Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

Abstract

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Psychosocial Predictors for the Intention of Brazilian Elderly in Receiving the Vaccine Against Covid-19

“…The previous literature has already demonstrated that it is necessary to evaluate the e cacy and possible side effects of each of the many vaccines against COVID-19 separately (27). In our case, given the difference observed between the levels of intention to be vaccinated with each vaccine, prediction models were tested for each one separately.…”

Major Mistakes and Errors in the Use of Trial Sequential Analysis in Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses – Protocol for a Systematic Review

“…This review aims to assess the use of Trial Sequential Analysis in the current body of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Trial Sequential Analysis offers important pieces of information [4,15,29] and provides more stringent planning of how to calculate the DARIS and interpret the imprecision in GRADE [16,18,20,[29][30][31][32][33] than present recommendations regarding the calculation of optimal information size and assessment of imprecision in GRADE [27]. However, the method is currently not a mandatory part of Cochrane Reviews.…”

Duloxetine versus ‘active’ placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

“…We will downgrade imprecision in GRADE by two levels if the accrued number of participants is below 50% of the diversity-adjusted required information size (DARIS), and one level if between 50% and 100% of DARIS. We will not downgrade if the cumulative Z-curve crosses the monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm or futility, or DARIS is reached [88]. The findings for primary outcomes will be presented in a summary of findings table where each GRADE domain will be presented for trials contributing data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes [58,89].…”