Background Pregnant patients are potentially vulnerable to COVID‐19. Objectives To clarify the clinical features of COVID‐19 and analyze maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality and the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant patients. Search strategy Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHAL, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Selection criteria Articles published from December 2019 to February 2021. Data collection and analysis The reviewers extracted relevant data from the full‐text. Data synthesis was performed using the R‐4.1.0 Project for Statistical Computing for Windows. The meta‐analysis of the included studies was carried out using the random‐effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was measured using I2 analysis. Results A total of 70 studies included 10 047 pregnant women with COVID‐19, of whom 71.6% were in their third trimester. The most common symptoms were fever, cough, chest pain, dyspnea, and fatigue. Most newborns were delivered preterm (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.34, I2 = 93%) and via cesarean delivery (42%, 95% CI 0.38–0.47, I2 = 92%). There were 108 maternal mortalities (2%, 95% CI 0.01–0.03, I2 = 54%) and 50 abortions (5%, 95% CI 0.03–0.09, I2 = 73%). The neonatal outcomes included fetal distress (11%, 95% CI 0.06–0.19, I2 = 91%), birth weight (15%, 95% CI 0.10–0.21, I2 = 76%), APGAR <7 (19%, 95% CI 0.12–0.28, I2 = 43%), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (28%, 95% CI 0.17–0.43, I2 = 90%), and fetal mortality (2%, 95% CI 0.01–0.03, I2 = 46%). Conclusion  There was no evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 in the placenta, breast milk, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid of pregnant patients. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020181519.

IntroductionVulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is frequent in women worldwide and usually responds rapidly to topical or oral antifungal therapy. However, some women develop recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC), which is arbitrarily defined as four or more episodes every year. RVVC is a debilitating, long-term condition that can severely affect the quality of life of women. Most VVC is diagnosed and treated empirically and women frequently self-treat with over-the-counter medications that could contribute to an increase in the antifungal resistance. The effective treatment of RVVC has been a challenge in daily clinical practice. This review aims to assess the efficacy of antifungal agents administered orally or intravaginally for the treatment of RVVC, in order to define clinical practices that will impact on the reduction of the morbidity and antifungal resistance.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of the following databases will be carried out: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (Virtual Health Library)/Biblioteca Regional de Medicina (Regional Library of Medicine) (BVS/BIREME), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and in the clinical trials databases (www.trialscentral.org; www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov). The risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We will perform data synthesis using the Review Manager (RevMan) software V.5.2.3. To assess heterogeneity, we will compute the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be a review of published data and it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. Findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberCRD42018093817

Background Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) negatively affects sexual function and quality of life. Techniques like laser and radiofrequency are being used to manage GSM, particularly in women with contraindications for hormone therapy. Objectives To verify whether the physical methods of laser and radiofrequency can be recommended as safe and effective options for the treatment of GSM/urinary urgency or incontinence in pre‐ and postmenopausal women. Search strategy Databases were comprehensively searched using combinations of the following keywords in any language: “postmenopause”; “genitourinary syndrome of menopause”; “vaginal atrophy”; “radiofrequency”; and “laser.” Selection criteria Full articles of case‐control, cross‐sectional, cohort, randomized clinical trials, and quasi‐randomized or controlled clinical trials were included. Data collection and analysis All authors independently evaluated the design of the studies for quality of reporting, risk of bias, and quality of evidence. Main results Of the included 49 studies, 37 were on the CO2 laser, 10 on the Erbium laser, and two on radiofrequency. Conclusions Laser and radiofrequency therapy could be promising and safe therapeutic options for GSM/urinary incontinence. However, the study findings cannot be generalized until new randomized clinical trials are performed that confirm the strength of the evidence. This review has been registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020141913.

IntroductionSARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a large number of global COVID-19 cases. Strategies such as social isolation, personal hygiene and frequent hand washing have been implemented; however, a protective vaccine is required to achieve sufficient herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection to ultimately control the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet the urgent need for a vaccine, a reduction in the development schedule has been proposed from 10–15 years to 1–2 years. For this reason, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aims to compare the side effects, safety and toxicity of COVID-19 vaccines available globally, including their combinations.Methods and analysisWe will select randomised controlled trial-type studies that evaluate the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv.org, biorxiv.org, preprints.org and the Cochrane Library will be searched for eligible studies until December 2021. Three reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. A meta-analysis will be performed, if possible, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations summary of findings will be presented.Ethics and disseminationThis study will review published data, and thus it is unnecessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021231101.

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has been progressively implemented in most developed countries for approximately 10 years. In order to increase the protection of the vaccines, a 9-valent vaccine (HPV9) was developed, which provides protection against nine types of the virus. Studies evaluating its safety are rare. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of three clinical trials assessing adverse effects on women randomly vaccinated with HPV9 or tetravalent vaccine (HPV4), with the objective of analyzing whether the HPV9 is as safe as HPV4. An electronic data search was performed through the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO databases. The studies selected 27,465 women who received one of the two vaccines. Pain (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.62–1.82) and erythema (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.21–1.36) occurred significantly more in the HPV9 group. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for the following adverse effects: headache (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99–1.15), dizziness (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.93–1.27), and fatigue (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91–1.30), and the occurrence of serious events related to vaccination was similarly rare among those vaccinated. Therefore, our findings demonstrate that HPV9 in female patients is as safe as the tetravalent vaccine.