Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34484908›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2021

Shortcomings of Rapid Clinical Information Dissemination: Lessons From a Pandemic.

K H Vincent Lau, Pria Anand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

K H Vincent LauDepartment of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, MA.
Pria AnandDepartment of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an acceleration of clinical information dissemination to unprecedented speeds, a phenomenon only partially explained by formal efforts of the scientific community. These have ranged from the establishment of open-source platforms for review of article preprints to the elimination of journal paywalls for COVID-19-related publications. In addition, informal efforts that rely on various modern media platforms that promote, repackage, and synthesize information have played substantial adjunctive roles, many of which did not exist during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of 2003. Although these latter efforts have greatly bolstered the speed of knowledge dissemination, their unregulated nature subjects them to risk for facilitating the spread of misinformation. In our opinion, the role of modern media in influencing clinical knowledge dissemination was not adequately examined even before the pandemic and therefore remains largely unchecked. In this article, we examine the spread of information in the field of COVID-19 and neurologic disorders, develop a simple model that maps various modern media tools on to the dissemination pipeline, and critically examine its components. Through this exercise, we identify opportunities for the scientific community to regulate and safeguard the clinical knowledge dissemination process, with implications both for the pandemic and beyond.

Identifiers

PMID34484908
PMCPMC8382378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.