Quality of early evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of COVID-19

Yang, Sarah; Li, Allen; Eshaghpour, Ali; Ivanisevic, Sofia; Salopek, Adrian; Eikelboom, John W.; Crowther, Mark

doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111499

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although many prognostic criteria have been proposed, a recent systematic review of literature yielded an urgent need for high‐quality diagnostic and prognostic data for COVID‐19 22 . The authors note that “Of 541 papers that reported clinical characteristics, 295 were commentaries/expert opinions and 36 were case reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors note that “Of 541 papers that reported clinical characteristics, 295 were commentaries/expert opinions and 36 were case reports. There were no randomized clinical trials, 45 case series studies, 58 narrative reviews, 1 cohort study, and 5 systematic reviews.” 22 The RECOVER registry may be unique because it includes ED patients who are both SARS‐CoV‐2 positive, as well as those who had suspected COVID‐19, but who have negative diagnostic testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. This methodology specifically addresses the current critical need for a data set to derive and test–pretest probability and exclusionary rules for COVID‐19, as has been done with many other diseases, notably pulmonary embolism 23 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS‐CoV‐2

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper summarizes the methodology for the registry of suspected COVID-19 in emergency care (RECOVER), a large clinical registry of patients from 155 United States (US) emergency departments (EDs) in 27 states tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March-September 2020. The initial goals are to derive and test: (1) a pretest probability instrument for prediction of SARS-CoV-2 test results, and from this instrument, a set of simple criteria to exclude COVID-19 (the COVID-19 Rule-Out Criteria-the CORC rule), and (2) a prognostic instrument for those with COVID-19. Patient eligibility included any ED patient tested for SARS-CoV-2 with a nasal or oropharyngeal swab. Abstracted clinical data included 204 variables representing the earliest manifestation of infection, including week of testing, demographics, symptoms, exposure risk, past medical history, test results, admission status, and outcomes 30 days later. In addition to the primary goals, the registry will provide a vital platform for characterizing the course, epidemiology, clinical features, and prognosis of patients tested for COVID-19 in the ED setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS‐CoV‐2

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the quality of the published work was not assessed in our analysis, but several evaluations raise concerns about many of the COVID-19 publications being of low quality. 17–19 Massive productivity has been described in the pre-COVID era, as affecting researchers across many fields 20 and may be also a feature for COVID-19 research. Extreme productivity would be worrisome if it sacrifices quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

Ioannidis

Salholz-Hillel

Boyack

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: COVID-19 is a major global crisis and the scientific community has been mobilized to deal with this crisis. Objective: To estimate the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields has been engaged publishing papers relative to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated Scopus (data cut, December 1, 2020) for all indexed published papers and preprints relevant to COVID-19. We mapped this COVID-19 literature in terms of its authors across 174 subfields of science according to the Science Metrix classification. We also evaluated the extent to which the most influential scientists across science (based on a composite citation indicator) had published COVID-19-related research. Finally, we assessed the features of authors who published the highest number of COVID-19 publications and of those with the highest impact in the COVID-19 field based on the composite citation indicator limited to COVID-19 publications. Main outcomes and measures: Publishing scientists (authors) and their published papers and citation impact. Results: 84,180 indexed publications were relevant to COVID-19 including 322,279 unique authors. The highest rates of COVID-19 publications were seen for authors classified in Public Health and in Clinical Medicine, where 11.3% (6,388/56,516) and 11.1% (92,570/833,060) of authors, respectively, had published on COVID-19. Almost all (173/174) subfields (except for Automobile Design & Engineering) had some authors publishing on COVID-19. Among active scientists at the top 2% of citation impact, 15,803 (13.3%) had published on COVID-19 in their publications in the first 11 months of 2020. The rates were the highest in the fields of Clinical Medicine (27.7%) and Public Health (26.8%). In 83 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in ten active, influential authors in that field had authored something on COVID-19. 65 authors had already at least 30 (and up to 133) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for COVID-19 publications, 26 were journalists or editors publishing news stories or editorials in prestigious journals; most common countries for the remaining were China (n=77), USA (n=66), UK (n=27), and Italy (n=20). Conclusions and relevance: The scientific literature and publishing scientists have been rapidly and massively infected by COVID-19 creating opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

show abstract

“…quality appraised the studies using: Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool for interventional or observational study designs [ 10 ]; Newcastle–Ottawa scale for cohort studies [ 11 ]; Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series [ 12 ]; Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) scale for narrative reviews [ 13 ]; AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews [ 14 ]; and an adapted version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for modelling studies (with questions 1, 6, 8–14 and 19–21 omitted, as these were not relevant to non-economic modelling studies) [ 15 ]. In the absence of an appropriate standardized tool for appraisal of descriptive case studies, we documented key factors that were likely to influence study quality [ 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospital-onset COVID-19 infection surveillance systems: a systematic review

Abbas

Zhu

Mookerjee

et al. 2021

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs) are associated with excess morbidity and mortality in patients and healthcare workers. The aim of this review was to explore and describe the current literature in HOCI surveillance. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and MedRxiv were searched up to 30 November 2020 using broad search criteria. Articles of HOCI surveillance systems were included. Data describing HOCI definitions, HOCI incidence, types of HOCI identification surveillance systems, and level of system implementation were extracted. A total of 292 citations were identified. Nine studies on HOCI surveillance were included. Six studies reported on the proportion of HOCI among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, which ranged from 0 to 15.2%. Six studies provided HOCI case definitions. Standardized national definitions provided by the UK and US governments were identified. Four studies included healthcare workers in the surveillance. One study articulated a multimodal strategy of infection prevention and control practices including HOCI surveillance. All identified HOCI surveillance systems were implemented at institutional level, with eight studies focusing on all hospital inpatients and one study focusing on patients in the emergency department. Multiple types of surveillance were identified. Four studies reported automated surveillance, of which one included real-time analysis, and one included genomic data. Overall, the study quality was limited by the observational nature with short follow-up periods. In conclusion, HOCI case definitions and surveillance methods were developed pragmatically. Whilst standardized case definitions and surveillance systems are ideal for integration with existing routine surveillance activities and adoption in different settings, we acknowledged the difficulties in establishing such standards in the short-term.

show abstract

Quality of early evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of COVID-19

Cited by 14 publications

References 28 publications

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS‐CoV‐2

Multicenter registry of United States emergency department patients tested for SARS‐CoV‐2

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

Hospital-onset COVID-19 infection surveillance systems: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About