SUMMARY The Guidelines Project, which is an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field to standardize how to conduct and 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. Project Association decisionmaking decision making doctors adopted patient

Abstract Introduction Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral patterns. The slight dynamics of change in the child over time require that the onset of clinical manifestations presented by the child be more valued, with the aim of stabilizing the condition. Faced with a variety of methods for diagnosing ASD, the question arises as to which method should be used. This systematic review aims to recommend the best tools to perform screening and diagnosis. Methodology This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Lilacs were accessed, and gray and manual searches were performed. The search strategy was created with terms referring to autism and the diagnosis/broad filter. The studies were qualitatively evaluated and quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-diSc-2.0 software, the confidence interval was 95 %. Results The M-CHAT-R/F tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 78 % (95 % CI 0.57‒0.91) and specificity of 0.98 (95 % CI 0.88-1.00). The diagnostic tools demonstrated sensitivity and specificity respectively of: ADOS, sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI 0.79‒0.92) and specificity 75 % (95 % CI 0.73‒0.78); ADI-R demonstrated test sensitivity of 77 % (95 % CI 0.56‒0.90) and specificity 68 % (95 % CI 0.52‒0.81), CARS test sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 0.78‒0.95) and specificity 79 % (95 % CI 0.65‒0.88). Conclusion It is mandatory to apply a screening test, the most recommended being the M-CHAT-R/F. For diagnosis CARS and ADOS are the most recommended tools. ASD (ASD disorder communication interaction patterns valued condition used guidelines MEDLINE Embase Cochrane, Cochrane , (Cochrane) accessed diagnosisbroad broad filter quantitatively MetadiSc2.0 MetadiSc20 MetadiSc Meta diSc 2.0 2 0 Meta-diSc-2. software 9 MCHATR/F MCHATRF M CHAT R/F R F 7 (9 0.57‒0.91 057091 57 91 098 98 0.9 0.881.00. 088100 0.88 1.00 . 88 1 00 0.88-1.00) 8 0.79‒0.92 079092 92 0.73‒0.78 073078 73 0.73‒0.78) ADIR ADI 0.56‒0.90 056090 56 90 6 0.52‒0.81, 052081 0.52‒0.81 52 81 0.52‒0.81) 0.78‒0.95 078095 0.65‒0.88. 065088 0.65‒0.88 65 0.65‒0.88) MCHATR/F. R/F. (Cochrane MetadiSc2 MetadiSc2. 20 2. Meta-diSc-2 MCHATR RF ( 0.57‒0.9 05709 5 09 0. 881 0.881.00 08810 088 0.8 100 1.0 0.88-1.00 0.79‒0.9 07909 0.73‒0.7 07307 0.56‒0.9 05609 05208 0.52‒0.8 0.78‒0.9 07809 06508 0.65‒0.8 Meta-diSc- 0.57‒0. 0570 0.881.0 0881 08 10 1. 0.88-1.0 0.79‒0. 0790 0.73‒0. 0730 0.56‒0. 0560 0520 0.52‒0. 0.78‒0. 0780 0650 0.65‒0. Meta-diSc 0.57‒0 057 0.881. 0.88-1. 0.79‒0 079 0.73‒0 073 0.56‒0 056 052 0.52‒0 0.78‒0 078 065 0.65‒0 0.57‒ 05 0.881 0.88-1 0.79‒ 07 0.73‒ 0.56‒ 0.52‒ 0.78‒ 06 0.65‒ 0.57 0.88- 0.79 0.73 0.56 0.52 0.78 0.65 0.5 0.7 0.6

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. Objetivo COVID19. COVID19 COVID 19. 19 Métodos metaanálise meta análise casocontrole, casocontrole caso controle, controle caso-controle disponível MEDLINE, MEDLINE (MEDLINE EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov ClinicalTrialsgov ClinicalTrials gov Assessment Development Evaluation Resultados 1028 1 028 1.02 identificados 2 ( significativas 21 021 0 −0,2 IC 95% 95 034 34 −0,3 −0,07 007 07 −0,07) I 0% 0,002 0002 002 COVID19, 19, COVID-1 OR 051 51 0,5 0,370,70 037070 0,37 0,70 37 70 0,37-0,70) 47% 47 0,0001, 00001 0,0001 , 0001 0,0001] N N9 031 31 0,3 0,200,49 020049 0,20 0,49 20 49 0,20-0,49) 0,00001, 000001 0,00001 0,00001] Conclusões metaanálise, análise, SARSCoV2 SARSCoV SARS CoV SARS-CoV- descartável comuns N95, N95) importantes COVID1 102 02 1.0 −0, 03 3 −0,0 00 0,00 000 COVID- 05 5 0, 370 0,370,7 03707 037 070 0,7 0,37-0,70 4 0000 0,000 200 0,200,4 02004 020 0,2 049 0,4 0,20-0,49 00000 0,0000 SARS-CoV 10 1. −0 0,0 0,370, 0370 0,37-0,7 0,200, 0200 04 0,20-0,4 − 0,370 0,37-0, 0,200 0,20-0, 0,37-0 0,20-0 0,37- 0,20-

