ABSTRACT
Objectives: This study examines the conduct of systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, including compliance to protocol registration and duplication of reviews on similar topics. The methodological and reporting quality were also explored. Methods: A cross-sectional, bibliometric study was undertaken of all systematic review manuscripts on a COVID-19 intervention published between January 1st and June 30th, 2020. Protocol registration on a publicly accessible database was recorded. Duplication was determined by systematically recording the number of reviews published on each topic of analysis. Methodological quality and reporting quality were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009 instruments, respectively. Results: Thirty-one eligible systematic reviews were identified during the inclusion period. The protocol of only four (12.9%) studies was registered on a publicly accessible database. Duplication was frequent, with 15 (48.4%) of the 31 included studies focusing on either hydroxychloroquine (and/or chloroquine) or corticosteroids. Only one study (3.2%) was of "high" methodological quality, four (12.9%) were "low" quality, and the remainder (n = 26, 83.9%) were of "critically low" quality. The median completeness of reporting was 20 out of 27 items (74.1%) with a range of 5-26 (interquartile range: 14-23). Conclusion: Systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were uncommonly registered, frequently duplicated, and mostly of low methodological quality. In contrast, the reporting quality of manuscripts was generally good but varied substantially across published reports. There is a need for heightened stewardship of systematic review research, particularly during times of medical crisis where the generation of primary evidence may be rapid and unstable.
ABSTRACT
The SARS-CoV-2 can lead to severe illness with COVID-19. Outcomes of patients requiring mechanical ventilation are poor. Awake proning in COVID-19 improves oxygenation, but on data clinical outcomes is limited. This single-centre retrospective study aimed to assess whether successful awake proning of patients with COVID-19, requiring respiratory support (continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO)) on a respiratory high-dependency unit (HDU), is associated with improved outcomes. HDU care included awake proning by respiratory physiotherapists. Of 565 patients admitted with COVID-19, 71 (12.6%) were managed on the respiratory HDU, with 48 of these (67.6%) requiring respiratory support. Patients managed with CPAP alone 22/48 (45.8%) were significantly less likely to die than patients who required transfer onto HFNO 26/48 (54.2%): CPAP mortality 36.4%; HFNO mortality 69.2%, (p=0.023); however, multivariate analysis demonstrated that increasing age and the inability to awake prone were the only independent predictors of COVID-19 mortality. The mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support is considerable. Data from our cohort managed on HDU show that CPAP and awake proning are possible in a selected population of COVID-19, and may be useful. Further prospective studies are required.
Subject(s)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Patient Positioning/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prone Position , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Odds Ratio , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , WakefulnessABSTRACT
This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission-to-acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher-responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance-to-publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety-eight of 2,835 COVID-19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID-19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission-to-acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3-11) versus 71.5 days (38-106); P < .001] and acceptance-to-publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2-8) versus 22.5 days (4-48·5-; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID-19. Almost all COVID-19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open-access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID-19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one-in-four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement. Key points: COVID-19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID-19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision-making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID-19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.The majority of both COVID-19 and MERS articles are available open-access.