For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
12
views
92
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      78
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Tuberculosis Preventive Services and Their Post-Pandemic Recovery Strategies: A Rapid Review of Literature

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted tuberculosis (TB) care and prevention around the world. The aim of this study is to review literature on the impact of COVID-19 on TB preventive services and discuss their policy options during and after the pandemic.

          Methods

          We conducted a rapid review of scientific literature on the impact of COVID-19 on TB preventive services and their recovery strategies. After conducting a line-by-line open coding, their codes were applied in the descriptive theme building process, which was guided by the End TB strategy. TB preventive measures were selected and classified into five analytical categories: 1) vaccination against TB, 2) detection and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI), 3) screening and diagnostics, 4) active case finding and contact tracing, and 5) surveillance.

          Results

          We identified 93 articles, of which 65 were research articles. During the pandemic, we observed decrease in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) coverage, TB diagnostic services, case finding activities, and LTBI management. TB case detection was declined, which was not resumed to the pre-pandemic level after loosening the lock-down. Several recommendations were highlighted: 1) secure BCG stocks and its supply chains, 2) consider catch-up activities of routine immunization and LTBI screening, 3) maintain minimal TB health services, infection prevention and control, and surveillance, 4) leverage laboratory capacity and contact tracing mechanisms, 5) consider simultaneous testing for TB and COVID-19, and 6) Incorporate digital health technologies.

          Conclusions

          Our findings and lessons learnt from the pandemic can aid in the development of future national TB control program.

          Graphical Abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 12580 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

            Jessie L. McGowan, Margaret Sampson, Douglas M Salzwedel … (2016)
            To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
            Article 0 comments Cited 1083 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21

              (2022)
              Background Mortality statistics are fundamental to public health decision making. Mortality varies by time and location, and its measurement is affected by well known biases that have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper aims to estimate excess mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic in 191 countries and territories, and 252 subnational units for selected countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Methods All-cause mortality reports were collected for 74 countries and territories and 266 subnational locations (including 31 locations in low-income and middle-income countries) that had reported either weekly or monthly deaths from all causes during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, and for up to 11 year previously. In addition, we obtained excess mortality data for 12 states in India. Excess mortality over time was calculated as observed mortality, after excluding data from periods affected by late registration and anomalies such as heat waves, minus expected mortality. Six models were used to estimate expected mortality; final estimates of expected mortality were based on an ensemble of these models. Ensemble weights were based on root mean squared errors derived from an out-of-sample predictive validity test. As mortality records are incomplete worldwide, we built a statistical model that predicted the excess mortality rate for locations and periods where all-cause mortality data were not available. We used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression as a variable selection mechanism and selected 15 covariates, including both covariates pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as seroprevalence, and to background population health metrics, such as the Healthcare Access and Quality Index, with direction of effects on excess mortality concordant with a meta-analysis by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With the selected best model, we ran a prediction process using 100 draws for each covariate and 100 draws of estimated coefficients and residuals, estimated from the regressions run at the draw level using draw-level input data on both excess mortality and covariates. Mean values and 95% uncertainty intervals were then generated at national, regional, and global levels. Out-of-sample predictive validity testing was done on the basis of our final model specification. Findings Although reported COVID-19 deaths between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021, totalled 5·94 million worldwide, we estimate that 18·2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17·1–19·6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period. The global all-age rate of excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic was 120·3 deaths (113·1–129·3) per 100 000 of the population, and excess mortality rate exceeded 300 deaths per 100 000 of the population in 21 countries. The number of excess deaths due to COVID-19 was largest in the regions of south Asia, north Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe. At the country level, the highest numbers of cumulative excess deaths due to COVID-19 were estimated in India (4·07 million [3·71–4·36]), the USA (1·13 million [1·08–1·18]), Russia (1·07 million [1·06–1·08]), Mexico (798 000 [741 000–867 000]), Brazil (792 000 [730 000–847 000]), Indonesia (736 000 [594 000–955 000]), and Pakistan (664 000 [498 000–847 000]). Among these countries, the excess mortality rate was highest in Russia (374·6 deaths [369·7–378·4] per 100 000) and Mexico (325·1 [301·6–353·3] per 100 000), and was similar in Brazil (186·9 [172·2–199·8] per 100 000) and the USA (179·3 [170·7–187·5] per 100 000). Interpretation The full impact of the pandemic has been much greater than what is indicated by reported deaths due to COVID-19 alone. Strengthening death registration systems around the world, long understood to be crucial to global public health strategy, is necessary for improved monitoring of this pandemic and future pandemics. In addition, further research is warranted to help distinguish the proportion of excess mortality that was directly caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection and the changes in causes of death as an indirect consequence of the pandemic. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom
              Article 0 comments Cited 538 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Korean Med Sci
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Korean Med Sci
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JKMS
                Title: Journal of Korean Medical Science
                Publisher: The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
                ISSN (Print): 1011-8934
                ISSN (Electronic): 1598-6357
                Publication date Collection: 06 February 2023
                Publication date (Electronic): 19 January 2023
                Volume: 38
                Issue: 5
                Electronic Location Identifier: e43
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ministry of Health and Welfare, Sejong, Korea.
                [2 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
                Author notes
                Address for Correspondence: Jinsoo Min, MD, MPH, PhD. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpod-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea. minjinsoo@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8179-4620
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6091-518X
                Article
                DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e43
                PMC ID: 9902666
                PubMed ID: 36747365
                SO-VID: 75db58b4-2cc1-4b48-9093-9409b5f272da
                Copyright © © 2023 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 18 July 2022
                Date accepted : 14 November 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article
                Subject: Medicine General & Policy

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: sars-cov-2,latent tuberculosis,health policy,prevention and control,immunization,screening,surveillance
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: sars-cov-2, latent tuberculosis, health policy, prevention and control, immunization, screening, surveillance

                Comments

                Comment on this article