This dataset contains daily data trackers for the COVID-19 pandemic, aggregated by month and starting 18.3.20. The first release of COVID-19 data on this platform was on 1.6.20. Updates have been provided on a quarterly basis throughout 2023/24. No updates are currently scheduled for 2024/25 as case rates remain low. The data is accurate as at 8.00 a.m. on 8.4.24. Some narrative for the data covering the latest period is provided here below: Diagnosed cases / episodes • As at 3.4.24 CYC residents have had a total 75,556 covid episodes since the start of the pandemic, a rate of 37,465 per 100,000 of population (using 2021 Mid-Year Population estimates). The cumulative rate in York is similar to the national (37,305) and regional (37,059) averages. • The latest rate of new Covid cases per 100,000 of population for the period 28.3.24 to 3.4.24 in York was 1.49 (3 cases). The national and regional averages at this date were 1.67 and 2.19 respectively (using data published on Gov.uk on 5.4.24).

The Project involved getting photos of closed due to COVID signs in shops and businesses in York UK.

One column of "text" includes all the transcripts of the signs with phone numbers removed.

This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the clinical profile and outcome of COVID-19 infection in patients with hemoglobinopathy. The rate of COVID-19 mortality and its predictors were also identified. A systematic search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database) for articles published between 1st December 2019 to 31st October 2020. All articles with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases with underlying hemoglobinopathy were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists. Thirty-one articles with data on 246 patients with hemoglobinopathy were included in this review. In general, clinical manifestations of COVID-19 infection among patients with hemoglobinopathy were similar to the general population. Vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in 55.6% of sickle cell disease patients with COVID-19 infection. Mortality from COVID-19 infection among patients with hemoglobinopathy was 6.9%. After adjusting for age, gender, types of hemoglobinopathy and oxygen supplementation, respiratory (adj OR = 89.63, 95% CI 2.514–3195.537, p = 0.014) and cardiovascular (adj OR = 35.20, 95% CI 1.291–959.526, p = 0.035) comorbidities were significant predictors of mortality. Patients with hemoglobinopathy had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 infection compared to the general population. Those with coexisting cardiovascular or respiratory comorbidities require closer monitoring during the course of illness. More data are needed to allow a better understanding on the clinical impact of COVID-19 infections among patients with hemoglobinopathy.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020218200.

PurposeThe unique constraints to everyday life brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have been suggested to negatively impact those with pre-existing mental health issues such as eating disorders. While individuals with eating disorders or disordered eating behaviors likely represent a vulnerable group to the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of the pandemic is yet to be fully established.MethodsWe systematically examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors. We searched electronic databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE for literature published until October 2021. Eligible studies were required to report on individuals with or without a diagnosed eating disorder or disordered eating behaviors who were exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsSeventy-two studies met eligibility criteria with the majority reporting an increase in eating disorder or disordered eating behaviors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it appears children and adolescents and individuals with a diagnosed eating disorder may present vulnerable groups to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.DiscussionThis mixed systematic review provides a timely insight into COVID-19 eating disorder literature and will assist in understanding possible future long-term impacts of the pandemic on eating disorder behaviors. It appears that the role of stress in the development and maintenance of eating disorders may have been intensified to cope with the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is needed among understudied and minority groups and to examine the long-term implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=284749, PROSPERO [CRD42021284749].

Post-COVID syndrome can be defined as symptoms of COVID-19 that persist for longer than 12 weeks, with several studies reporting persistent symptoms relating to the sensory organs (eyes, ears, and nose). The aim of this systematic review was to examine the prevalence of persistent anosmia, hyposmia, ageusia, and hypogeusia, as well as eye/vision and ear/hearing related long-COVID symptoms. Authors searched the electronic databases from inception to November 2021. Search terms included words related to long-COVID, smell, taste, eyes/vision, and ears/hearing, with all observational study designs being included. A random effects meta-analysis was undertaken, calculating the prevalence proportions of anosmia, hyposmia, ageusia, and hypogeusia, respectively. From the initial pool, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria (total n 4,707; median n per study 125; median age = 49.8; median percentage female = 59.2%) and 14 were included in the meta-analysis The prevalence of anosmia was 12.2% (95% CI 7.7–16.6%), hyposmia 29.9% (95% CI 19.9–40%), ageusia 11.7% (95% CI 6.1–17.3%), and hypogeusia 31.2% (95% 16.4–46.1%). Several eye/vision and ear/hearing symptoms were also reported. Considering that changes in the sensory organs are associated with decreases in quality of life, future research should examine the etiology behind the persistent symptoms.Systematic review registration[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021292804].

