Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.20354
DC FieldValue
dc.titleAnesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: A narrative review and appraisal
dc.contributor.authorOng, S.
dc.contributor.authorLim, W.Y.
dc.contributor.authorOng, J.
dc.contributor.authorKam, P.
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-24T02:40:31Z
dc.date.available2021-08-24T02:40:31Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationOng, S., Lim, W.Y., Ong, J., Kam, P. (2020). Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: A narrative review and appraisal. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 73 (6) : 486-502. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.20354
dc.identifier.issn2005-6419
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/198987
dc.description.abstractThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems glob-ally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The prima-ry aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systemati-cally searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high inci-dence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of Ameri-ca were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preop-erative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a ro-bust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability. @ The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2020.
dc.publisherKorean Society of Anesthesiologists
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.sourceScopus OA2020
dc.subjectAnesthesia
dc.subjectCoronavirus infections
dc.subjectCOVID-19
dc.subjectGuidelines
dc.subjectPerioperative management
dc.subjectPerioperative medicine
dc.subjectReview
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentDUKE-NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL
dc.description.doi10.4097/kja.20354
dc.description.sourcetitleKorean Journal of Anesthesiology
dc.description.volume73
dc.description.issue6
dc.description.page486-502
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_4097_kja_20354.pdf1.2 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons