Objective To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic. Design Retrospective review. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021). Main outcome measures Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Results Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded—the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons. Conclusion No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months—an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Objective Provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted searches in the special L.OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and other 33 sources. We searched for randomized trials and non-randomized studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies, according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data using a predesigned standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Our search strategy yielded 862 references. Finally, we identified 12 studies, including two randomized trials, evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir, in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in 250 adult inpatients with COVID-19. The evidence from randomized trials shows lopinavir/ritonavir may reduce mortality (relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 1.3; low certainty evidence), but the anticipated magnitude of the absolute reduction in mortality, varies across different risk groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir also had a slight reduction in the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, developing respiratory failure, or acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it did not lead to any difference in the duration of hospitalization and may lead to an increase in the number of total adverse effects. The overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. Conclusions For severe and critical patients with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir might play a role in improving outcomes, but the available evidence is still limited. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.

The evidence on COVID-19 is being produced at high speed, so it is challenging for decision-makers to keep up. It seems appropriate, then, to put into practice a novel approach able to provide the scientific community and other interested parties with quality evidence that is actionable, and rapidly and efficiently produced. We designed a protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will search for primary studies and systematic reviews that answer different questions related to COVID-19 using both a centralized repository (Epistemonikos database) and a manual search in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will also search for literature in several other sources. At least two researchers will independently undertake the selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of the included studies. We will synthesize data for each question using meta-analysis, when possible, and we will prepare Summary of Findings tables according to the GRADE approach. All the evidence will be organized in an open platform (L·OVE - Living OVerview of Evidence) that will be continuously updated using artificial intelligence and a broad network of experts. No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of these articles will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks, and traditional media, and will be sent to relevant international organizations discussing this topic.

This study aims to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically considering the mandatory social isolation measures implemented, on the perceived stress of a sample of dentists and dental students from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the associated sociodemographic and pandemic-related variables. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of 2036 dentists and dental students (1433 women). For the main outcome, the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14) was used. The survey also questioned sociodemographic aspects, questions on the COVID-19 pandemic, health variables, and habits. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses (linear regression) were applied to observe the factors associated with perceived stress. The PSS-14 mean score was 24.76 (±11.76). Hierarchical regression models showed significant variables associated with the PSS-14 scores: income level during mandatory social isolation, having older adults under care during mandatory social isolation, self-perceived level of concern regarding COVID-19, self-perceived health, Coffee consumption during mandatory social isolation. In general terms, the pandemic has influenced the personal, social, labor, and everyday life of dental staff and affected the mental health of this population specifically when perceived stress is considered. Public policies, strategies, and mental health surveillance systems are required for this population.

The effects and the prescription parameters of therapeutic exercise are not clear. For this reason, is needed to determine the effect of therapeutic exercises on the motor function of children with Down Syndrome (DS) aged 0 to 3 years. The present study is systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes in this population: gait, balance, motor development, fine motor skills, and executive functions. The databases of PubMed, PEDro, EMBASE, SCIELO, Lilacs, Cochrane library were searched from January to December 2019. We recruited Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) which met the inclusion criteria in our study. Six studies and 151 participants were included. Two types of therapeutic exercises, aerobic and neuromuscular, were identified. Both types of exercise were effective in improving outcomes. There were no differences between the modes of application of the exercise. No differences were identified between the treadmill and the physiotherapy plan for the reduction of the time to reach independent walking, Mean Difference (MD) 46.79, 95% Confidence Interval (IC) (− 32.60, 126.19), nor for the increase in walking speed MD 0.10 IC (− 0.02, 0.21) m/s. This study suggests that aerobic exercise therapy has a potentially effective role to promote the gait and motor development of children with DS aged 0 to 3 years when it is applied using a treadmill with a frequency of 5 days, a duration of 6–8 min, and an intensity of between 0.2 and 0.5 m/s. Studies with less heterogeneity and larger sample sizes are required.