ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2022
Evidence in decision-making in the context of COVID-19 in Latin America.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- COVID-19 kit distribution in six Latin American countries: bureaucratic autonomy, populism, and evidence-based policymaking.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Mechanisms to enhance the use of living evidence syntheses in health policy: Reflections from key informants globally.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Integrating AI Into Governmental Public Health Decision Making: Challenges, Considerations, and a Path Forward.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Components and methodology of evidence briefs for policy: the need for evaluation tools.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Rapid assessment of the factors contributing to the increase in maternal mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Latin American region.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Understanding the Determinants That Influence the Development and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines During Health Emergencies: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on azithromycin, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin outpatient consumption in Brazil: a joinpoint regression analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- 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
- Implications of living evidence syntheses in health policy.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024Article
- Updated Surveillance Metrics and History of the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023) in Latin America and the Caribbean: Longitudinal Trend Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 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
- Systematic documentation of the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America and the Caribbean.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Article
- [Interinstitutional Command Mexico: organizational decision-making in the face of COVID-19].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 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
Background: The pace of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to the evidence-to-decision process. Latin American countries have responded to COVID-19 by introducing interventions to both mitigate the risk of infection and to treat cases. Understanding how evidence is used to inform government-level decision-making at a national scale is crucial for informing country and regional actors in ongoing response efforts. Objectives: This study was undertaken between February-May 2021 and aims to characterise the best available evidence (BAE) and assess the extent to which it was used to inform decision-making in 21 Latin American countries, in relation to pharmaceutical (PI) and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) related to COVID-19, including the use of therapeutics (corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and ivermectin), facemask use in the community setting and the use of diagnostic tests as a requirement for international travel. Method: A three-phase methodology was used to; ( Findings: The BAE is characterized by 17 living and non-living systematic reviews as evolving, and particularly uncertain for NPIs. 107 country-level documents show variation in both content and timing of decision outcomes across intervention types, with the majority of decisions taken at a time of evidence uncertainty, with only 5 documents including BAE. Seven out of eight key indicators of an evidence-to-decision process were identified more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or testing prior to travel. Overall evidence use was reported more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or travel testing (92%, 28% and 29%, respectively). Interpretation: There are limitations in the extent to which evidence use in decision-making is reported across the Latin America region. Institutionalising this process and grounding it in existing and emerging methodologies can facilitate the rapid response in an emergency setting. Funding: No funding was sourced for this work.
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.