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. Objective COVID19 COVID 19 COVID-1 Methods metaanalysis meta analysis casecontrol case control available MEDLINE, MEDLINE (MEDLINE EMBASE Trials Trials.gov Trialsgov gov pandemic Assessment Development Evaluation Results 1028 1 028 1,02 identified 2 ( differences 21 RD 021 0 −0.2 95% 95 (95 CI 034 34 −0.3 −0.07 007 07 −0.07) I 0% 0,002 0002 002 OR 051 51 0.5 0.370.70 037070 0.37 0.70 37 70 0.37-0.70) 47% 47 0.0001, 00001 0.0001 , 0001 0.0001] N N9 031 31 0.3 0.200.49 020049 0.20 0.49 20 49 0.20-0.49) 0.00001, 000001 0.00001 0.00001] Conclusions metaanalysis, analysis, SARSCoV2 SARSCoV SARS CoV SARS-CoV- disposable respirators, respirators respirators) biases COVID1 COVID- 102 02 1,0 −0. (9 03 3 −0.0 00 0,00 000 05 5 0. 370 0.370.7 03707 037 070 0.7 0.37-0.70 4 0000 0.000 200 0.200.4 02004 020 0.2 049 0.4 0.20-0.49 00000 0.0000 SARS-CoV 10 1, −0 0,0 0.370. 0370 0.37-0.7 0.00 0.200. 0200 04 0.20-0.4 − 0, 0.370 0.37-0. 0.0 0.200 0.20-0. 0.37-0 0.20-0 0.37- 0.20-

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. Project Association decisionmaking decision making doctors adopted patient conclusion 2023 Societies 202 20 2

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and short- and long-term tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD), as an adjunct treatment, in children and adults with Dravet syndrome (SD), Lennox-Gataut syndrome (LGS), or tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), with inadequate control of seizures. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted through a search for scientific evidence in the Mediline/PubMed, Central Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until April 2022. Selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that presented the outcomes: reduction in the frequency of seizures and total seizures (all types), number of patients with a response greater than or equal to 50%, change in caregiver global impression of change (CGIC) (improvement ≥1 category on the initial scale), adverse events (AEs), and tolerability to treatment. This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: Notably, six RCTs were included, with a total of 1,034 patients with SD, LGS, and TSC, of which 3 were open-label extension RCTs. The meta-analysis of the studies showed that the use of CBD as compared with placebo, in patients with convulsive seizures refractory to the use of medications, reduces the frequency of seizures by 33%; increases the number of patients with a reduction ≥50% in the frequency of seizures by 20%; increases the number of patients with absence of seizures by 3%; improves the clinical impression evaluated by the caregiver or patient (S/CGIC) in 21%; increases total AEs by 12%; increases serious AE by 16%; increases the risk of treatment abandonment by 12%; and increases the number of patients with transaminase elevation (≥3 times the referral) by 15%. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review, with meta-analysis, supports the use of CBD in the treatment of patients with seizures, originated in DS, LGS, and TSC, who are resistant to the common medications, presenting satisfactory benefits in reducing seizures and tolerable toxicity.

RESUMO Objetivo: Estudos na literatura sobre o uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 têm apresentado resultados divergentes. O objetivo deste estudo foi responder a perguntas a respeito do uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados (ECR) de fase 3 e estudos observacionais de coorte recuperados de diversos bancos de dados, comparando pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 moderada a grave recebendo remdesivir a controles. Resultados: Foram recuperados 207 estudos, dos quais 9 preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade e foram incluídos no estudo. A meta-análise somente dos ECR não mostrou diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade ou ao uso de ventilação mecânica/oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea, e a qualidade das evidências foi moderada e baixa, respectivamente. O uso de remdesivir aumentou a taxa de recuperação em 6% (IC95%: 3-9; p = 0,004) e a taxa de melhora clínica em 7% (IC95%: 1-14; p = 0,02). Além disso, não foram observadas diferenças significativas entre os grupos remdesivir e controle quanto à mortalidade quando a meta-análise concentrou-se apenas nos estudos observacionais de coorte [diferença de risco = −0,01 (IC95%: −0,02 a 0,01); p = 0,32; qualidade das evidências: moderada], e o risco de eventos adversos foi de 4% (IC95%: −0,08 a 0,01; p = 0,09). Conclusões: O uso de remdesivir no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave não teve impacto significativo em desfechos clinicamente importantes.

