Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32257173›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2020

An evidence-based framework for priority clinical research questions for COVID-19.

Carlyn Harris, Gail Carson, J Kenneth Baillie, Peter Horby, Harish Nair

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The role of air pollution (PM and NOEnvironmental research · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Heliyon · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlyn HarrisEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Gail CarsonInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC), Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J Kenneth BaillieCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter HorbyInternational Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC), Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Harish NairCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn 31 December, 2019, the World Health Organization China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology. Since then, there have been over 75 000 cases globally of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), 2000 deaths, and over 14 000 cases recovered. Outbreaks of novel agents represent opportunities for clinical research to inform real-time public health action. In 2018, we conducted a systematic review to identify priority research questions for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Here, we review information available on COVID-19 and provide an evidenced-based framework for priority clinical research in the current outbreak.

methodsThree bibliographic databases were searched to identify clinical studies published on SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV in the outbreak setting. Studies were grouped thematically according to clinical research questions addressed. In February 2020, available information on COVID19 was reviewed and compared to the results of the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV systematic review.

resultsFrom the research objectives for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, ten themes in the literature were identified: Clinical characterisation, prognosis, diagnosis, clinical management, viral pathogenesis, epidemiological characterisation, infection prevention and control/transmission, susceptibility, psychosocial, and aetiology. For COVID19, some information on clinical presentation, diagnostic testing, and aetiology is available but many clinical research gaps have yet to be filled.

conclusionsBased on a systematic review of other severe coronaviruses, we summarise the state of clinical research for COVID-19, highlight the research gaps, and provide recommendations for the implementation of standardised protocols. Data based on internationally standardised protocols will inform clinical practice real-time.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsEvidence-Based Emergency MedicinePandemicsPneumonia, ViralBetacoronavirusCOVID-19Disease OutbreaksHumansSARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID32257173
PMCPMC7125419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.