A Framework for Evidence Synthesis Programs to Respond to a Pandemic

Murad, M. Hassan; Nayfeh, Tarek; Urtecho, Meritxell; Seisa, Mohamed O.; Abd‐Rabu, Rami; Farah, Magdoleen H.; Firwana, Mohammed; Hasan, Bashar; Jawaid, Tabinda; Shah, Sahrish; Roldan, Victor D Torres; Prokop, Larry J.; Wang, Zhen; Saadi, Samer

doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.05.009

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature updates were sent by email to the TRP team and consisted of two components: a link to the Treatment section of NLM LitCovid website 11 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?filters=topics.Treatment ) updated, evidence synthesis documents from the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery's COVID-19 Rapid and Systematic Reviews Repository. 12 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

Yarrarapu

Bansal

Abia‐Trujillo³

et al. 2021

Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. Objective The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. Methods At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. Results/Conclusions The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

Yarrarapu

Bansal

Abia‐Trujillo³

et al. 2021

Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The program developed a dedicated framework in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that included methods to conduct and index rapid reviews and repositories of studies published on the pandemic since the first reported case. 1 To date, the Kern Center's evidence synthesis program has indexed more than 2000 publications on this topic.…”

Section: The Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Appraisal System for COVID-19 Medical Information

Razonable

Marshall

Stevens

et al. 2020

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individual studies have limited ability to summarize the current state of research; thus, many efforts have been made to conduct systematic reviews and synthesize the presently available results for policymaking during the pandemic. The evidence synthesis is achieved via meta‐analyses, which play a critical role in developing new research by determining whether the proposed study is necessary and helping design the study 12,13 . Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are considered of the highest quality and can be viewed as a lens through which evidence is evaluated 14‐17 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evidence synthesis is achieved via meta-analyses, which play a critical role in developing new research by determining whether the proposed study is necessary and helping design the study. 12,13 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered of the highest quality and can be viewed as a lens through which evidence is evaluated. [14][15][16][17] However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not always provide a rationale for their methodology; if not used properly, they could produce ambiguous results and exacerbate research errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19: A meta‐epidemiological study

Rosenberger

Lin

2021

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale, aims, and objectives COVID‐19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta‐analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID‐19 research. This meta‐epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19. Methods We searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta‐analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity. Results We identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID‐19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID‐19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I 2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta‐analyses had high values of I 2 . Among the meta‐analyses using the random‐effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta‐analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian‐Laird method was the most used one. Conclusions The current systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID‐19 strictly follow well‐developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta‐analysis models.

show abstract

A Framework for Evidence Synthesis Programs to Respond to a Pandemic

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

Rapid Appraisal System for COVID-19 Medical Information

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19: A meta‐epidemiological study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About