ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
COVID-19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Evidence-based decisions and data sharing.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key attributes of health and environmental risk decision-making: A scoping review.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- Perceived medical disinformation and public trust: Commentary on Grimes and Greenhalgh (2024).Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Building Resilient and Responsive Health Research Systems:Responses and the Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- A cross-sectional study on the correlation between exercise frequency and mental health among university students based on international physical activity questionnaire-short form classification: evidence from undergraduate students aged 18-22.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A Survey on Methodological Issues of Clinical Research Studies Reviewed by Independent Ethic Committees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Perception of Evidence-based Dentistry among Dental Professionals in Saudi Arabia during COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2022Article
- Global Health Strategies in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Unprecedented Threats.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Review
- 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
- Assessment of public intention to get vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from a developing country.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Evidence-based decisions and data sharing.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every facet of society, including medical research. This paper is the second part of a series of articles that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first part of this series, we demonstrated that, in the context of COVID-19, the scientific community has been faced with numerous challenges with respect to (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.
methodsDuring the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges.
resultsThis second paper demonstrates that a lack of research prioritization and methodological rigour resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings to the scientific community and general public highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed.
conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence-based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This second paper demonstrates that the four challenges outlined in the first and second papers have often compounded each other and have contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.