Will research preprints improve healthcare for patients?

Krumholz, Harlan M.; Ross, Joseph S.; Otto, Catherine M.

doi:10.1136/bmj.k3628

Cited by 27 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But there have been concerns about providing public access to preliminary clinical research 456. Might it result in more health scares or harm to individual patients?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New preprint server for medical research

Rawlinson¹,

Bloom²

2019

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But there have been concerns about providing public access to preliminary clinical research 456. Might it result in more health scares or harm to individual patients?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harlan Krumholz and Joseph Ross, clinician-researchers at Yale, have long been advocates of preprints,4 while Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory operates the bioRxiv life sciences preprint server. BMJ brings its long experience of publishing and review of clinical research, researching the effects of changes in publishing,11 and publication ethics 12…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

New preprint server for medical research

Rawlinson¹,

Bloom²

2019

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of them were of inferior methodological merit and low reporting quality, as discussed before. 30,38,39 This observation is concerning, and calls for more collaborative efforts in the efficient review and timely dissemination of studies on COVID-19.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations of Stay-at-Home Order and Face-Masking Recommendation with Trends in Daily New Cases and Deaths of Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 in the United States

Xu¹,

Hussain²,

Lu³

et al. 2020

Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: Public health interventions have reduced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in several countries, but their impacts on COVID-19 epidemics in the USA are unclear. We examined associations of stay-at-home order (SAHO) and face-masking recommendation with COVID-19 epidemics in the USA. Methods: In this quasi-experimental interrupted time-series study, we modeled temporal trends in daily new cases and deaths of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, and COVID-19 time-varying reproduction numbers in the USA between March 1 and April 20, 2020. In addition, we conducted simulation analyses. Results: The number of residents under SAHO increased since March 19 and plateaued at 290,829,980 (88.6% of the U.S. population) on April 7. Trends in COVID-19 time-varying reproduction numbers peaked on March 23, further reduced on April 3, and fell below/around 1.0 on April 13. Early-implementation and early-lift of SAHO would reduce and increase COVID-19 epidemics, respectively. Multivariable piecewise log-linear regression revealed the states' neighboring relationship with New York was linked to COVID-19 daily new cases and deaths. There were two turning points in daily new-case trend, being March 28 (slope-changes = −0.09) and April 3 (slope-changes = −0.09), which appeared to be associated with implementation of SAHO on March 28 (affecting 48.5% of the US population in 22 states and District of Columbia), and face-masking recommendation on April 3, respectively. There were also two turning points in daily new-death trend, being April 9 (slope-changes = −0.06) and April 19 (slope-changes = −0.90). Conclusions: We identified two turning points of COVID-19 daily new cases or deaths in the USA, which seem to

show abstract

“…Spin is "Peer review grounds the public trust in the scientific and medical research enterprise…" EDITORIAL a well known, unfortunately common, and often insidious bias in the presentation and interpretation of results that seeks to convince readers that the beneficial effect of an experimental treatment exceeds what has actually been found or that minimizes untoward effects. [2][3][4] Manuscripts often change substantially between the initial submission and the revised and improved published version. Improvement during the peer review process is not apparent to readers, who only see the final, published article, but is well known to authors, reviewers, and editors.…”

Section: The Peer Review Imperativementioning

confidence: 99%