ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2020
In defence of extrapolation but not improvisation in SARS-CoV-2 lung disease.
Article in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The pathogenic role of epithelial and endothelial cells in early-phase COVID-19 pneumonia: victims and partners in crime.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021Review
- A new model for clinical trials to address the COVID-19 emergency.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2020Article
- Protocol Failure Detection: The Conflation of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Respiratory Dysfunction.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the struggle against COVID-19 by respiratory and intensive care clinicians worldwide was punctuated by the sound of calls from a number of influential publications for an end to, as it were, improvisation and a return to principles of evidence-based medicine. The message was that management of SARS-CoV-2 lung disease needed to be guided strictly according to established dogma in acute respiratory distress syndrome unless supplanted by clinical trials specific to COVID-19. This position is predicated on the assumptions that knowledge about acute respiratory distress syndrome, and only about that entity, is directly translatable to SARS-CoV-2 lung disease, and that clinical trials enrolling COVID-19 patients will be completed in a sufficiently timely and rigorous fashion to influence empirical practice during the current pandemic. Clearly, there is room for an alternative perspective. In this Viewpoint, we aim to articulate a contrary point of view by resorting to arguments that are likely to resonate with frontline clinicians battling COVID-19.
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.