Comprobación, reparación y puesta en marcha del Motor Hyundai D4AE

El proceso de formación en el ciclo profesional involucra espacios académicos diversos para lograr las competencias propuestas por la Universidad ECCI, en lo que tiene que ver con la formación de Tecnólogo en Mecánica Automotriz, es así que se desarrollan practicas con ayudas didácticas, equipos y herramientas en asignaturas especificas tecnológicas donde se dan a conocer los diversos sistemas del vehículo, este proceso es repetitivo con cada grupo de estudiantes de acuerdo al plan de estudios, lo anterior deriva en una desgaste de las ayudas didácticas hasta un punto donde se requiere realizar un proceso de reparación o cambio por baja operatividad. La universidad ECCI tiene en su haber un motor diésel marca Hyundai modelo D4AE con numero de referencia D4AE1112430, está catalogado como ayuda didáctica y en el momento presenta un síntoma de falla relacionado con el encendido lo cual no posibilita el correcto funcionamiento de este, y a su vez que no pueda ser puesto en marcha o usado en las diferentes actividades académicas en la formación como Tecnólogo.AGRADECIMIENTOS 4 TABLA DE FIGURAS 7 LISTA DE TABLAS 11 1. COMPROBACION, REPARACION Y PUESTA EN MARCHA DEL MOTOR HYUNDAI D4AE 13 2. PROBLEMA DE INVESTIGACIÓN 13 2.1. Descripción del problema 13 2.2. Formulación del problema 13 3. OBJETIVOS DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 14 3.1. Objetivo general. 14 3.2. Objetivos específicos. 14 4.1. Justificación. 15 4.2. Delimitación. 15 5. MARCO DE REFERENCIA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 16 5.1 Marco teórico. 16 5.2 Marco conceptual. 18 5.2.1 Historia Hyundai Motor Company. 20 5.2.1.1 Motor D4AE 20 5.3 Marco legal. 22 5.4 Marco histórico. 23 6. TIPO DE INVESTIGACIÓN. 24 7. DISEÑO METODOLÓGICO 24 7.1.Materiales. 25 7.2.Paso a paso. 33 7.3.Resultados. 64 8. FUENTES PARA LA OBTENCIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN 75 8.1.Fuentes primarias 75 8.2.Fuentes secundarias 75 9. RECURSOS 76 10. CRONOGRAMA 78 11. BIBLIOGRAFIA 79PregradoTecnólogo en Mecánica Automotri

First wave of COVID-19 in Venezuela:Epidemiological, clinical, and paraclinical characteristics of first cases

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has particularly affected countries with weakened health services in Latin America, where proper patient management could be a critical step to address the epidemic. In this study, we aimed to characterize and identify which epidemiological, clinical, and paraclinical risk factors defined COVID-19 infection from the first confirmed cases through the first epidemic wave in Venezuela. A retrospective analysis of consecutive suspected cases of COVID-19 admitted to a sentinel hospital was carried out, including 576 patient cases subsequently confirmed for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Of these, 162 (28.1%) patients met the definition criteria for severe/critical disease, and 414 (71.2%) were classified as mild/moderate disease. The mean age was 47 (SD 16) years, the majority of which were men (59.5%), and the most frequent comorbidity was arterial hypertension (23.3%). The most common symptoms included fever (88.7%), headache (65.6%), and dry cough (63.9%). Severe/critical disease affected mostly older males with low schooling (p < 0.001). Similarly, higher levels of glycemia, urea, aminotransferases, total bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were observed in severe/critical disease patients compared to those with mild/moderate disease. Overall mortality was 7.6% (44/576), with 41.7% (28/68) dying in hospital. We identified risk factors related to COVID-19 infection, which could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and prevent severe clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that the mortality registered by this disease in Venezuela during the first epidemic wave was underestimated. An increase in fatalities is expected to occur in the coming months unless measures that are more effective are implemented to mitigate the epidemic while the vaccination process is ongoing

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Venezuela:An Online Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: The deterioration of Venezuela's health system in recent years undoubtedly contributes to an increased impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding healthcare workers' (HCWs) knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) toward COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic could inform their medical training and improve their preparedness. Methods: A online national cross-sectional survey was conducted between May 26th and May 30th, 2020, to assess KAPs among HCWs in Venezuela. Results: A total of 1,441 HCWs from all 24 regions of the country responded to the survey. The mean age of the HCWs was 44 (SD [standard deviation] 14) years; most were women (66.4%). Most HCWs were specialized doctors (48%), followed by nurses (13%) and resident doctors (12.3%). The majority of HCWs had good knowledge (76.3%), obtained information mainly from scientific literature (85.4%); had negative attitudes (53.6%), felt uncomfortable with their work during the current pandemic (59.8%); and reported appropriate practices (76.9%). However, participation in COVID-19 related training was absent in more than half of the HCWs. Positive attitudes were significantly more frequent in frontline workers than in non-frontline workers (p = 0.001). Bioanalysts, students, and doctors were more likely to have good knowledge; participating in training was a predictor for positive attitudes and older age was an appropriate practice predictor. Conclusions: HCWs, knowledge in Venezuela could be improved by strengthening education and training programs. Strategies should focus on reducing fear and improving attitudes toward the care of COVID-19 patients, as well as the promotion of preventive practices

