1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy
3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
3.3. Data Extraction
3.4. Quality Assessment
4. Results
4.1. Included Studies
| Authors | Year of Publication | Title | Patients (n)/ Death | Male/Female | Age/Period | Study Design/City | Reason for Consumption | Sequel/Toxic Level | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mahdavi et al. (21) | 2022 | A cross‑sectional multicenter linkage study of hospital admissions and mortality due to methanol poisoning in Iranian adults during the COVID‑19 pandemic | 795/84 | M: 711 (89.43%) F: 77 (9.68%) | Mean: 32 years (range 19 - 91)/from February until June 2020 | Cross‑sectional/ multicenter (Hamedan, Isfahan, Khorasan Razavi, Khuzestan, Mazandaran, Qazvin, Tehran, West Azerbaijan and Yazd) | For motives: 82.1% for prevention of cure COVID-19 infection: 3.1% | Visual disturbances/serum methanol level of 6.25 mmol/L (20 mg/dL) or higher | 1. Older patients involved more to fatal outcome than younger patients; 2. 3.1% of methanol poisoning in the first 4 months’ post COVID-19 in Iran |
| Dehghan et al. (25) | 2022 | A survey of alcohol poisoning and disinfectants cases in patients referred to hospitals in Yazd province during the COVID-19 epidemic (first wave of the disease) | 101/NA | M: 89 (88.1%) F: 12 (11.9%) | Mean: 26.07 ± 7.33 years (15 - 53)/beginning of February 2019 until May 15, 2019 | Descriptive and analytical/Yazd | For gaining happiness and joy: 47% | Occurrence of eye symptoms/estimated average alcohol consumption 273.07 ± 192.97 CC | 1. Complication free recovery: 59.4%; 2. improvement with vision problems: 12.9% other cases: 22.8% |
| Hadeiy et al. (22) | 2022 | An interrupted time series analysis of hospital admissions due to alcohol intoxication during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Tehran, Iran | 1687/127 | M: 1360 (80.6%) F: 327 (19.4%) | Mean: 31.58 ± 13.76 (range: 1 - 87) years/from February 23rd, 2019 to February 22nd, 2021 | Retrospective cross-sectional/Loghman-Hakim Hospital in Tehran | Coping behavior to the elevated anxiety | Methanol level > 6.25 mmoL/L (20 mg/dL) and ethanol level higher than 50 mg/dL | 1. A sharp rise in methanol poisoning in the first 3 months following the COVID-19; 2. High mortality in the total population and specifically among adolescents. |
| Simani et al. (3) | 2022 | The outbreak of methanol intoxication during COVID-19 pandemic: Prevalence of brain lesions and its predisposing factors | 516 (40 patients under (CT) scan)/82 | M: 34 (85%) F: 6 (15%) females | Mean: 40.6 ± 13.5/March and April of 2020 | Retrospectivestudy/university-affiliated hospital’s toxicology center Tehran | History of alcohol ingestion | ICH and brain edema/methanol toxiclevel (more than 20 mg/dL or 6.2 mmol/L) | 1. Index of mortality in methanol toxicity included: Putaminal or subcortical white matter hemorrhage, brain edema; 2. Brain necrosis was significantly higher in the non-survival group; 3. The mortality rate in chronic alcohol consumption was lower than the patients who drank alcohol for the first time |
| Estedlal et al. (24) | 2021 | Temperament and character of patients with alcohol toxicity during COVID-19 pandemic | 390 total (135 from emergency room and 255 from general population)/ NA | M: 216 (55.38%), F: 174(44.61%) | Mean:32.43 ± 10.81 years/March 2020 | Cross-section study/Shiraz | Prevent COVID-19: 15% habit and recreational consumption of alcohol: 48.1% recreational consumption of alcohol: 36.8% | NA/82 cases (60.7%) more than once a week, 31 cases (23.0%) at most three times a month and 22 cases (16.3%) at most 6 times a year | Personality disorders: 60.7% cases more than once a week, more three times of drinking per month: 23.0%, more six times of drinking per year: 16.3%, increased consumption during COVID pandemic: 26.5%, no significant change in consumption: 68.1%, decreased consumption: 5.3% |
| Mahdavi et al. (15) | 2021 | COVID-19 pandemic and methanol poisoning outbreak in Iranian children and adolescents: A data linkage study | 172/22 | M: 112(65.11%) F: 60 (34.88%) | Mean: 0 to 18 years/February 23 to June 22, 2020 | Retrospective data linkage study/nine toxicology referral centers) Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, Qazvin, Ahvaz | For recreational purposes and/or hand sanitizers | Gastrointestinal symptoms or visual disturbances/the median [IQR] levels were 0.27 [0.02, 0.92] (range: 0 to 6.36) mmol/L methanol and 1.95 [1.52, 11.50] (range: 0.65 to 37.97) mmol/L EtOH. | The rate of pediatric exposure from ingestion of alcoholic beverages and hand sanitizers was significantly increased during the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran |
| Zamani et al. (20) | 2021 | Prevalence of clinical and radiologic features in methanol poisoned patients with and without COVID-19 infection | 356/59 (16.6%) | M: 328 (89.9%) F: 28 (10.1%) | Mean:32.76 ± 10.61 (range 15 - 72)/March and April, 2020 | Cross-sectional study/Shiraz Hospitals (Faghihi and Namazi) | Participants used alcohol regularly at least once a week (44.7%), others used alcohol infrequently or for the first time | Blindness and impaired level of consciousness/methanol toxicity, PH < 7 | Patients with concurrent methanol poisoning and COVID-19 have higher urea level is more common |
| Shadnia et al. (2) | 2022 | Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who died of methanol toxicity during COVID 19 outbreak in Loghman-e-Hakim Hospital, Tehran | 80 death | M: 68 (85%) F: 12 (15%) | Male age (42.17±13.2) female age (35.5±8.3)/March to April 2020 | Cross-sectional study/Loghman-Hakim Hospital (Tehran) | Prevention of COVID-19 | Profound metabolic acidosis/men's blood methanol levels 19.96 ± 9.7 mg/dL, blood methanol levels in women 17.77 ± 8 mg/dL | ALT, AST and PT (indicator of liver damage) were seen in most patients. Although the men were significantly more than women, there was no difference between men and women in the measured factors |
| Nikoo et al. (23) | 2020 | Electrocardiographic findings of methanol toxicity: A cross-sectional study of 356 case in Iran | 356/59 (16.6%) | M: 328 (89.9%) F: 28 (10.1%) | Mean:32.76 ± 10.61 (range 15 - 72) /March and April, 2020 | Cross-sectional study/Shiraz Hospitals (Faghihi and Namazi) | Protective and thera eutic role of alcohol consumption for COVID-19 | Blindness and impaired level of consciousness/methanol toxicity, PH < 7 | 1. Sinus rhythm was observed in 95.8%. 2. The most common ECG findings: J point elevation (68.8%), presence of U wave (59.2%), QTc prolongation (M: 53.2% and F: 28.6%), fragmented QRS (33.7%). |
| Esmaeilian et al. (26) | 2023 | Methanol poisoning during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Iran: A retrospective cross‐sectional study of clinical, laboratory, and brain imaging characteristics and outcomes | 306/60 (19.9%) | M: 286 F:34 | Mean 32.10 ± 9.9 years (range 15 to 72) March and April 2020 | A retrospective cross‐sectional study/Shiraz Hospitals (Faghihi and Namazi) | A positive history of methanol ingestion | 223 patients, accounting for 75.9% of the sample, exhibited symptoms of blindness | 1. There was a significant difference between normal and abnormal persons (in renal failure, GCS, PH, PaO2, PaCO2, HCO3, potassium and blood sugar). 2. Putamen hypodensity was 11.11% of cases in imaging finding |
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; NR, not reported; AVB, atrioventricular conduction block; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PT, prothrombin; ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage.
4.2. Risk of Bias Within the Studies
| Authors | Year | 1 a | 2 b | 3 c | 4 d | 5 e | 6 f | 7 g | 8 h | 9 i |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estedlal et al. (24) | 2021 | N | UC | Y | Y | UC | Y | Y | Y | UC |
| Simani et al. (3) | 2022 | Y | Y | Y | UC | Y | Y | UC | UC | UC |
| Dehghan et al. (25) | 2022 | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Zamani et al. (20) | 2021 | N | UC | N | Y | Y | Y | UC | Y | UC |
| Hadeiy et al. (22) | 2022 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Nikoo et al. (23) | 2020 | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Shadnia et al. (2) | 2022 | N | Y | N | Y | UC | Y | UC | Y | Y |
| Mahdavi et al. (15) | 2021 | N | Y | Y | Y | N | UC | Y | Y | Y |
| Mahdavi et al. (21) | 2022 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Esmaeilian et al. (26) | 2023 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| The percentage of “yes” scores | 40% | 80% | 80% | 90% | 60% | 90% | 70% | 90% | 80% |
Abbreviations: Y, yes; N, no; UC, unclear; NA, not applicable.
a Was the sample representative of the target population?
b Were study participants recruited in an appropriate way?
c Was the sample size adequate?
d Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
e Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
f Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
g Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
h Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
i Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?