Objective: Cardiac injury is detected in numerous patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been demonstrated to be closely related to poor outcomes. However, an optimal cardiac biomarker for predicting COVID-19 prognosis has not been identified.Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for published articles between December 1, 2019 and September 8, 2021. Eligible studies that examined the anomalies of different cardiac biomarkers in patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) were extracted. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.Results: A total of 63 studies, with 64,319 patients with COVID-19, were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The prevalence of elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and myoglobin (Mb) in the general population with COVID-19 was 22.9 (19–27%) and 13.5% (10.6–16.4%), respectively. However, the presence of elevated Mb was more common than elevated cTnI in patients with severe COVID-19 [37.7 (23.3–52.1%) vs.30.7% (24.7–37.1%)]. Moreover, compared with cTnI, the elevation of Mb also demonstrated tendency of higher correlation with case-severity rate (Mb, r = 13.9 vs. cTnI, r = 3.93) and case-fatality rate (Mb, r = 15.42 vs. cTnI, r = 3.04). Notably, elevated Mb level was also associated with higher odds of severe illness [Mb, OR = 13.75 (10.2–18.54) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.06 (3.94–12.65)] and mortality [Mb, OR = 13.49 (9.3–19.58) vs. cTnI, OR = 7.75 (4.4–13.66)] than cTnI.Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 and elevated Mb levels are at significantly higher risk of severe disease and mortality. Elevation of Mb may serve as a marker for predicting COVID-19-related adverse outcomes.Prospero Registration Number:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175133, CRD42020175133.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, with cytokine storm leading to exaggerating immune response, multi-organ dysfunction and death. Melatonin has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects and its effect on COVID-19 clinical outcomes is controversial. This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of melatonin on COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any language or publication year limitations from inception to 15 Nov 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using melatonin as therapy in COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included were the recovery rate of clinical symptoms, changes in the inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR). A random-effects model was applied for meta-analyses, and further subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.ResultsA total of nine RCTs with 718 subjects were included. Five studies using melatonin with the primary outcome were analyzed, and the pooled results showed no significant difference in mortality between melatonin and control groups with high heterogeneity across studies identified (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–1.11, p = 0.14, I2 = 82%). However, subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant effects in patients aged under 55 years (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62–0.82, p < 0.01) and in patients treated for more than 10 days (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.53, p = 0.01). The recovery rate of clinical symptoms and changes in CRP, ESR, and NLR were not statistically significant. No serious adverse effects were reported from melatonin use.ConclusionIn conclusion, based on low certainty of evidence, the study concluded that melatonin therapy does not significantly reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients, but there are possible benefits in patients under 55 years or treated for more than 10 days. With a very low certainty of evidence, we found no significant difference in the recovery rate of COVID-19 related symptoms or inflammatory markers in current studies. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to determine the possible efficacy of melatonin on COVID-19 patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022351424.

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients.Trial registration numberCRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.

BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there have been many studies on knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward prevention of COVID-19 infection in China. Except for symptomatic treatment and vaccination, KAP toward COVID-19 plays an important role in the prevention of COVID-19. There is no systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of KAP toward COVID-19 in China. This study is the earliest meta-analysis of KAP toward COVID-19 in China’s general population. Hence, this systematic review aimed to summarize the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of Chinese residents toward COVID-19 during the pandemic.MethodologyFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, articles relevant to COVID-19 KAP that were conducted among the Chinese population were found in databases such as Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CQVIP, Wanfang and Google Scholar. A random-effect meta-analysis is used to summarize studies on knowledge, attitudes, and practice levels toward COVID-19 infection in China’s general population.ResultsFifty-seven articles published between August 2020 and November 2022 were included in this review. Overall, 75% (95% CI: 72–79%) of Chinese residents had good knowledge about COVID-19, 80% (95% CI: 73–87%) of Chinese residents had a positive attitude toward COVID-19 pandemic control and prevention (they believe that Chinese people will win the battle against the epidemic), and the aggregated proportion of residents with a correct practice toward COVID-19 was 84% (95% CI: 82–87%, I2 = 99.7%).In the gender subgroup analysis, there is no significant difference between Chinese men and Chinese women in terms of their understanding of COVID-19. However, Chinese women tend to have slightly higher levels of knowledge and a more positive attitude toward the virus compared to Chinese men. When considering the urban and rural subgroup analysis, it was found that Chinese urban residents have a better understanding of COVID-19 compared to Chinese rural residents. Interestingly, the rural population displayed higher rates of correct behavior and positive attitudes toward COVID-19 compared to the urban population. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis based on different regions in China, the eastern, central, and southwestern regions exhibited higher levels of knowledge awareness compared to other regions. It is worth noting that all regions in China demonstrated good rates of correct behavior and positive attitudes toward COVID-19.ConclusionThis study reviews the level of KAP toward COVID-19 during the pandemic period in China. The results show that the KAP toward COVID-19 in Chinese residents was above a favorable level, but the lack of translation of knowledge into practice should be further reflected on and improved. A subgroup analysis suggests that certain groups need more attention, such as males and people living in rural areas. Policy makers should pay attention to the results of this study and use them as a reference for the development of prevention and control strategies for major public health events that may occur in the future.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=348246, CRD42022348246.