XVI International Congress of Control Electronics and Telecommunications: "Techno-scientific considerations for a post-pandemic world intensive in knowledge, innovation and sustainable local development"

Este título, sugestivo por los impactos durante la situación de la Covid 19 en el mundo, y que en Colombia lastimosamente han sido muy críticos, permiten asumir la obligada superación de tensiones sociales, políticas, y económicas; pero sobre todo científicas y tecnológicas. Inicialmente, esto supone la existencia de una capacidad de la sociedad colombiana por recuperar su estado inicial después de que haya cesado la perturbación a la que fue sometida por la catastrófica pandemia, y superar ese anterior estado de cosas ya que se encontraban -y aún se encuentran- muchos problemas locales mal resueltos, medianamente resueltos, y muchos sin resolver: es decir, habrá que rediseñar y fortalecer una probada resiliencia social existente - producto del prolongado conflicto social colombiano superado parcialmente por un proceso de paz exitoso - desde la tecnociencia local; como lo indicaba Markus Brunnermeier - economista alemán y catedrático de economía de la Universidad de Princeton- en su libro The Resilient Society…La cuestión no es preveerlo todo sino poder reaccionar…aprender a recuperarse rápido.This title, suggestive of the impacts during the Covid 19 situation in the world, and which have unfortunately been very critical in Colombia, allows us to assume the obligatory overcoming of social, political, and economic tensions; but above all scientific and technological. Initially, this supposes the existence of a capacity of Colombian society to recover its initial state after the disturbance to which it was subjected by the catastrophic pandemic has ceased, and to overcome that previous state of affairs since it was found -and still is find - many local problems poorly resolved, moderately resolved, and many unresolved: that is, an existing social resilience test will have to be redesigned and strengthened - product of the prolonged Colombian social conflict partially overcome by a successful peace process - from local technoscience; As Markus Brunnermeier - German economist and professor of economics at Princeton University - indicates in his book The Resilient Society...The question is not to foresee everything but to be able to react...learn to recover quickly.Bogot

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Atrasentan and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (SONAR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Short-term treatment for people with type 2 diabetes using a low dose of the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist atrasentan reduces albuminuria without causing significant sodium retention. We report the long-term effects of treatment with atrasentan on major renal outcomes. Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 689 sites in 41 countries. We enrolled adults aged 18–85 years with type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)25–75 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 of body surface area, and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR)of 300–5000 mg/g who had received maximum labelled or tolerated renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 4 weeks. Participants were given atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily during an enrichment period before random group assignment. Those with a UACR decrease of at least 30% with no substantial fluid retention during the enrichment period (responders)were included in the double-blind treatment period. Responders were randomly assigned to receive either atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily or placebo. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine (sustained for ≥30 days)or end-stage kidney disease (eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 sustained for ≥90 days, chronic dialysis for ≥90 days, kidney transplantation, or death from kidney failure)in the intention-to-treat population of all responders. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01858532. Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and July 13, 2017, 11 087 patients were screened; 5117 entered the enrichment period, and 4711 completed the enrichment period. Of these, 2648 patients were responders and were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group (n=1325)or placebo group (n=1323). Median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·4–2·9). 79 (6·0%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 105 (7·9%)of 1323 in the placebo group had a primary composite renal endpoint event (hazard ratio [HR]0·65 [95% CI 0·49–0·88]; p=0·0047). Fluid retention and anaemia adverse events, which have been previously attributed to endothelin receptor antagonists, were more frequent in the atrasentan group than in the placebo group. Hospital admission for heart failure occurred in 47 (3·5%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 34 (2·6%)of 1323 patients in the placebo group (HR 1·33 [95% CI 0·85–2·07]; p=0·208). 58 (4·4%)patients in the atrasentan group and 52 (3·9%)in the placebo group died (HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·75–1·59]; p=0·65). Interpretation: Atrasentan reduced the risk of renal events in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were selected to optimise efficacy and safety. These data support a potential role for selective endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of developing end-stage kidney disease. Funding: AbbVie

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Latin America: situation and preparedness facing the multi-country human monkeypox outbreak

Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia / Universidad Científica del Sur. Master of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Lima, Peru / Latin American network of Monkeypox Virus Research. Pereira, Risaralda, ColombiaUniversity of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Hospital Britanico de Buenos Aires. Servicio de Infectología. Buenos Aires, Argentina.University of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina / Hospital de Enfermedades Infecciosas F. J. Muniz. Buenos Aires, Argentina.University of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina / Hospital de Enfermedades Infecciosas F. J. Muniz. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Hospital Clínico Viedma. Cochabamba, Bolivia.Gobierno Autonomo Municipal de Cochabamba. Secretaría de Salud. Centros de Salud de Primer Nivel. Direction. Cochabamba, Bolivia.Franz Tamayo University. National Research Coordination. La Paz, Bolivia.Paulista State University Júlio de Mesquita Filho. Botucatu Medical School. Infectious Diseases Department. São Paulo, SP, Brazil / Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases. Sãao Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública. Departamento de Epidemiologia. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Institute of Infectious Diseases Emilio Ribas. São Paulo, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Centro de Referencia de Salud Dr. Salvador Allende Gossens. Policlínico Neurología. Unidad Procedimientos. Santiago de Chile, Chile.Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. School of Medicine. Department of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Immunology. Santiago de Chile, Chile.Universidad Austral de Chile. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Salud Publica. Valdivia, Chile.Ministerio de Salud. Hospital de San Fernando. San Fernando, VI Region, Chile.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Department of Pediatrics. Bogota, DC, Colombia / Hospital Pediatrico La Misericordia. Division of Infectious Diseases. Bogota, DC, Colombia.Hemera Unidad de Infectología IPS SAS. Bogota, Colombia.Hospital San Vicente Fundacion. Rionegro, Antioquia, Colombia.Clinica Imbanaco Grupo Quironsalud. Cali, Colombia / Universidad Santiago de Cali. Cali, Colombia / Clinica de Occidente. Cali, Colombia / Clinica Sebastian de Belalcazar. Valle del Cauca, Colombia.National Institute of Gastroenterology. Epidemiology Unit. La Habana, CubaHospital Salvador Bienvenido Gautier. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra. Santiago, Dominican Republic.International University of Ecuador. School of Medicine. Quito, Ecuador.Universidad Tecnica de Ambato. Ambato, Ecuador.Hospital Roosevelt. Guatemala City, Guatemala.Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras. Faculty of Medical Sciences. School of Medical. Unit of Scientific Research. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.Hospital Infantil de Mexico. Federico Gomez, Mexico City, Mexico.Hospital General de Tijuana. Departamento de Infectología. Tijuana, Mexico.Hospital General de Tijuana. Departamento de Infectología. Tijuana, Mexico.Asociacion de Microbiólogos y Químicos Clínicos de Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua.Hospital Santo Tomas. Medicine Department-Infectious Diseases Service. Panama City, Panama / Instituto Oncologico Nacional. Panama city, Panama.University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix. Division of Endocrinology. Department of Medicine. Phoenix, AZ, USA / Indian School Rd. Phoenix, AZ, USA.Dirección Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria. Dirección de Investigación. Asunción, Paraguay.Universidad Nacional de Asuncion. Faculty of Medical Sciences. Division of Dermatology. Asuncion, Paraguay.Instituto Nacional de Salud del Nino San Borja. Infectious Diseases Division. Lima, Peru / Universidad Privada de Tacna. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Tacna, Peru.Universidad San Juan Bautista. Lima, Peru.Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola. Vicerrectorado de Investigación. Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud. Lima, Peru.Hospital Evangelico de Montevideo. Montevideo, Uruguay.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Molecular and Cell-based Medicine. Department of Pathology. Molecular Microbiology Laboratory. New York, USA / Universidad del Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Biotecnología-UR. Bogota, Colombia.Hospital Evangélico de Montevideo. Montevideo, Uruguay / Venezuelan Science Incubator and the Zoonosis and Emerging Pathogens Regional Collaborative Network. Infectious Diseases Research Branch. Cabudare, Lara, Venezuela.Universidad Central de Venezuela. Faculty of Medicine. Caracas, Venezuela.Universidad Central de Venezuela. Faculty of Medicine. Caracas, Venezuela / Biomedical Research and Therapeutic Vaccines Institute. Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela.Universidad Central de Venezuela. Tropical Medicine Institute, Infectious Diseases Section. Caracas, Venezuela.Instituto Conmemorativo Gorgas de Estudios de la Salud. Clinical Research Department. Investigador SNI Senacyt Panama. Panama City, Panama

