ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020
Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05819918 (Calcifediol in the Treatment of COVID 19. Modification of Therapeutic Response by Best Available Treatment or Other Treatment or Clinical Variables), which is not on this map. Cited by 105 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Calcifediol in the Treatment of COVID 19. Modification of Therapeutic Response by Best Available Treatment or Other Treatment or Clinical Variables
Who cites it
105 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- COVID-19 treatment of hospital patients worldwide at the onset of the pandemic in 2020: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Preparing for pandemics: a systematic review of pandemic influenza clinical management guidelines.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Availability, scope and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Adherence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacologic Treatments of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 to Trustworthy Standards: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.Nature communications · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of biosafety guidelines for dental clinical practice throughout the world in the early COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.Epidemiology and health · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19-Associated Subacute Thyroiditis: Evidence-Based Data From a Systematic Review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Perspectives on the Early Quality of Evidence Guiding the Therapeutic Management of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Literature Review.Advances in therapy · 2020Pooled it
- Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2020Pooled it
- Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2021Trial
- Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.The New England journal of medicine · 2021Trial
- Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.The New England journal of medicine · 2020Trial
- Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Including patient experiences from online sources in guidelines: A natural language processing study on scabies.PloS one · 2026Article
- Use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for Covid-19 prevention in vulnerable Brazilian populations.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- ALBACOVIDIOL Study: Effect of Calcifediol Treatment on Mortality in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis.Nutrients · 2025Observational
- An international guideline training and certification programme.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Article
45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo appraise the availability, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced in the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic.
designRapid review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and WHO Global Index Medicus, searched from inception to 14 Mar 2020. Search strategies applied the CADTH database guidelines search filter, with no limits applied to search results. Further studies were identified through searches of grey literature using the ISARIC network. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Clinical guidelines for the management of covid-19, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) produced by international and national scientific organisations and government and non-governmental organisations relating to global health were included, with no exclusions for language. Regional/hospital guidelines were excluded. Only the earliest version of any guideline was included. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality and contents of early covid-19 guidelines were also compared with recent clinical guidelines for MERS and SARS.
results2836 studies were identified, of which 2794 were excluded after screening. Forty two guidelines were considered eligible for inclusion, with 18 being specific to covid-19. Overall, the clinical guidelines lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Recommendations varied in relation to, for example, the use of antiviral drugs. The overall quality was poor, particularly in the domains of stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence. Links between evidence and recommendations were limited. Minimal provision was made for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, and older people.
conclusionsGuidelines available early in the covid-19 pandemic had methodological weaknesses and neglected vulnerable groups such as older people. A framework for development of clinical guidelines during public health emergencies is needed to ensure rigorous methods and the inclusion of vulnerable populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020167361.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.