The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications

Butcher, Robyn; Sampson, Margaret; Couban, Rachel; Malin, James Edward; Loree, Sara; Brody, Stacy

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.006

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 14 , 90 The L·OVE COVID-19 platform was characterized with real-time updating of COVID-19 studies, Pierre et al and Butcher et al demonstrated that the L·OVE COVID-19 platform had a very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19. 89 , 91 To improve work efficiency, LSR for COVID-19 should search a comprehensive database of COVID-19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding to the elevated time consumption for research of COVID-19, the establishment of COVID-19 Comprehensive Database became increasingly important in the development of LSRs. 7,12,[87][88][89] The L•OVE Clinical Epidemiology 2022:14 https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S367339 DovePress 929 COVID-19 platform, which obtained information from the Epistemonikos database and used artificial intelligence and expert opinions, integrates the information and releases the heavy workload on data search and organization for the researcher. 14,90 The L•OVE COVID-19 platform was characterized with real-time updating of COVID-19 studies, Pierre et al and Butcher et al demonstrated that the L•OVE COVID-19 platform had a very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Chen¹,

Luo²,

Li³

et al. 2022

CLEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. Results Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. Conclusion Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Chen¹,

Luo²,

Li³

et al. 2022

CLEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implementation should be feasible, at least with the freely available sources, such as PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, assuming appropriate application programming interfac s (APIs) are in place. In addition, specialised databases such as the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and Epistemonikos’ L·OVE platform25 26 have helped to reduce sources to be searched when identifying evidence during the pandemic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews

Metzendorf

Weibel

Reis

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.

show abstract

“…We searched for publications to 1 September 2022 in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register 7 and the WHO COVID‐19 research database 8 . The two databases are living data repositories, regularly updated by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint servers, and several other databases 9,10 using specific search strategies developed by information science specialists 7,8 . We report our review according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines 11 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID‐19 rapid antigen tests approved for self‐testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer‐supplied information. A systematic review

Bell,

Li,

Medcalf

et al. 2023

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self‐testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers.Study designSystematic review of publications in any language that reported cross‐sectional, case–control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self‐collected biological samples with a TGA‐approved COVID‐19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website.Data sourcesPublications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID‐19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website.Data synthesisTwelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self‐testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V‐Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V‐Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9–100%).ConclusionsThe risk of false negative results when using COVID‐19 RATs for self‐testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

show abstract

The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews

COVID‐19 rapid antigen tests approved for self‐testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer‐supplied information. A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About