Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on movement that many countries have put in place. Loneliness and social isolation are consistently identified as risk factors for poor mental and physical health in older people. Video calls may help older people stay connected during the current crisis by widening the participant's social circle or by increasing the frequency of contact with existing acquaintances. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this rapid review is to assess the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. The review also sought to address the effectiveness of video calls on reducing symptoms of depression and improving quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 2004 to 7 April 2020. We also searched the references of relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including cluster designs) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded all other study designs. The samples in included studies needed to have a mean age of at least 65 years. We included studies that included participants whether or not they were experiencing symptoms of loneliness or social isolation at baseline. Any intervention in which a core component involved the use of the internet to facilitate video calls or video conferencing through computers, smartphones or tablets with the intention of reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both, in older adults was eligible for inclusion. We included studies in the review if they reported self-report measures of loneliness, social isolation, symptoms of depression or quality of life.  Two review authors screened 25% of abstracts; a third review author resolved conflicts. A single review author screened the remaining abstracts. The second review author screened all excluded abstracts and we resolved conflicts by consensus or by involving a third review author. We followed the same process for full-text articles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data, which another review author checked. The primary outcomes were loneliness and social isolation and the secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and quality of life. One review author rated the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes according to the GRADE approach and another review author checked the ratings. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses for the primary outcome, loneliness, and the secondary outcome, symptoms of depression. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three cluster quasi-randomised trials, which together included 201 participants. The included studies compared video call interventions to usual care in nursing homes. None of these studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Each study measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Total scores range from 20 (least lonely) to 80 (most lonely). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale compared to usual care at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 2.41; 3 studies; 201 participants), at six months (MD -0.34, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.72; 2 studies; 152 participants) and at 12 months (MD -2.40, 95% CI -7.20 to 2.40; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. None of the included studies reported social isolation as an outcome. Each study measured symptoms of depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale. Total scores range from 0 (better) to 30 (worse). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale compared to usual care at three months' follow-up (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.90 to 1.72; 3 studies; 201 participants) or six months' follow-up (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.43 to 0.76; 2 studies, 152 participants). The evidence suggests that video calls may have a small effect on symptoms of depression at one-year follow-up, though this finding is imprecise (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.10; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. Only one study, with 62 participants, reported quality of life. The study measured quality of life using a Taiwanese adaptation of the Short-Form 36-question health survey (SF-36), which consists of eight subscales that measure different aspects of quality of life: physical function; physical role; emotional role; social function; pain: vitality; mental health; and physical health. Each subscale is scored from 0 (poor health) to 100 (good health). The evidence is very uncertain and suggests that there may be little to no difference between people allocated to usual care and those allocated to video calls in three-month scores in physical function (MD 2.88, 95% CI -5.01 to 10.77), physical role (MD -7.66, 95% CI -24.08 to 8.76), emotional role (MD -7.18, 95% CI -16.23 to 1.87), social function (MD 2.77, 95% CI -8.87 to 14.41), pain scores (MD -3.25, 95% CI -15.11 to 8.61), vitality scores (MD -3.60, 95% CI -9.01 to 1.81), mental health (MD 9.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 18.02) and physical health (MD 5.16, 95% CI -2.48 to 12.80). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain. Future research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.