METHODS: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed at Najran University and provided to the participants for data collection. The data collected included information on risk perception and incorporation of measures for protection against COVID-19 to gauge the attitude of dentists during this period. Also, clinical implementation of various protective measures was reviewed.

RESULTS: Of the n = 322 dentists that answered the questions, 50% were general dentists and 28.9% were dentists working at specialist clinics, while the remaining 21.1% of dentists were employed in academic institutions. Among the newer additions to the clinic, 36.3% of dentists answered that they had added atomizers to their practices, followed by 26.4% of dentists that had incorporated the use of UV lamps for sterilization. We found that 18.9% dentists were using HEPA filters in their clinics, while 9.9% of dentists were making use of fumigation devices to control the risk of infection. One-way ANOVA was also carried out to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.049) between groups of dentists utilizing HEPA filters, UV lamps, atomizers, and fumigation devices to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 across their workplaces.

METHODOLOGY: Before starting the study, the study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021273292). An electronic literature search was performed by combining MeSH terminology and keywords used with the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND" to find relevant published studies on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical evaluation checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies, while the GRADE approach was used to see the quality of evidence.

RESULTS: A total of 13,931 studies were retrieved after the search on databases. After the scrutiny of studies by reading the title of articles and the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 54 studies were selected for further screening by reading the full texts. In the final, a total of nine studies were selected for the current systematic review and proceeded for data extraction. The patients who were doing different exercises showed improvements in immunity, QOL, and reduction in CRF. A significant reduction in tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), C reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-8 (IL-8), IL-6, and an increase in natural killer (NK) cells levels was also observed.

AREAS COVERED: This systematic review identified and evaluated the potential of current drug treatments for long-COVID, examining both completed and ongoing RCTs.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus as of 1st June 2023. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled POTS rate in SARS-CoV-2-infected and COVID-19-vaccinated groups from epidemiological studies, followed by subgroup analyses by characteristic. Meta-analysis of risk ratio was conducted to compare POTS rate in infected versus uninfected groups. Meta-analysis of demographics was also performed to compare cases of post-infection and post-vaccination POTS from case reports and series.

OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions.

METHODS: We conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative.

RESULTS: Our inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.59%). Higher acceptance rates were observed among health care workers and individuals with chronic diseases, at 64% (95% CI 0.57%-0.71%) and 69% (95% CI 0.61%-0.76%), respectively. However, lower acceptance was noted among pregnant women, at 48% (95% CI 0.42%-0.53%), and parents consenting for their children, at 61.29% (95% CI 0.56%-0.67%). The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 32% (95% CI 0.25%-0.39%) in the general population. The quality assessment revealed 19 high-quality, 38 moderate-quality, 15 low-quality, and 6 critically low-quality meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies.