Corpus overview


Overview

MeSH Disease

Human Phenotype

Rigors (6)

Anxiety (1)

Falls (1)


Transmission

Seroprevalence

There are no seroprevalence terms in the subcorpus

    displaying 1 - 7 records in total 7
    records per page




    A review of spatial causal inference methods for environmental and epidemiological applications

    Authors: Brian J Reich; Shu Yang; Yawen Guan; Andrew B Giffin; Matthew J Miller; Ana G Rappold

    id:2007.02714v1 Date: 2020-07-06 Source: arXiv

    The scientific rigor HP and computational methods of causal inference have had great impacts on many disciplines, but have only recently begun to take hold in spatial applications. Spatial casual inference poses analytic challenges due to complex correlation structures and interference between the treatment at one location and the outcomes at others. In this paper, we review the current literature on spatial causal inference and identify areas of future work. We first discuss methods that exploit spatial structure to account for unmeasured confounding variables. We then discuss causal analysis in the presence of spatial interference including several common assumptions used to reduce the complexity of the interference patterns under consideration. These methods are extended to the spatiotemporal case where we compare and contrast the potential outcomes framework with Granger causality, and to geostatistical analyses involving spatial random fields of treatments and responses. The methods are introduced in the context of observational environmental and epidemiological studies, and are compared using both a simulation study and analysis of the effect of ambient air pollution on COVID-19 mortality rate. Code to implement many of the methods using the popular Bayesian software OpenBUGS is provided.

    Early COVID-19 Interventions Failed to Replicate St. Louis vs. Philadelphia Outcomes in the United States

    Authors: Aliea M. Jalali; Brent M. Peterson; Thushara Galbadage

    doi:10.1101/2020.07.02.20145367 Date: 2020-07-04 Source: medRxiv

    The Coronavirus disease MESHD 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has elicited an abrupt pause in the United States in multiple sectors of commerce and social activity. As the US faces this health crisis, the magnitude, and rigor HP of their initial public health response was unprecedented. As a response, the entire nation shutdown at the state-level for the duration of approximately one to three months. These public health interventions, however, were not arbitrarily decided, but rather, implemented as a result of evidence-based practices. These practices were a result of lessons learned during the 1918 influenza pandemic and the city-level non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) taken across the US. During the 1918 pandemic, two model cities, St. Louis, MO, and Philadelphia, PA, carried out two different approaches to address the spreading disease TRANS disease MESHD, which resulted in two distinctly different outcomes. Our group has evaluated the state-level public health response adopted by states across the US, with a focus on New York, California, Florida, and Texas, and compared the effectiveness of reducing the spread of COVID-19. Our assessments show that while the states mentioned above benefited from the implementations of early preventative measures, they inadequately replicated the desired outcomes observed in St. Louis during the 1918 crisis. Our study indicates that there are other factors, including health disparities that may influence the effectiveness of public health interventions applied. Identifying more specific health determinants may help implement targeted interventions aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 and improving health equity.

    Methodological Rigor HP in COVID-19 Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Analysis

    Authors: Richard G Jung; Pietro Di Santo; Cole Clifford; Graeme Prosperi-Porta; Stephanie Skanes; Annie Hung; Simon Parlow; Sarah Visintini; F. Daniel Ramirez; Trevor Simard; Benjamin Hibbert

    doi:10.1101/2020.07.02.20145102 Date: 2020-07-03 Source: medRxiv

    Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of reporting of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. Design: A systematic review and case-control analysis Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until May 14, 2020 Study selection: All original clinical literature evaluating COVID-19 or SARS-CoV2 were identified and 1:1 historical control of the same study type in the same published journal was matched from the previous year Data extraction: Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts and independently assessed methodological quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, QUADAS-2 Score, or case series checklist. Results: 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis in which 380 (55.4%) were case series, 199 (29.0%) were cohort, 63 (9.2%) were diagnostic, 38 (5.5%) were case-control, and 6 (0.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Overall, high quality/low-bias studies represented less than half of COVID-19 articles - 49.0% of case series, 43.9% of cohort, 31.6% of case-control, and 6.4% of diagnostic studies. We matched 539 control articles to COVID-19 articles from the same journal in the previous year for a final analysis of 1078 articles. The median time to acceptance was 13.0 (IQR, 5.0-25.0) days in COVID-19 articles vs. 110.0 (IQR, 71.0-156.0) days in control articles (p<0.0001). Overall, methodological quality was lower in COVID-19 articles with 220 COVID-19 articles of high quality (41.0%) vs. 392 control articles (73.3%, p<0.0001) with similar results when stratified by study design. In both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, COVID-19 articles were associated with lower methodological quality (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.33, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Currently published COVID-19 studies were accepted more quickly and were found to be of lower methodological quality than comparative studies published in the same journal. Given the implications of these studies to medical decision making and government policy, greater effort to appropriately weigh the existing evidence in the context of emerging high-quality research is needed. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020187318

    Timeline from receipt to online publication of COVID-19 original research articles

    Authors: Amr F Barakat; Mohamed Shokr; Joseph Ibrahim; John Mandrola; Islam Y Elgendy

    doi:10.1101/2020.06.22.20137653 Date: 2020-06-26 Source: medRxiv

    Objective: To examine the timeline from submission of Coronavirus Disease MESHD 2019 (COVID)-related original articles compared with non-COVID-related original articles. Background: There have been growing concerns about the speed and rigor HP of the review process for COVID-related articles by journals. Methods: Using Dimensions, an online searchable platform, we identified PubMed-indexed journals that published >50 COVID-related articles (regardless of article type) between 1/1/2020 and 5/16/2020 and had available data on the date of article receipt. For the control group, we included consecutive full-length original investigations with available receipt date (regardless of topic) published in these journals starting from 3/1/2019 until a 1:2 ratio of COVID to non-COVID-related articles per journal was achieved. Results: The final number included 294 COVID-related full-length original investigations with available article receipt dates published in 16 journals with corresponding 588 control articles from the same journals. The median time from article receipt to online publication was 20 (11-32) days for COVID-articles vs. 119 (62-182) days for controls (P<0.001). The median time to final acceptance (available for 97% of the articles) was 13 (5-23) days for COVID vs. 102 (55-161) days for controls (P<0.001). These observations were seen across all the included journals in the analysis. Conclusions: In this analysis of full-length original investigations published in 16 medical journals, the median time from receipt to final acceptance of COVID-related articles was 8 times faster compared to non-COVID-related articles published in a similar time frame in the previous year. Online publication was 6 times faster for COVID-related articles compared to controls.

    Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and critical appraisal

    Authors: Tanja A Stamm; Margaret R Andrews; Erika Mosor; Valentin Ritschl; Linda C Li; Jasmin K Ma; Adalberto Campo Arias; Sarah Baker; Nicola W Burton; Mohammad Eghbali; Natalia Fernandez; Ricardo Ferreira; Gabriele Gaebler; Souzi Makri; Sandra Mintz; Rikke Moe; Elizabeth Morasso; Susan L Murphy; Simiso Ntuli; Maisa Omara; Miguel Simancas Pallares; Jen Horonieff; Gerald Gartlehner

    doi:10.1101/2020.06.19.20134767 Date: 2020-06-20 Source: medRxiv

    Background: The number of published clinical practice guidelines and recommendations related to SARS-CoV-2 infections MESHD causing COVID-19 has rapidly increased. However, insufficient consideration of appropriate methodologies in the guideline development could lead to misleading information, uncertainty among professionals, and potentially harmful actions for patients. Purpose: Rapid systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19 to explore if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met. Data sources: MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search; from Feb 1st 2020 until April 27th 2020. Study selection: All types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. Data extraction: At least two reviewers independently extracted guideline characteristics, conducted critical appraisal according to The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE II) and classified the guidelines using the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) Guidance Manual and Rules for Guideline Development. We plan six-month updates (living review). Data synthesis: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor HP of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality, S3 according to AWMF). Patients were only included in the development of one guideline. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Limitations: Methodological focus only. Conclusions: Despite clear scope, most publications fell HP short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Future research should monitor the evolving methodological quality of the guidelines and their updates over time. Registration/Publication: The protocol was published at www.researchgate.net, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21293.51689. Preliminary results are publicly available on medRxiv. Funding Source: This study was partly funded by the COVID-19 Rapid Response Funding Scheme of the Wiener Wissenschafts-, Forschungs- und Technologiefonds (WWTF)/Vienna Science and Technology Fund (project number COV20-028). The funding institution had no influence on the results of this work.

    A Counterfactual Graphical Model Reveals Economic and Sociodemographic Variables as Key Determinants of Country-Wise COVID-19 Burden

    Authors: Tavpritesh Sethi; Saurabh Kedia; Raghav Awasthi; Rakesh Lodha; Vineet Ahuja

    doi:10.1101/2020.06.16.20132563 Date: 2020-06-19 Source: medRxiv

    Importance: Insights into the country-wise differences in COVID-19 burden can impact the policies being developed to control disease MESHD disease spread TRANS spread. Objective: Present study evaluated the possible socio-economic and health related factors (and their temporal consistency) determining the disease MESHD burden of COVID-19. Design: A retrospective analysis for identifying associations of COVID-19 burden. Setting: Data on COVID-19 statistics (number of cases, tests and deaths MESHD per million) was extracted from the website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ on 10th April and 12th May. Variables obtained to estimate the possible determinants for COVID-19 burden included economic- gross domestic product; socio-demographic- Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs indicators related to health systems, percentage Chinese diaspora; and COVID-19 trajectory- date of first case in each country, days between first reported case and 10th April, days between 100th and 1000th case, and government response stringency index (GRSI). Main outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 burden was modeled using economic and socio-demographic determinants. Consistency of inferences for two time points at three levels of increasing statistical rigor HP using (i) Spearman correlations, (ii) Bayesian probabilistic graphical model, and (iii) counterfactual impact was evaluated. Results: Countries economy (reflected by GDP), mainly through the testing rates, was the major and temporally consistent determinant of COVID-19 burden in the model. Reproduction number TRANS of COVID-19 was lower where mortality due to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) was higher, thus strengthening the hygiene hypothesis. There was no association between vaccination status or tuberculosis MESHD incidence and COVID burden, refuting the claims over BCG vaccination as a possible factor against COVID-19 trajectory. Conclusion and Relevance: Countries economy, through testing power, was the major determinant of COVID-19 burden. There was weak evidence for hygiene hypothesis as a protective factor against COVID-19.

    BCG protects against COVID-19? A word of caution

    Authors: Reka Szigeti; Domos Kellermayer; Richard Kellermayer

    doi:10.1101/2020.04.09.20056903 Date: 2020-04-11 Source: medRxiv

    The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by type 2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome MESHD Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), puts all of us to the test. Epidemiologic observations could critically aid the development of protective measures to combat this devastating viral outbreak. A recent publication, linked nation based universal Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination to potential protection against morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2, and received much attention in public media, even before its peer review. We wished to validate the findings by examining the association between daily rates of COVID-19 case fatality (i.e. Death MESHD Per Case /Days of the endemic [dpc/d]) and the presence of universal BCG vaccination before 1980, or the year of the establishment of universal vaccination. There was no significant association in either analysis. In this work we emphasize caution amidst the publication surge on COVID-19, and highlight the political/economical-, arbitrary selection-, and fear/ anxiety HP related biases, which may obscure scientific rigor HP. It is underscored that physical (social) distancing (i.e. quarantine) and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are the only epidemiologic measures (Iceland being a great example, where universal BCG vaccination policy was never in place), which consistently associate with successful counteraction of morbidity and mortality during the pandemic.

The ZB MED preprint Viewer preVIEW includes all COVID-19 related preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv, from ChemRxiv, from ResearchSquare, from arXiv and from Preprints.org and is updated on a daily basis (7am CET/CEST).

Sources


Annotations

All
None
MeSH Disease
Human Phenotype
Transmission
Seroprevalence


Export subcorpus as Endnote

This service is developed in the project nfdi4health task force covid-19 which is a part of nfdi4health.

nfdi4health is one of the funded consortia of the National Research Data Infrastructure programme of the DFG.