ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications.
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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Pooled it
- Antiviral drug treatment for nonsevere COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Pooled it
- Delivering rapid, up-to-date, high-quality evidence is feasible during health emergencies: PAHO living systematic review of 305 COVID-19 potential therapeutics.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- The NICE search filters for treating and managing COVID-19: validation in MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid).Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- The effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
- Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSeveral specialized collections of COVID-19 literature have been developed during the global health emergency. These include the WHO COVID-19 Global Literature Database, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CAMARADES COVID-19 SOLES, Epistemonikos' COVID-19 L-OVE, and LitCovid. Our objective was to evaluate the completeness of these collections and to measure the time from when COVID-19 articles are posted to when they appear in the collections. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe tested each selected collection for the presence of 440 included studies from 25 COVID-19 systematic reviews. We sampled 112 journals and prospectively monitored their websites until a new COVID-19 article appeared. We then monitored for 2 weeks to see when the new articles appeared in each collection. PubMed served as a comparator.
resultsEvery collection provided at least one record not found in PubMed. Four records (1%) were not in any of the sources studied. Collections contained between 83% and 93% of the primary studies with the WHO database being the most complete. By 2 weeks, between 60% and 78% of tracked articles had appeared.
conclusionOur findings support the use of the best performing COVID-19 collections by systematic reviews to replace paywalled databases.
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.