ObjectivesTo identify COVID-19 infectious disease models that accounted for social determinants of health (SDH).MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and the Web of Science from December 2019 to August 2020. We included mathematical modelling studies focused on humans investigating COVID-19 impact and including at least one SDH. We abstracted study characteristics (e.g., country, model type, social determinants of health) and appraised study quality using best practices guidelines.Results83 studies were included. Most pertained to multiple countries (n = 15), the United States (n = 12), or China (n = 7). Most models were compartmental (n = 45) and agent-based (n = 7). Age was the most incorporated SDH (n = 74), followed by gender (n = 15), race/ethnicity (n = 7) and remote/rural location (n = 6). Most models reflected the dynamic nature of infectious disease spread (n = 51, 61%) but few reported on internal (n = 10, 12%) or external (n = 31, 37%) model validation.ConclusionFew models published early in the pandemic accounted for SDH other than age. Neglect of SDH in mathematical models of disease spread may result in foregone opportunities to understand differential impacts of the pandemic and to assess targeted interventions.Systematic Review Registration:[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020207706], PROSPERO, CRD42020207706.

BackgroundThe current 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a major threat to global health. It is currently uncertain whether and how liver injury affects the severity of COVID-19. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the association between liver injury and the severity of COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to August 12, 2022, was performed to analyse the reported liver chemistry data for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The pooled odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were assessed using a random-effects model. Furthermore, publication bias and sensitivity were analyzed.ResultsForty-six studies with 28,663 patients were included. The pooled WMDs of alanine aminotransferase (WMD = 12.87 U/L, 95% CI: 10.52–15.23, I2 = 99.2%), aspartate aminotransferase (WMD = 13.98 U/L, 95% CI: 12.13–15.83, I2 = 98.2%), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (WMD = 20.67 U/L, 95% CI: 14.24–27.10, I2 = 98.8%), total bilirubin (WMD = 2.98 μmol/L, 95% CI: 1.98–3.99, I2 = 99.4%), and prothrombin time (WMD = 0.84 s, 95% CI: 0.46–1.23, I2 = 99.4%) were significantly higher and that of albumin was lower (WMD = −4.52 g/L, 95% CI: −6.28 to −2.75, I2 = 99.9%) in severe cases. Moreover, the pooled OR of mortality was higher in patients with liver injury (OR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.18–6.27, I2 = 71.6%).ConclusionsHepatocellular injury, liver metabolic, and synthetic function abnormality were observed in severe COVID-19. From a clinical perspective, liver injury has potential as a prognostic biomarker for screening severely affected patients at early disease stages.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier: CRD42022325206.

IntroductionAttitudes towards vaccination are influenced by a broad range of factors, yet little is known about the drivers shaping adolescents’ vaccination beliefs. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the factors influencing adolescents’ individual decision-making towards COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, and Publicly Available Content Database. Studies on attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of adolescents regarding COVID-19 vaccines were included. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist was used for quality assessment, followed by thematic synthesis of the included studies.ResultsIn total, 13 studies were included, revealing 5 key themes: (1) Limited vaccine literacy influences adolescents’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines; (2) Family, peers, and community strongly influence adolescents’ COVID-19 vaccine decision-making; (3) Different levels of trust in vaccine providers and governments influence adolescents’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines; (4) Desire to go back to normality influences adolescents’ COVID-19 vaccine attitudes towards vaccine acceptancy; (5) Autonomy influences adolescents’ COVID-19 vaccine decision-making.DiscussionThe review findings suggest that vaccine acceptance among adolescents could be improved through tailored and accessible vaccine literacy messaging, addressing structural mistrust, and empowering adolescents to make autonomous health decisions that take into account diverse contexts and populations.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024512197, identifier CRD42024512197.

