Background: Despite possibly higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), there has been limited reporting of COVID-19 trends for this population.Objective: To compare COVID-19 trends among people with and without IDD, overall and stratified by age. Methods: Data from the TriNetX COVID-19 Research Network platform was used to identify COVID-19 patients. Analysis focused on trends in comorbidities, number of cases, number of deaths, and casefatality rate among patients with and without IDD who had a positive diagnosis for COVID-19 through May 14, 2020. Results: People with IDD had higher prevalence of specific comorbidities associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Distinct age-related differences in COVID-19 trends were present among those with IDD, with a higher concentration of COVID-19 cases at younger ages. In addition, while the overall casefatality rate was similar for those with IDD (5.1%) and without IDD (5.4%), these rates differed by age: ages 17 e IDD 1.6%, without IDD <0.01%; ages 18e74 e IDD 4.5%, without IDD 2.7%; ages 75e IDD 21.1%, without IDD, 20.7%. Conclusions: Though of concern for all individuals, COVID-19 appears to present a greater risk to people with IDD, especially at younger ages. Future research should seek to document COVID-19 trends among people with IDD, with particular attention to age related trends.

Aim To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews’ conclusions. Method A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta‐analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews‐2 (AMSTAR‐2) to appraise methodological quality. Results Eighty‐three systematic reviews met strict eligibility criteria. Most were from Europe and Latin America and reported on rehabilitative interventions. AMSTAR‐2 appraisal found critically low confidence in 88% (n=73) because of multiple and varied deficiencies. Only 7% (n=6) had no AMSTAR‐2 critical domain deficiency. The number of systematic reviews increased fivefold from 2015 to 2019; however, quality did not improve over time. Interpretation Most of these systematic reviews are considered unreliable according to AMSTAR‐2. Current recommendations for treating children with CP based on these flawed systematic reviews need re‐evaluation. Findings are comparable to reports from other areas of medicine, despite the general perception that systematic reviews are high‐level evidence. The required use of current widely accepted guidance for conducting and reporting systematic reviews by authors, peer reviewers, and editors is critical to ensure reliable, unbiased, and transparent systematic reviews. Confidence was critically low in the conclusions of 88% of systematic reviews about interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Quality issues in the sample were not limited to systematic reviews of non‐randomized trials, or to those about certain populations of CP or interventions. The inclusion of meta‐analysis did not improve the level of confidence in these systematic reviews. Numbers of systematic reviews on this topic increased over the 5 search years but their methodological quality did not improve.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background:The varied use of the term "disability" in the scientific literature makes it challenging to conduct systematic searches and reviews of health issues among people with disability. Given these challenges, utilizing general disability search terms, instead of condition-specific search terms, has been put forward as an efficient and effective way to ensure a broad capture of the literature related to disability when conducting a systematic search. Objectives: This study evaluates the utility of general disability terms, as opposed to conditionspecific terms, in the context of systematically searching for sources related to disability, and in this case, opioid use. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted utilizing three different databases (i.e., Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO). An initial search of sources mentioning opioids and disability was conducted utilizing the general search terms recommended by Walsh et al. 2 The results of this search were then compared to those of each of the 16 condition-specific searches. The proportion of unique sources from each condition-specific search that overlapped with the general search were assessed. Results: There was very little overlap between the sources captured using condition-specific search terms and the sources captured utilizing the general search terms. The highest amount of overlap was for spinal muscular atrophy at 33.3%, with the overall median proportion of overlap being 13.4% (mean = 15.7%; SD = 11.7%). Conclusions: With a systematic search for manuscripts about disability associated with opioid use as an example, condition-specific search terms capture a large proportion of sources not captured using general disability search terms. Disability researchers should be aware of pitfalls using general terminology and the importance of using disability-specific search terms, depending on the focus of the search. Implications for disability-focused systematic searches are discussed.

No abstract

Context: A lack of consensus in the literature examining reproductive health experiences of women with disability prevails, in part, due to various operational definitions of disability. Methods: Results from the 2015–2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were utilized to assess reproductive health, disability, and demographic variables among women aged 20–44. Disability was assessed using the six functional limitation subgroups. Analyses included modified Poisson regression and negative binomial regression. Results: One hundred eighty-two (14%) women reported having any functional limitation. Women with at least one functional limitation (WWFL) were significantly more likely than women without a functional limitation (WWOFL) to have had a hysterectomy and had more cesarean deliveries. WWFL did not differ significantly from WWOFL in key pregnancy outcomes (ever been pregnant, number of pregnancies, or number of unsuccessful pregnancies). A high degree of overlap between mobility and self-care (66.1%), cognitive and independent living (61%), and mobility and independent living (37.4%) limitations was found. Conclusions: This work summarizes key reproductive health variables among US women of reproductive age and contextualizes disability experiences through subgroup and overlap analysis. Subgroup analysis results demonstrate the need for detailed operational definitions of disability to accurately capture experiences of women with different limitations, and overlap analysis indicates the interconnectedness of limitations among this group. Findings call for future exploration of reproductive health-related similarities and differences between WWD and women without disability, and employment of detailed operational definitions of disability.