ABSTRACT Objective: Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls. Results: A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = −0.01 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09). Conclusions: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

RESUMO Objetivo: Responder a perguntas relacionadas ao uso de anticoagulantes no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19. Métodos: Revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados de fase 3 comparando o uso de anticoagulantes em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados e hospitalizados. Os bancos de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials e ClinicalTrials.gov foram investigados desde sua criação até 22 de janeiro de 2022. O risco de viés foi avaliado pela ferramenta de risco de viés da Cochrane, e a qualidade das evidências foi avaliada pelo sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Resultados: Inicialmente foram selecionados 401 estudos. Destes, 9 preencheram os critérios de inclusão e, portanto, foram analisados (num total de 6.004 pacientes analisados). Em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática pós-alta e nenhuma intervenção no que tange a tromboembolismo venoso ou sangramento em 30 dias. Em pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados, a anticoagulação plena resultou em ligeira redução de eventos trombóticos em 30 dias (diferença de risco: −0,03; IC95%: −0,06 a −0,00; p = 0,04; I2 = 78%); a qualidade das evidências foi moderada. No entanto, não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação plena e nenhuma intervenção quanto ao risco de sangramento maior; a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Não se observou diferença significativa entre anticoagulação profilática com dose intermediária e dose-padrão (diferença de risco: −0,01; IC95%: −0,07 a 0,06; p = 0,81; I2 = 0%); a qualidade das evidências foi muito baixa. Conclusões: A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não ter efeito na mortalidade em pacientes com COVID-19, resultando em ligeira redução do tromboembolismo venoso em pacientes hospitalizados.

ABSTRACT Objective: To answer questions related to the use of anticoagulants in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials comparing the use of anticoagulants in non-hospitalized and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to January 22, 2022. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: A total of 401 studies were initially selected. Of those, 9 met the inclusion criteria and were therefore analyzed (a total of 6,004 patients being analyzed). In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no significant difference was found between post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation and no intervention regarding venous thromboembolism or bleeding at 30 days. In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, full anticoagulation resulted in a slight reduction in thrombotic events at 30 days (risk difference, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to −0.00; p = 0.04; I2 = 78%), the quality of evidence being moderate. However, no significant difference was found between full anticoagulation and no intervention regarding the risk of major bleeding, the quality of evidence being very low. No significant difference was found between intermediate- and standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (risk difference, −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.81; I2 = 0%), the quality of evidence being very low. Conclusions: Therapeutic anticoagulation appears to have no effect on mortality in COVID-19 patients, resulting in a slight reduction in venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients.

Abstract The objective of this systematic review is to provide efficacy and safety data in the application of Intra-Abdominal Hyperthermia Chemotherapy (HIPEC) and Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) in patients with Peritoneal Pseudomyxoma (PMP) of origin in the cecal appendix. The databases Medline and Central Cochrane were consulted. Patients with PMP of origin in the cecal appendix, classified as low grade, high or indeterminate, submitted to HIPEC and CRS. The results were meta-analyzed using the Comprehensive Metanalysis software. Twenty-six studies were selected to support this review. For low-grade PMP outcome, 60-month risk of mortality, Disease-Free Survival (DFS), and adverse events was 28.8% (95% CI 25.9 to 32), 43% (95% CI 36.4 and 49.8), and 46.7% (95% CI 40.7 to 52.8); for high-grade PMP, 60-month risk of mortality, Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and adverse events was 55.9% (95% CI 51.9 to 59.6), 20.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 25.7) and 30% (95% CI 25.2 to 35.3); PMP indeterminate degree, 60-month risk of mortality, Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and adverse events was 32.6% (95% CI 30.5 to 34.7), 61.8% (95% CI 58.8 to 64.7) and 32.9% (95% CI 30.5 to 35.4). The authors conclude that the HIPEC technique and cytoreductive surgery can be applied to selected cases of patients with PMP of peritoneal origin with satisfactory results.