Background and aimWith the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.ResultsOf 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06–0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07–1.30, p < 0.00001). There was “very low” certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256].

BackgroundAs some countries announced to remove Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) border, it indicates that the COVID-19 may have entered its terminal stage. In this COVID-19 pandemic, the mental health of frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) experienced unprecedented challenges. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among frontline HCWs lacks a high-quality and long-term systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. The system searches EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ScienceNet, and ERIC. Analyze the mental health problems of frontline HCWs in different regions and periods, including insomnia, stress, anxiety and depression. This study was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD42021253821.ResultsA total of 19 studies on the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among frontline HCWs were included in this study. The overall prevalence of insomnia was 42.9% (95% CI, 33.9–51.9%, I2 = 99.0%) extracted from data from 14 cross-sectional studies (n = 10 127), 1 cohort study (n = 4,804), and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 482) in 10 countries. The overall prevalence of stress was 53.0% (95% CI, 41.1–64.9%, I2 = 78.3%) extracted from data from nine cross-sectional studies (n = 5,494) and 1 RCT study (n = 482) from eight countries. The overall prevalence of anxiety and depression was 43.0% (95% CI, 33.8–52.3%, I2 = 99.0%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 36.1–53.1%, I2 = 99.0%) extracted from data from 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 11,727), one cohort study (n = 4,804), and one RCT study (n = 482) from 12 countries. The prevalence of stress and depression was higher in 2020, while the prevalence of insomnia and anxiety was higher in 2021. The prevalence of mental health problems among physicians was higher than that of other frontline HCWs. The prevalence of mental health problems among frontline HCWs is higher in South America and lower in North America.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the COVID-19 pandemic have significant effects on mental health among frontline HCWs. The overall prevalence of insomnia, stress, anxiety and depression among frontline HCWs is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should pay attention to and respond to the mental health problems of frontline HCWs in the context of public health emergencies.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

BackgroundMany COVID-19 patients reveal a marked decrease in their lymphocyte counts, a condition that translates clinically into immunodepression and is common among these patients. Outcomes for infected patients vary depending on their lymphocytopenia status, especially their T-cell counts. Patients are more likely to recover when lymphocytopenia is resolved. When lymphocytopenia persists, severe complications can develop and often lead to death. Similarly, IL-10 concentration is elevated in severe COVID-19 cases and may be associated with the depression observed in T-cell counts. Accordingly, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze T-cell subsets and IL-10 levels among COVID-19 patients. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of the immunodepression observed in COVID-19, and its consequences, may enable early identification of disease severity and reduction of overall morbidity and mortality.MethodsA systematic search was conducted covering PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases for journal articles published from December 1, 2019 to March 14, 2021. In addition, we reviewed bibliographies of relevant reviews and the medRxiv preprint server for eligible studies. Our search covered published studies reporting laboratory parameters for T-cell subsets (CD4/CD8) and IL-10 among confirmed COVID-19 patients. Six authors carried out the process of data screening, extraction, and quality assessment independently. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effect model was performed for this meta-analysis, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each parameter.ResultsA total of 52 studies from 11 countries across 3 continents were included in this study. Compared with mild and survivor COVID-19 cases, severe and non-survivor cases had lower counts of CD4/CD8 T-cells and higher levels of IL-10.ConclusionOur findings reveal that the level of CD4/CD8 T-cells and IL-10 are reliable predictors of severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. The study protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number CRD42020218918.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020218918, identifier: CRD42020218918.

