Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34555426›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022

Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19.

Olivier Pierre, Carolina Riveros, Sarah Charpy, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 - the first two years in Germany and beyond.Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors.

Olivier PierreUniversité de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France.
Carolina RiverosUniversité de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France.
Sarah CharpyUniversité de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronUniversité de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France; Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France. Electronic address: isabelle.boutron@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the sensitivity of two secondary electronic sources of COVID-19 studies: 1) the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (https://covid-19.cochrane.org/); and, 2) the Living Overview of the Evidence (L•OVE) COVID-19 platform (https://iloveevidence.com/). STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe identified reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) assessing preventive interventions or treatment for COVID-19. The reference standard comprised all reports included in the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com), in two major living systematic reviews of RCTs assessing pharmacologic treatment of COVID-19, or identified in either of the two secondary sources evaluated. The search for all sources was conducted through September 7, 2020. Our primary outcome was the proportion of the reports included in the reference standard that were identified by each secondary source.

resultsWe identified 680 reports, 91 RCT reports, 97 RCT protocols, and 492 OS reports. The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register identified 88% [95% confidence interval, 79-94] of the RCT reports, 90% [82-95] of the RCT protocols, and 82% [78-85] of the OS reports. The L•OVE platform identified 100% [97-100] of the RCT reports and RCT protocols and 100% [99-100] of the OS reports.

conclusionThese platforms proved to be a viable screening alternative to searching every individual source.

Indexed as

COVID-19ElectronicsHumansAccuracyCOVID-19Meta-analysisSARS-CoV-2SensitivitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34555426
PMCPMC8451522

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.