ABSTRACT Purpose: COVID-19 continues to be an urgent World issue. Receptors of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), gateway of SARS-CoV-2, are present in the lungs, bladder, prostate, and testicles. Therefore, these organs face high risk of damage caused by the virus and this mechanism may explain non-respiratory symptoms of the disease. Materials and Methods: This systematic review, guided by the PRIMSA statement, was proposed to elucidate possible urological complications of COVID-19. Searches were carried out in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane (CENTRAL), Embase, MedRxiv and LILACS. Bias analysis was made using the specific Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for each study design. Results: Search was carried out until April 2022, and 8,477 articles were identified. Forty-nine of them were included in this systematic review. There is evidence that lower urinary tract symptoms and acute scrotum may be signs of COVID-19 in men, although in a small proportion. Also, the disease may have a transitory impact on male fertility, evidenced by several alterations in sperm counts. However, it must be clarified whether this impact is transitory, or may last for longer periods. Several patients showed reduction of total value of testosterone. Two authors linked low levels of testosterone with worse outcomes of COVID-19, suggesting that the hormone may be used as an early biomarker of the severity of the disease. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by semen. Conclusion: This systematic review identified possible repercussions of COVID-19 in the urinary as well as in the male reproductive system.

Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07–0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06–0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05–0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field to standardize how to conduct, and to assist in the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided by this project must be critically evaluated by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical condition of each patient. Guideline conclusion: April 2023. Societies: Brazilian Medical Association.

ABSTRACT Introduction Gratitude has several implications. Over time, a logical relationship has been established between gratitude and well-being. In addition, researchers aimed to establish associations between gratitude and other factors of positive feelings using scientific methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to develop gratitude and its benefits to human beings. Objective This study aimed to evaluate and quantify the available scientific evidence on interventions to acquire knowledge on gratitude as a quantifiable causal factor of benefit to human beings. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated the effects of gratitude interventions. MEDLINE, Embase, and Central Cochrane databases were searched in addition to gray (Google Scholar) and manual search. Two authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts, and selected the studies that met the inclusion criteria. The searches were conducted between January and July 2022. Results Sixty-four randomized clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients who underwent gratitude interventions experienced greater feelings of gratitude, better mental health, and fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression. Moreover, they experienced other benefits such as a more positive mood and emotions. Conclusion The results demonstrate that acts of gratitude can be used as a therapeutic complement for treating anxiety and depression and can increase positive feelings and emotions in the general population. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under the number CRD42021250799.

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, considering the best level of evidence available. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wearing masks compared with that of not wearing them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of the 1,028 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies) and were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis using cohort studies alone showed statistically significant differences, wearing a cloth mask decreased by 21% [RD = −0.21 (95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the quality of evidence was low. Regarding case-control studies, wearing a surgical mask reduced the chance of COVID-19 infection [OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001], as did wearing an N95 respirator mask [OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001], both with low quality of evidence. Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the type of mask (disposable surgical mask, common masks, including cloth masks, or N95 respirators), although the studies evaluated presented with low quality of evidence and important biases.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de estudos de coorte e caso-controle, considerando o melhor nível de evidência disponível. Bancos de dados eletrônicos (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov) foram pesquisados para identificar estudos que avaliassem a eficácia do uso de máscaras em comparação com ausência de seu uso durante a pandemia de COVID-19. O risco de viés e a qualidade da evidência foram avaliados usando a ferramenta Cochrane risk of bias e Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Resultados: Dos 1.028 estudos identificados, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão (2 estudos de coorte e 7 estudos de caso-controle) e foram incluídos na análise. A meta-análise usando apenas estudos de coorte mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas: o uso de máscara de tecido diminuiu 21% [(risk difference = −0,21 (IC 95%: −0,34 a −0,07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] o risco de infecção por COVID-19, mas a qualidade da evidência foi baixa. Em relação aos estudos caso-controle, o uso de máscara cirúrgica reduziu a chance de infecção por COVID-19 [OR = 0,51 (IC 95%: 0,37-0,70); I2 = 47%; p = 0,0001], assim como o uso de máscara respiratória N95 [OR = 0,31 (IC 95%: 0,20-0,49); I2 = 0%; p = 0,00001], ambos com baixa qualidade de evidência. Conclusões: Nesta revisão sistemática com meta-análise, demonstramos a eficácia do uso de máscaras na prevenção da infecção por SARS-CoV-2 independentemente do tipo de máscara (máscara cirúrgica descartável, máscaras comuns, incluindo máscaras de tecido, ou respiradores N95), embora os estudos avaliados apresentassem evidências de baixa qualidade e vieses importantes.