Background: Early during the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, reports suggested alarmingly high incidences for thromboembolic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the clinical relevance of these events was not reported in several studies. Additionally, more recent research showed contradictory results and suggested substantially lower rates of venous thromboembolism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to summarize evidence on the incidence of clinically relevant venous thromboembolism (VTE)—defined as VTE excluding isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE) and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT)—in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the incidence of clinically relevant PE and/or DVT in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Scientific reports published in the English language between January and October 2020 were included. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate incidence estimates of clinically relevant VTE and bleeding events. We also performed exploratory meta-regression and subgroup analyses of different diagnostic approaches and additional factors that possibly influenced the incidence of these outcomes.Results: Fifty-four articles (5,400 patients) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 41 had a high risk of bias. The majority of included patients were male, > 60 years, and overweight. Twenty-one studies reported the use of prophylactic doses of heparin. Pooled incidences for clinically relevant PE were estimated at 8% (95% CI, 4–11%), for proximal DVT at 14% (95% CI, 9–20%), and—after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias—for the composite outcome of VTE at 18% (95% CI, 13–24%). Clinically relevant bleeding occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI, 2–9%).Conclusions: We summarized currently available data on the rate of clinically relevant VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Pooled incidence estimates were lower than those reported by previous review articles. In the absence of evidence-based anticoagulation guidelines for critically ill patients with COVID-19, the results of our study provide clinically important information for an individual risk-benefit assessment in this context.Registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO on June 22, 2020 (CRD42020193353; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

Ez az adatkészlet a Covid19-világjárványra vonatkozó napi adatkövetőket tartalmazza, havi bontásban és 20. március 18-től kezdődően.A Covid19-re vonatkozó adatok első közzététele ezen a platformon 1.6.20-án volt. 2023/24 folyamán negyedévente aktualizálásra kerül sor.

Az adatok pontosak: péntek 05.01.24-kor 8.00 órakor. A legutóbbi időszakra vonatkozó adatok magyarázata itt található:

_ Diagnosztizált esetek/epizódok_

• Mivel a CYC lakosai a világjárvány kezdete óta összesen 75,283 Covid-epizódon estek át, ami 100,000 lakosra vetítve 35,677 volt. A halmozott ráta Yorkban az országos (37,178) és regionális (36,645) átlag alatt van.

• Az új Covid-esetek legutóbbi hivatalos „hitelesített” aránya 100,000 lakosra vetítve Yorkban a 3.12.23–9.12.23 közötti időszakban 10,4 (22 eset) volt. A nemzeti és regionális átlagok ebben az időpontban 10,6, illetve 6,7 voltak (a Gov.uk-on 23.12.14-én közzétett adatok felhasználásával).

• York jelenleg a 87. helyen áll a 149 Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLAs) közül Angliában, 1-es helyezéssel, ami a legalacsonyabb 7 napos arányt jelzi.

• Az esetek aránya jelenleg a következő korcsoportokban a legmagasabb: 65–69 és 75–79. (mindkét esetben 41/100,000).

• Az új Covid-fertőzések aránya a lakosság 100,000 lakosára vetítve a 60 év felettiek esetében a 3.12.23–9.12.23 közötti időszakban 30 (15 eset) volt. Az országos és a regionális átlag 22, illetve 15,8 volt.

Vaccinations

Jelenleg nem állnak rendelkezésre adatok a kiválasztott korú és veszélyeztetett csoportok körében, valamint a választási osztályon keresztül történő oltóanyag- és fokozott felhasználásról.

_ Halálok_

• ONS heti adatok: A legutóbbi időszakban (2023. hét 51. hét: 16.12.23–22.12.23) 0 Covid19-halálozást regisztráltak a ciprusi lakosok esetében. Az 50. és 49. héten 0, illetve 0 haláleset történt. Felhívjuk figyelmét, hogy a halálozási regisztráció késése miatt a heti végösszegek felülvizsgálat tárgyát képezik.

• ONS összesített adatok: A világjárvány kezdete óta a 2023. december 22-ig bekövetkezett és 2023. december 30-ig nyilvántartásba vett halálesetek esetében 615 Covid19-halálozást regisztráltak a ciprusi lakosok esetében (397 kórházban, 160 gondozóotthonban, 50 otthon/máshol és 8 esetben egy hospice-ban). A 100,000 lakosra jutó halálozások összesített száma Yorkban 291, ami alacsonyabb, mint a 351-es országos átlag.

Forrás: Ons – Hetente nyilvántartásba vett halálesetek Angliában és Walesben, ideiglenes: a 2023. december 22-én záruló hét. 4.1.24.

