults without physiological-related dysphagia: A narrative review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- A medical ethics review of elective orthopaedic surgery management during the pandemic COVID-19 Era.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on efficiency and airway management.Journal of clinical anesthesia · 2021Article
- EACTA/SCA Recommendations for the Cardiac Anesthesia Management of Patients With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 Infection: An Expert Consensus From the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology and Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists With Endorsement From the Chinese Society of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesiology.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2021Article
- Utilizing IoT to design a relief supply chain network for the SARS-COV-2 pandemic.Applied soft computing · 2021Article
- Letter to the Editor Regarding "Perioperative COVID-19 Incidence and Outcomes in Neurosurgical Patients at Two Tertiary Care Centers in Washington, DC, During a Pandemic: A 6-Month Follow-up".World neurosurgery · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines for perioperative management of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are mainly based on extrapolated evidence or expert opinion. We aimed to systematically investigate how COVID-19 affects perioperative management and clinical outcomes, to develop evidence-based guidelines.
methodsFirst, we conducted a rapid literature review in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1 to July 1, 2020), using a predefined protocol. Second, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 166 women undergoing Caesarean section at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, imaging, laboratory, and clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records.
resultsThe review identified 26 studies, mainly case reports/series. One large cohort reported greater mortality in elective surgery patients diagnosed after, rather than before surgery. Higher 30 day mortality was associated with emergency surgery, major surgery, poorer preoperative condition and surgery for malignancy. Regional anaesthesia was favoured in most studies and personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally used by healthcare workers (HCWs), but its use was poorly described for patients. In the retrospective cohort study, duration of surgery, oxygen therapy and hospital stay were longer in suspected or confirmed patients than negative patients, but there were no differences in neonatal outcomes. None of the 262 participating HCWs was infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) when using level 3 PPE perioperatively.
conclusionsWhen COVID-19 is suspected, testing should be considered before non-urgent surgery. Until further evidence is available, HCWs should use level 3 PPE perioperatively for suspected or confirmed patients, but research is needed on its timing and specifications. Further research must examine longer-term outcomes. CLINICAL
trial registrationCRD42020182891 (PROSPERO).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.