ObjectivesTo determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic.DesignSystematic review.EligibilityEligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact.Data analysisRisk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores).Results3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR −51% to −20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (−53% to −32%), admissions 28% (−40% to −17%), diagnostics 31% (−53% to −24%) and for therapeutics 30% (−57% to −19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference.ConclusionsHealthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020203729.

Dysmenorrhea is a common menstrual complaint with a major impact on women's quality of life, work productivity, and health-care utilization. A comprehensive review was performed on longitudinal or case-control or cross-sectional studies with large community-based samples to accurately determine the prevalence and/or incidence and risk factors of dysmenorrhea. Fifteen primary studies, published between 2002 and 2011, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of dysmenorrhea varies between 16% and 91% in women of reproductive age, with severe pain in 2%-29% of the women studied. Women's age, parity, and use of oral contraceptives were inversely associated with dysmenorrhea, and high stress increased the risk of dysmenorrhea. The effect sizes were generally modest to moderate, with odds ratios varying between 1 and 4. Family history of dysmenorrhea strongly increased its risk, with odds ratios between 3.8 and 20.7. Inconclusive evidence was found for modifiable factors such as cigarette smoking, diet, obesity, depression, and abuse. Dysmenorrhea is a significant symptom for a large proportion of women of reproductive age; however, severe pain limiting daily activities is less common. This review confirms that dysmenorrhea improves with increased age, parity, and use of oral contraceptives and is positively associated with stress and family history of dysmenorrhea.

BACKGROUNDHigh-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula has been increasingly used in infants with bronchiolitis, despite limited high-quality evidence of its efficacy. The efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula in settings other than intensive care units (ICUs) is unclear. METHODSIn this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned infants younger than 12 months of age who had bronchiolitis and a need for supplemental oxygen therapy to receive either high-flow oxygen therapy (high-flow group) or standard oxygen therapy (standard-therapy group). Infants in the standard-therapy group could receive rescue high-flow oxygen therapy if their condition met criteria for treatment failure. The primary outcome was escalation of care due to treatment failure (defined as meeting ≥3 of 4 clinical criteria: persistent tachycardia, tachypnea, hypoxemia, and medical review triggered by a hospital early-warning tool). Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, duration of oxygen therapy, and rates of transfer to a tertiary hospital, ICU admission, intubation, and adverse events. RESULTSThe analyses included 1472 patients. The percentage of infants receiving escalation of care was 12% (87 of 739 infants) in the high-flow group, as compared with 23% (167 of 733) in the standard-therapy group (risk difference, −11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −15 to −7; P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the duration of hospital stay or the duration of oxygen therapy. In each group, one case of pneumothorax (<1% of infants) occurred. Among the 167 infants in the standard-therapy group who had treatment failure, 102 (61%) had a response to high-flow rescue therapy. CONCLUSIONSAmong infants with bronchiolitis who were treated outside an ICU, those who received high-flow oxygen therapy had significantly lower rates of escalation of care due to treatment failure than those in the group that received standard oxygen therapy. Original ArticleThe New England Journal of Medicine 1122T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine B ronchiolitis, an acute lower airway lung disease that is generally caused by respiratory viruses, is the most common reason worldwide for nonelective hospital admission in infants. In the United States, bronchiolitis is responsible for $1.7 billion in hospitalization costs annually.1,2 In Australia and New Zealand, there has been a population-based increase in admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU) for bronchiolitis, with associated increases in hospital costs. 3Numerous studies have investigated the role of medical therapies 4 in infants with bronchiolitis; none of these interventions have shown efficacy. 5The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend only supportive therapy that includes oxygen therapy for hypoxemia, respiratory support, and the maintenance of hydration. 5,6 Respiratory support as provided in emergency and ward settings has been limited to oxygen delivered through a standard nasal cannula, at a rate of up to 2 li...

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. Main resultsWe included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed.Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies.The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masksWe included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no di erence to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no di erence to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masksWe pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the e ects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no di erence for th...

No abstract