BackgroundAs the epidemic progresses, universal vaccination against COVID-19 has been the trend, but there are still some doubts about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents, children, and even infants.PurposeTo evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the population aged 0–17 years.MethodA comprehensive search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 9, 2021. All data were pooled by RevMan 5.3 statistical software, with risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval as the effect measure. This study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021290205).ResultsThere was a total of six randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, enrolling participants in the age range of 3–17 years, and containing three types of COVID-19 vaccines. Compared with mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines, inactivated vaccines have a more satisfactory safety profile, both after initial (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04–1.90, P = 0.03) and booster (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20–2.81, P = 0.005) vaccination. The risk of adverse reactions was significantly increased after the first and second doses, but there was no significant difference between the first two doses (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99–1.02, P = 0.60). Nevertheless, the two-dose regimen is obviously superior to the single-dose schedule for immunogenicity and efficacy. After booster vaccination, both neutralizing antibodies (RR 144.80, 95%CI 44.97–466.24, P < 0.00001) and RBD-binding antibodies (RR 101.50, 95%CI 6.44–1,600.76, P = 0.001) reach optimal levels, but the cellular immune response seemed not to be further enhanced. In addition, compared with younger children, older children and adolescents were at significantly increased risk of adverse reactions after vaccination, with either mRNA or inactivated vaccines, accompanied by a stronger immune response.ConclusionThe available evidence suggests that the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are acceptable in people aged 3–17 years. However, there is an urgent need for additional multicenter, large-sample studies, especially in younger children under 3 years of age and even in infants, with long-term follow-up data.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021290205, identifier: CRD42021290205.

IntroductionShufeng Jiedu capsule (SFJD) is a commonly used Chinese patent medicine in China. Some studies have reported that SFJD has therapeutic effects in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This systematic review aimed to critically evaluate the efficacy and safety of SFJD combined with western medicine (WM) for treating COVID-19.MethodsA literature search by using WHO COVID-19 database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, CKNI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, and clinical trial registries was conducted, up to 1 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, cohort studies and case series of SFJD combined with WM for COVID-19 were included. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers in line with the same criteria. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed with Revman 5.3 if possible. The descriptive analysis was conducted when the studies could not be meta-analyzed.ResultsTotally 10 studies with 1,083 patients were included. Their methodological quality were moderate. The results demonstrated that compared to WM group, SFJD + WM group remarkably increased the nucleic acid negative conversion rate (RR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.07–1.84), total effective rate (RR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07–1.31), cure rate (RR = 4.06, 95%CI: 2.19–7.53), and the chest CT improvement rate (RR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.08–1.31), shorten nucleic acid negative conversion time (MD = −0.70, 95%CI: −1.14 to −0.26), reduced the clinical symptom disappearance time (fever, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, pharyngalgia, nasal congestion, and rhinorrhea), as well as improved the levels of laboratory outcomes (CRP, IL-6, Lym, and Neu). Additionally, the incidence of adverse reactions did not exhibit any statistically significant difference between SFJD + WM group and WM group.ConclusionSFJD combined with WM seems more effective than WM alone for the treatment of COVID-19. However, more well-designed RCTs still are warranted.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42022306307].

ContextThe COVID-19 pandemic intensified mental health issues and increased emotional eating (EE), a coping mechanism, where food is consumed in response to emotions rather than hunger. During the pandemic, gender-specific EE patterns were observed, with women reporting elevated EE levels in response to stress, anxiety, and depression due to various social and psychological factors.ObjectivesThis study primarily focused on examining gender differences in EE during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a secondary outcome, it aimed to explore predictors of EE.Data sources and extractionThis systematic review was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42023421727) and adhered to PRESS and PRISMA guidelines. Studies published between March 2020 and August 2024 were identified across Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The quality assessment was performed using the “Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.” The meta-analysis was conducted following MOOSE guidelines.Data analysisOf 14,347 studies identified, 30 met inclusion criteria (only if population ≥18 years, without clinical diagnoses, gender-specific analysis regarding EE, observational studies with original data collection during COVID-19 pandemic), with 16 incorporated into the meta-analysis. Gender significantly moderated pandemic-related stress. Higher EE scores in women were linked to isolation and caregiving responsibilities, while men’s EE often appeared as reward-seeking. Across diverse measures and regions, women consistently exhibited higher EE scores (Cohen’s d = 0.39). Young adults and students showed a stronger association with EE, suggesting heightened vulnerability. Key predictors included increased food intake, COVID-19-related stress and lifestyle changes, sleep quality, and physical activity.ConclusionThe predominance of cross-sectional designs limits the ability to draw causal conclusions, and selection bias in studies, often targeting specific groups, restricts generalizability. Future longitudinal studies are needed to assess causality and explore the inferences to additional factors, such as socioeconomic status and mental health. Gender-sensitive interventions are suggested to address EE risks, particularly in women.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42023421727). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023421727.