ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies.
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 20 papers, 3 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drug treatments for mild or moderate covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for the management of long covid (post-covid condition): living systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Pooled 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
- The Phases of Living Evidence Synthesis Using AI AI: Living Evidence Synthesis (Version 1).Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- 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
- Designing, refining and reflecting on 3 years of daily evidence surveillance for Australia's living national COVID-19 guidelines.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review on comparative studies.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2023Review
- The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review (protocol).Open research Europe · 2022Article
- Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol.Open research Europe · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains more than 430,000 articles as of September 20, 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews.
methodsOur sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that was available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search.
resultsWe identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2,132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2,125/2,132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2,057/2,132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomized trials (82/82).
conclusionThe COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes.
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.