Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33827499›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2021

History for some or lesson for all? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the immediate and long-term mental health impact of the 2002-2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak.

Steven W H Chau, Oscar W H Wong, Rema Ramakrishnan, Sandra S M Chan, Evelyn K Y Wong, Pinky Y T Li, Vanessa Raymont, Kathryn Elliot, Shanaya Rathod, Gayathri Delanerolle and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readHistorical ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven W H ChauDepartment of Psychiatry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. stevenwaihochau@cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID 0000-0002-2986-8677
Oscar W H WongDepartment of Psychiatry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Rema RamakrishnanNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sandra S M ChanDepartment of Psychiatry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Evelyn K Y WongDepartment of Psychiatry, North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, Hong Kong.
Pinky Y T LiDepartment of Psychiatry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Vanessa RaymontOxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kathryn ElliotResearch & Development Department, Tom Rudd Unit, Clinical Trials Facility, Moorgreen Hospital, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, SO30 3JB, UK.
Shanaya RathodSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Gayathri DelanerolleOxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter PhiriResearch & Development Department, Tom Rudd Unit, Clinical Trials Facility, Moorgreen Hospital, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, SO30 3JB, UK.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKUniversity of Oxford · GBSouthern Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to examine the prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes, both short-term and long-term, among SARS patients, healthcare workers and the general public of SARS-affected regions, and to examine the protective and risk factors associated with these mental health outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of the literature using databases such as Medline, Pubmed, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, CNKI, the National Central Library Online Catalog and dissertation databases to identify studies in the English or Chinese language published between January 2003 to May 2020 which reported psychological distress and mental health morbidities among SARS patients, healthcare workers, and the general public in regions with major SARS outbreaks.

resultsThe literature search yielded 6984 titles. Screening resulted in 80 papers for the review, 35 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of post-recovery probable or clinician-diagnosed anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among SARS survivors were 19, 20 and 28%, respectively. The prevalence of these outcomes among studies conducted within and beyond 6 months post-discharge was not significantly different. Certain aspects of mental health-related quality of life measures among SARS survivors remained impaired beyond 6 months post-discharge. The prevalence of probable depressive disorder and PTSD among healthcare workers post-SARS were 12 and 11%, respectively. The general public had increased anxiety levels during SARS, but whether there was a clinically significant population-wide mental health impact remained inconclusive. Narrative synthesis revealed occupational exposure to SARS patients and perceived stigmatisation to be risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes among healthcare workers, although causality could not be determined due to the limitations of the studies.

conclusionsThe chronicity of psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors should alert us to the potential long-term mental health complications of covid-19 patients. Healthcare workers working in high-risk venues should be given adequate mental health support. Stigmatisation against patients and healthcare workers should be explored and addressed. The significant risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity among included studies limited the certainty of the body of evidence of the review.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksMental DisordersSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeCOVID-19History, 21st CenturyHumansProtective FactorsRisk FactorsCovid-19Healthcare workersInfectious diseaseMental healthPost-traumatic stress disorderSARS

Identifiers

PMID33827499
PMCPMC8025448
OpenAlexW3139858701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.