COVID-19 in Children with Brain-Based Developmental Disabilities: A Rapid Review Update

  1. Michèle Dugas
  2. Théo Stéfan
  3. Johanie Lépine
  4. Patrick Blouin
  5. Andrée-Anne Poirier
  6. Valérie Carnovale
  7. Benoit Mailhot
  8. Becky Skidmore
  9. Lena Faust
  10. Carrie Costello
  11. Donna Thomson
  12. Annette Majnemer
  13. Dan Goldowitz
  14. Steven P. Miller
  15. Annie LeBlanc

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

Information regarding the impact of COVID-19 in children with brain-based disabilities, or those at risk of developing such conditions, remains scarce. The objective was to evaluate if children with brain-based disabilities are more likely to (1) develop COVID-19, (2) develop complications from the disease, and (3) to have a poorer prognosis.

Study design

We conducted a rapid review using search strategies iteratively developed and tested by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team and a panel of knowledge users. Searches were initially performed on April 18th, 2021, and updated on October 31st, 2020. Four reviewers individually performed study selection using pilot-tested standardized forms. Single reviewers extracted the data using a standardized extraction form that included study characteristics, patients’ characteristics, and outcomes reported.

Results

We identified 1448 publications, of which 29 were included. Studies reported data on 2288 COVID-19 positive children, including 462 with a brain-based disability, and 72 at risk of developing such disability. Overall, the included studies showed a greater risk to develop severe COVID-19 disease in children with brain-based disabilities. Although mortality is very low, the case-fatality rate appeared to be higher in children with disabilities compared to children without disabilities.

Conclusions

Our review shows that children with brain-based disabilities are overrepresented in hospitalization numbers compared to children without disabilities. However, most studies included children that were hospitalized from COVID-19 in secondary and tertiary care centers. Results of this review should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.17.21253283: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We conducted a rapid review based on the proposed methodology guide of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group12.
    Cochrane Rapid Reviews
    suggested: None
    The MEDLINE strategy was peer reviewed by another senior information specialist prior to execution using the PRESS Checklist14.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
    PsycINFO
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)
    Cochrane Database
    suggested: None
    Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
    suggested: (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, RRID:SCR_006576)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our rapid review had certain limitations. Due to our study design, screening and data extraction were performed by single reviewers. However, we did perform pilot-testing for each review form to optimize consistency between reviewers. Despite our best efforts to identify all relevant studies, it is possible that some were missed. To mitigate this, we searched multiple grey literature sources, including preprint databases, review and trial registries, and several websites.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.17.21253283v1 on medRxiv