Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.159
Filter
1.
Nat Hum Behav ; 5(4): 409, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20238525
5.
Nat Rev Microbiol ; 21(3): 133-146, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20234637

ABSTRACT

Long COVID is an often debilitating illness that occurs in at least 10% of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. More than 200 symptoms have been identified with impacts on multiple organ systems. At least 65 million individuals worldwide are estimated to have long COVID, with cases increasing daily. Biomedical research has made substantial progress in identifying various pathophysiological changes and risk factors and in characterizing the illness; further, similarities with other viral-onset illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome have laid the groundwork for research in the field. In this Review, we explore the current literature and highlight key findings, the overlap with other conditions, the variable onset of symptoms, long COVID in children and the impact of vaccinations. Although these key findings are critical to understanding long COVID, current diagnostic and treatment options are insufficient, and clinical trials must be prioritized that address leading hypotheses. Additionally, to strengthen long COVID research, future studies must account for biases and SARS-CoV-2 testing issues, build on viral-onset research, be inclusive of marginalized populations and meaningfully engage patients throughout the research process.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Child , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , COVID-19 Testing
6.
BMJ Evid Based Med ; 28(3): 144-147, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2325777
7.
Eur J Emerg Med ; 30(3): 157-158, 2023 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2322760
9.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 21(1): 33, 2023 May 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318462

ABSTRACT

Despite the high burden of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), less than 25% of those in need have access to appropriate services, in part due to a scarcity of locally relevant, evidence-based interventions and models of care. To address this gap, researchers from India and the United States and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) collaboratively developed a "Grantathon" model to provide mentored research training to 24 new principal investigators (PIs). This included a week-long didactic training, a customized web-based data entry/analysis system and a National Coordination Unit (NCU) to support PIs and track process objectives. Outcome objectives were assessed via scholarly output including publications, awards received and subsequent grants that were leveraged. Multiple mentorship strategies including collaborative problem-solving approaches were used to foster single-centre and multicentre research. Flexible, approachable and engaged support from mentors helped PIs overcome research barriers, and the NCU addressed local policy and day-to-day challenges through informal monthly review meetings. Bi-annual formal review presentations by all PIs continued through the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling interim results reporting and scientific review, also serving to reinforce accountability. To date, more than 33 publications, 47 scientific presentations, 12 awards, two measurement tools, five intervention manuals and eight research grants have been generated in an open-access environment. The Grantathon is a successful model for building research capacity and improving mental health research in India that could be adopted for use in other LMICs.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans , United States , Mentors , Pandemics , Biomedical Research/education , Mental Health
10.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(9)2023 05 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317446

ABSTRACT

The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (SETH) study evaluates the value of adding Developmental Network to Coaching in the career advancement of diverse Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs). Focused NIH-formatted Mock Reviewing Sessions (MRS) prior to the submission of grants can significantly enhance the scientific merits of an ESI's grant application. We evaluated the most prevalent design, analysis-related factors, and the likelihood of grant submissions and awards associated with going through MRS, using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and logistic regression methods. A total of 62 out of 234 applications went through the MRS. There were 69.4% that pursued R grants, 22.6% career development (K) awards, and 8.0% other grant mechanisms. Comparing applications that underwent MRS versus those that did not (N = 172), 67.7% vs. 38.4% were submitted for funding (i.e., unadjusted difference of 29.3%; OR = 4.8, 95% CI = (2.4, 9.8), p-value < 0.0001). This indicates that, relative to those who did not undergo MRS, ESIs who did, were 4.8 times as likely to submit an application for funding. Also, ESIs in earlier cohorts (1-2) (a period that coincided with the pre COVID-19 era) as compared to those who were recruited at later cohorts (3-4) (i.e., during the peak of COVID-19 period) were 3.8 times as likely to submit grants (p-value < 0.0001). The most prevalent issues that were identified included insufficient statistical design considerations and plans (75%), conceptual framework (28.3%), specific aims (11.7%), evidence of significance (3.3%), and innovation (3.3%). MRS potentially enhances grant submissions for extramural funding and offers constructive feedback allowing for modifications that enhance the scientific merits of research grants.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Health Equity , Mentoring , Humans , United States , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mentors
12.
Trials ; 23(1): 458, 2022 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318220