The global challenges of the long COVID-19 in adults and children

Institución Universitaria Visión de las Américas. Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia / Universidad Científica del Sur. Faculty of Health Sciences. Lima, Peru / Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia.Universidad Científica del Sur. Faculty of Health Sciences. Lima, Peru.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Lebanese American University. Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine. Beirut, Lebanon.Municipal Autonomous Government of Cochabamba. Municipal Secretary of Health. Direction of First Level. Cochabamba, Bolivia.Franz Tamayo University. National Research Coordination. La Paz, Bolivia.Universidad Continental. Research Unit. Huancayo, Peru.Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Department of Pediatrics. Bogotá, DC, Colombia / Fundación HOMI. Hospital Pediátrico La Misericordia. Division of Infectious Diseases. Bogotá, DC, Colombia / Fundación Hospital Infantil Universitario de San José. Bogotá, DC, Colombia.Hemera Unidad de Infectología IPS SAS. Bogota, Colombia.Hospital San Vicente Fundación. Rionegro, Antioquia, Colombia.Clinica Imbanaco Grupo Quironsalud. Cali, Colombia / Universidad Santiago de Cali. Cali, Colombia / Clinica de Occidente. Cali, Colombia / Clinica Sebastián de Belalcazar. Valle del Cauca, Colombia.University of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. Botucatu Medical School. Infectious Diseases Department. São Paulo, SP, Brazil / Brazilian Society for Infectious Diseases. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Institute of Infectious Diseases Emilio Ribas. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil / Universidade Federal do Pará. Faculdade de Medicina. Belém, PA, Brazil.University of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina / Hospital de Enfermedades Infecciosas F. J. Muñiz. Buenos Aires, Argentina.University of Buenos Aires. Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Buenos Aires, Argentina / Hospital de Enfermedades Infecciosas F. J. Muñiz. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Centro de Referencia de Salud Dr. Salvador Allende Gossens. Policlínico Neurología. Unidad Procedimientos. Santiago de Chile, Chile.Hospital Salvador Bienvenido Gautier. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Universidad Central del Ecuador. Jefatura de Cátedra de Enfermedades Infecciosas. Quito, Ecuador.Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.Hospital Roosevelt. Guatemala City, GuatemalaNational Autonomous University of Honduras. Institute for Research in Medical Sciences and Right to Health. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.National Clinical Coordinator COVID-19-WHO Studies. Colombia / Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Medicina. Clinica Colsanitas. Clinica Universitaria Colombia. Colombia.Think Vaccines LLC. Houston, Texas, USA.Universidad Simón Bolívar. Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Vida. Barranquilla, Colombia / Grupo de Expertos Clínicos Secretaria de Salud de Barranquilla. Barranquilla, Colombia.Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola. Vicerrectorado de Investigación. Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud. Lima, Peru.Hospital Evangélico de Montevideo. Montevideo, Uruguay.Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas. Faculty of Medicine. Grupo de Investigación Biomedicina. Pereira, Colombia / University of California. School of Public Health. Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology. Berkeley, CA, USA.Universidad Central de Venezuela. Faculty of Medicine. Caracas, Venezuela.Universidad Central de Venezuela. Faculty of Medicine. Caracas, Venezuela / Biomedical Research and Therapeutic Vaccines Institute. Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela.University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. School of Medicine. Division of Infectious Diseases. Aurora, CO, USA.Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital. Institute of Medicine. Kathmandu, Nepal / Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth. Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College. Department of Microbiology. Pune, Maharashtra, India / Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital. Department of Public Health Dentistry. Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Maharashtra, India.Universidad Cesar Vallejo. Escuela de Medicina. Trujillo, Peru.Universidad de San Martín de Porres. Facultad de Medicina Humana. Chiclayo, Peru.Friedrich Schiller University Jena. Institute of Microbiology. Beutenbergstraße, Jena, Germany / Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. School of Medicine. Postgraduate Program in Infectious Diseases. Quito, Ecuador.Universidad Simón Bolivar. Faculty of Health Sciences. Barranquilla, Colombia.Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare. Specialty Internal Medicine and Quality Department. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia / Indiana University School of Medicine. Department of Medicine. Infectious Disease Division. Indianapolis, IN, USA / Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Department of Medicine. Infectious Disease Division. Baltimore, MD, USA.Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare. Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia / Alfaisal University. College of Medicine. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia / The University of Haripur. Department of Public Health and Nutrition. Haripur, Pakistan.VM Medicalpark Samsun Hospital. Department of Infectious Diseases. Samsun, Turkey.University of Miami. Miller School of Medicine. Department of Medicine. Division of Infectious Diseases. Miami, FL, USA.Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. Centro de Ciencias Médicas. Hospital Nacional de Niños Dr. Carlos Sáenz Herrera. Servicio de Infectología Pediátrica. San José, Costa Rica / Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias Médicas. San José, Costa Rica / Universidad de Ciencias Médicas. Facultad de Medicina. Cátedra de Pediatría. San José, Costa Rica