COVID-19 and the future of clinical epidemiology

Armstrong, Katrina; Horwitz, Ralph I.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.07.009

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This problem is not specific to rehabilitation and reported across many areas of coVid-19 biomedical research. 37 for example, honarmand et al 38 showed that 82.4% of trials had high or probably high risk of bias, 82.4% due to deviations from the intended intervention (including blinding) and 52.7% due to the randomization process (including allocation concealment and adequacy of the randomization procedure). the consequences are a production of low-quality evidence, which may be uninformative at best and may cause harm to patients.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021

Ceravolo

Andrenelli

Arienti

et al. 2021

Eur J Phys Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

introduction: this paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with coVid-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment. EVidEncE acQuisition: studies published from May 1 st to June 30 th , 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. papers were categorized according to study design, research question, coVid-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. from this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna briggs institute checklists for observational studies and the cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (rcts). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. all study participants were coVid survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after coVid-19 onset. the most frequent risks of bias for rcts concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis. conclusions: Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in co-VID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More rcts and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.

show abstract

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021

Ceravolo

Andrenelli

Arienti

et al. 2021

Eur J Phys Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An effectiveness evaluation of a community-based course for medical students: a randomized controlled trial in the teaching of epidemiology

Zhang,

Huang,

Tang

et al. 2023

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Epidemiology is considered to be the fundamental science of public health and plays an important role in clinical competence and professional development. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a short-term course for the teaching of epidemiology, which was designed as a community-based class for medical students. Method This course was designed according to Kern’s six-step approach to curriculum development. A total of 75 undergraduates were recruited. Forty-one students were assigned to an experimental group engaged in theoretical teaching and practical courses, while 34 students were assigned to the control group only taking theoretical courses. All participants were asked to complete a pre- and post-course survey and to take a test after completing the course. The scores between the experimental and control groups were compared using the Wilcoxon test. Result The experimental group showed significantly higher self-assessment scores in course understanding (p = 0.0126) and clinical practice skills (p = 0.0005) after completing the course, while no significant difference was observed in the control group. In addition, students in the experimental group reported significantly higher interest (p = 0.0015), stronger learning motivation (p = 0.0113) and a better mastery of epidemiology (p = 0.0167) after completing the course than those in the control group. However, test scores (p = 0.0859) and pass rates (p = 0.1755) demonstrated no statistical significance between the two groups. Conclusion The short-term practical course in epidemiology exerted significantly positive effects on the improvement of student learning enthusiasm, course understanding and clinical practice skills. These findings provide new ideas and statistical evidence for the development of epidemiological instruction. Future studies should explore how to more widely and optimally apply community-based courses to the teaching of epidemiology.

show abstract

COVID-19 and the future of clinical epidemiology

Cited by 2 publications

References 23 publications

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021

An effectiveness evaluation of a community-based course for medical students: a randomized controlled trial in the teaching of epidemiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About