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper 'The scandal of poor medical research' was that he used the word 'poor' rather than 'bad'. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things? MAIN TEXT: We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5). CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs - at the centre of our science.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Research Personnel , Emotions , Humans , Male , Research Design , Reward
15.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(7)2023 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2297552

ABSTRACT

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized numerous industries, including medicine. In recent years, the integration of AI into medical practices has shown great promise in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosing diseases, predicting patient outcomes, and personalizing treatment plans. This paper aims at the exploration of the AI-based medicine research using network approach and analysis of existing trends based on PubMed. Our findings are based on the results of PubMed search queries and analysis of the number of papers obtained by the different search queries. Our goal is to explore how are the AI-based methods used in healthcare research, which approaches and techniques are the most popular, and to discuss the potential reasoning behind the obtained results. Using analysis of the co-occurrence network constructed using VOSviewer software, we detected the main clusters of interest in AI-based healthcare research. Then, we proceeded with the thorough analysis of publication activity in various categories of medical AI research, including research on different AI-based methods applied to different types of medical data. We analyzed the results of query processing in the PubMed database over the past 5 years obtained via a specifically designed strategy for generating search queries based on the thorough selection of keywords from different categories of interest. We provide a comprehensive analysis of existing applications of AI-based methods to medical data of different modalities, including the context of various medical fields and specific diseases that carry the greatest danger to the human population.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Medicine , Humans , Artificial Intelligence , Health Services Research , Software
18.
BMC Bioinformatics ; 24(1): 159, 2023 Apr 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2292880

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Biomedical researchers are strongly encouraged to make their research outputs more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). While many biomedical research outputs are more readily accessible through open data efforts, finding relevant outputs remains a significant challenge. Schema.org is a metadata vocabulary standardization project that enables web content creators to make their content more FAIR. Leveraging Schema.org could benefit biomedical research resource providers, but it can be challenging to apply Schema.org standards to biomedical research outputs. We created an online browser-based tool that empowers researchers and repository developers to utilize Schema.org or other biomedical schema projects. RESULTS: Our browser-based tool includes features which can help address many of the barriers towards Schema.org-compliance such as: The ability to easily browse for relevant Schema.org classes, the ability to extend and customize a class to be more suitable for biomedical research outputs, the ability to create data validation to ensure adherence of a research output to a customized class, and the ability to register a custom class to our schema registry enabling others to search and re-use it. We demonstrate the use of our tool with the creation of the Outbreak.info schema-a large multi-class schema for harmonizing various COVID-19 related resources. CONCLUSIONS: We have created a browser-based tool to empower biomedical research resource providers to leverage Schema.org classes to make their research outputs more FAIR.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans , Metadata
19.
Panminerva Med ; 64(2): 244-252, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302777

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are imperative infrastructures, particularly during outbreaks, when there is an obligation to acquire and share knowledge as quick as possible to allow for implementation of science-based preventive, diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies. METHODS: We established a COVID-19 biobank with the aim of collecting high-quality and well-annotated human biospecimens, in the effort to understand the pathogenic mechanisms underlying COVID-19 and identify therapeutic targets (COVID-BioB, NCT04318366). Here we describe our experience and briefly review the characteristics of the biobanks for COVID-19 that have been so far established. RESULTS: A total of 46,677 samples have been collected from 913 participants (63.3% males, median [IQR] age 62.2 [51.2-74.0] years) since the beginning of the program. Most patients (66.9%) had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19, with a median length of stay of 15.0 (9.0-27.0) days. A minority of patients (13.3% of the total) had been admitted for other reasons and subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The remainder were managed at home after being seen at the Emergency Department. CONCLUSIONS: Having a solid research infrastructure already in place, along with flexibility and adaptability to new requirements, allowed for the quick building of a COVID-19 biobank that will help expand and share the knowledge of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Biological Specimen Banks , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL