Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33296427›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Clinician-researcher's perspectives on clinical research during the COVID19 pandemic.

Sarah L Silverberg, Lisa M Puchalski Ritchie, Nina Gobat, Alistair Nichol, Srinivas Murthy

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Another Cautionary Lesson from COVID Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021
    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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Sarah L SilverbergDepartment of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2046-5879
Lisa M Puchalski RitchieDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nina GobatNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Alistair NicholClinical Research Centre, St. Vincent's University Hospital, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Srinivas MurthyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe outcome of well-performed clinical research is essential for evidence-based patient management during pandemics. However, conducting clinical research amidst a pandemic requires researchers to balance clinical and research demands. We seek to understand the values, experiences, and beliefs of physicians working at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform clinical research planning. We aim to understand whether pandemic settings affect physician comfort with research practices, and how physician experiences shape their understanding of research in a pandemic setting.

methodsA survey tool was adapted to evaluate familiarity and comfort with research during a pandemic. A cross-sectional, online questionnaire was distributed across Canadian research networks early in the COVID-19 outbreak. The survey was administered between March 11th and 17th, 2020, during a time of local transmission but prior to the surge of cases. We aimed to recruit into the survey physicians in infectious disease and critical care research networks across Canada.

resultsOf the 133 physician respondents, 131 (98%) considered it important to conduct clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process in during a pandemic compared to in a non-pandemic setting, including conducting research with deferred consent (χ2 = 8.941, 95% CI: -0.264, -0.085, p = 0.003), using non-identifiable observational data with a waiver of consent with a median score of 97 out of 100 (IQR: 79.25-100) vs median 87 out of 100 (IQR: 63-79) (95% CI: -12.43, 0.054, p = 0.052). The majority felt that research quality is not compromised during pandemics.

conclusionsPhysicians consider it important to conduct research during a pandemic, highlighting the need to expedite research activities in pandemic settings. Respondents were more accepting of adaptations to the research process for research conducted during a pandemic, compared to that conducted in its absence of a pandemic.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicinePandemicsPhysiciansSARS-CoV-2CanadaCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33296427
PMCPMC7725301
OpenAlexW3111423533

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.