Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jung RG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878793 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research.
Jung Richard G RG Di Santo Pietro P Clifford Cole C Prosperi-Porta Graeme G Skanes Stephanie S Hung Annie A Parlow Simon S Visintini Sarah S Ramirez F Daniel FD Simard Trevor T Hibbert Benjamin B
Nature communications 20210211 1
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.Study designWe conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.ResultsWe included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.ConclusionsThere is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.RegistrationCRD42020192095.
| S-EPMC8280397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWhile the global COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the entire humanity and health systems, it also triggered researchers to urgently perform clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of many agents and modalities to combat COVID-19. As of April 22, over 650 clinical studies have been registered both in USA and internationally. Results from these studies are also coming at a brisk pace in this unprecedented emergency.Areas coveredWe searched the NCI website and Medline and summarize various national and international clinical trials and summarize few of the pivotal ones in this paper, including those specific to oncology population. Two hundred and eighty four studies are actively recruiting adults and children with confirmed COVID-19, including 25 are early-phase I/phase I, 72 phase II, 58 phase III, 12 phase IV, and 31 other trials. They can be categorized into four groups: drugs that combat SARS-CoV-2, immunomodulatory agents to counteract cytokine storm, convalescence plasma therapies and vaccines trials.Expert opinionIt is hoped that these efforts will results in a successful treatment to COVID-19, especially in a timely fashion before the second pandemic expected in fall. It is essential to acknowledge the devotion and hard work of the clinical research team and clinical research volunteers.
| S-EPMC7326327 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7462407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19.Study design and settingRapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting.ResultsThere were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline.ConclusionDespite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.
| S-EPMC7937325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of "moving online" are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process.
| S-EPMC8779601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time.MethodsWe reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported.ResultsFrom 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid.ConclusionsAcross various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.
| S-EPMC7899793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic created a complex high-risk clinical research environment with clinical research activities significantly impacted. Clinical research stakeholders adapted rapidly to new clinical practices; PPE, infection control policies, all while engaging with a more unwell patient demographic. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of conducting clinical research during COVID-19 with clinical research stakeholders.MethodsThis qualitative study of semi-structured interviews conducted with clinical research stakeholders in an acute Hospital setting across a variety of disciplines; Consultant Geriatrician, Clinical Research Nurse, Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy. Interviews were fully transcribed prior to reflexive thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to support data management and analysis.ResultsThree main themes were produced; (1) The challenging COVID-19 clinical research landscape, (2) COVID-19 clinical research communication barriers, and (3) Adaptations and learnings from clinical research during COVID-19.ConclusionsThis study explored the experiences of conducting clinical research during COVID-19 with clinical research stakeholders examining challenges faced and adaptations required. The findings inform, equip and support clinical research stakeholders in the event of future adverse public health events.
| S-EPMC10544112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In battling the COVID-19 pandemic, testing is essential. The detection of viral RNA allows the identification of infected persons, whereas the detection of antibodies may reveal a response to a previous infection. Tests for coronavirus should be rigorously evaluated in terms of their analytical and clinical performance. This poses not only logistic challenges, but also methodological ones. Some of these are generic for the diagnostic accuracy paradigm, whereas others are more specific for tests for viruses. Problematic for evaluations of the clinical performance of tests for viral RNA is the absence of an independent reference standard. Many studies lack rigor in terms of the recruitment of study participants. Study reports are often insufficiently informative, which makes it difficult to assess the applicability of study findings. Attempts to summarize the performance of these tests in terms of a single estimate of the clinical sensitivity fail to do justice to the identifiable sources of the large heterogeneity in mechanisms for generating false negative results.
| S-EPMC7332449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSince the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines.MethodsWe searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines.ResultsA total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.
| S-EPMC8013412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach.Study design and settingA structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%).ConclusionThis study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.
| S-EPMC8313077 | biostudies-literature