ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
The use of mechanistic reasoning in assessing coronavirus interventions.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long COVID as a network disorder: a mechanism-anchored framework for biological stratification and therapeutic targeting.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical practice guideline recommendations can promote or undermine health equity.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The failure of drug repurposing for COVID-19 as an effect of excessive hypothesis testing and weak mechanistic evidence.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Adapt or die: how the pandemic made the shift from EBM to EBM+ more urgent.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Article
- From "getting things right" to "getting things right now": Developing COVID-19 guidance under time pressure and knowledge uncertainty.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- The use of mechanistic reasoning in assessing coronavirus interventions.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Humans, machines and decisions: Clinical reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence, evidence-based medicine and Covid-19.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleEvidence-based medicine (EBM), the dominant approach to assessing the effectiveness of clinical and public health interventions, focuses on the results of association studies. EBM+ is a development of EBM that systematically considers mechanistic studies alongside association studies. AIMS AND
objectivesTo explore examples of the importance of mechanistic evidence to coronavirus research.
methodsWe have reviewed the mechanistic evidence in four major areas that are relevant to the management of COVID-19. RESULTS AND
conclusions(a) Assessment of combination therapy for MERS highlights the need for systematic assessment of mechanistic evidence. (b) That hypertension is a risk factor for severe disease in the case of SARS-CoV-2 suggests that altering hypertension treatment might alleviate disease, but the mechanisms are complex, and it is essential to consider and evaluate multiple mechanistic hypotheses. (c) Confidence that public health interventions will be effective requires a detailed assessment of social and psychological components of the mechanisms of their action, in addition to mechanisms of disease. (d) In particular, if vaccination programmes are to be effective, they must be carefully tailored to the social context; again, mechanistic evidence is crucial. We conclude that coronavirus research is best situated within the EBM+ evaluation framework.
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.