ABSTRACT
PurposeTo assess the trustworthiness and impact of preprint trial reports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data sourcesWHO COVID-19 database and the L-OVE COVID-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to August 3rd, 2021) DesignWe compare the characteristics of COVID-19 trials with and without preprints, estimate time to publication of COVID-19 preprint reports, describe discrepancies in key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports, report the number of retracted preprints and publications, and assess whether including versus excluding preprint reports affects meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence. For the effects of eight therapies on mortality and mechanical ventilation, we performed meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the first trial addressing the therapy became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total). ResultsWe included 356 trials, 101 of which are only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. Half of all preprints remain unpublished at six months and a third at one year. There were few important differences in key methods and results between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. We identified four retracted trials, three of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. With two exceptions (2/60; 3.3%), point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including versus excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. There were nine comparisons (9/60; 15%) for which the rating of the certainty of evidence differed when preprints were included versus excluded, for four of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher and for five of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was lower. LimitationsThe generalizability of our results is limited to COVID-19. Preprints that are subsequently published in journals may be the most rigorous and may not represent all trial preprints. ConclusionWe found no compelling evidence that preprints provide less trustworthy results than published papers. We show that preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months, a length of time that is unacceptable in a health emergency. We show that including preprints may affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. We encourage evidence users to consider data from preprints in contexts in which decisions are being made rapidly and evidence is being produced faster than can be peer-reviewed. O_TEXTBOXSummary Box 1O_ST_ABSWhat is already known on this topicC_ST_ABSO_LIClinicians and decision-makers need rapidly available and credible data addressing the comparative effectiveness of treatments and prophylaxis for COVID-19. C_LIO_LIInvestigators have adopted preprint servers, which allow the rapid dissemination of research findings before publication in peer-reviewed journals. C_LI What this study addsO_LIWe found no compelling evidence that preprints provide less trustworthy results than published papers. C_LIO_LIWe show that including preprints may affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence and we encourage evidence users to consider data from preprints in contexts in which decisions are being made rapidly and evidence is being produced faster than can be peer-reviewed. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWhile it is well-known that older individuals with certain comorbidities are at highest risk for complications related to COVID-19 including hospitalization and death, we lack tools to identify communities at highest risk with fine-grained spatial and temporal resolution. Information collected at a county level obscures local risk and complex interactions between clinical comorbidities, the built environment, population factors, and other social determinants of health. MethodsWe develop a robust COVID-19 Community Risk Score (C-19 Risk Score) that summarizes the complex disease co-occurrences for individual census tracts with unsupervised learning, selected on their basis for association with risk for COVID complications, such as death. We mapped the C-19 Risk Score onto neighborhoods in New York City and associated the score with C-19 related death. We further predict the C-19 Risk Score using satellite imagery data to map the built environment in C-19 Risk. ResultsThe C-19 Risk Score describes 85% of variation in co-occurrence of 15 diseases that are risk factors for COVID complications among 26K census tract neighborhoods (median population size of tracts: 4,091). The C-19 Risk Score is associated with a 40% greater risk for COVID-19 related death across NYC (April and September 2020) for a 1SD change in the score (Risk Ratio for 1SD change in C19 Risk Score: 1.4, p < .001). Satellite imagery coupled with social determinants of health explain nearly 90% of the variance in the C-19 Risk Score in the United States in held-out census tracts (R2 of 0.87). ConclusionsThe C-19 Risk Score localizes COVID-19 risk at the census tract level and predicts COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority communities across the United States. We sought to disentangle individual and census tract-level sociodemographic and economic factors associated with these disparities. Methods and FindingsAll adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 1 and June 21, 2020 were geocoded to a census tract based on their address; hospital employees and individuals with invalid addresses were excluded. Individual (age, sex, race/ethnicity, preferred language, insurance) and census tract-level (demographics, insurance, income, education, employment, occupation, household crowding and occupancy, built home environment, and transportation) variables were analyzed using linear mixed models predicting infection, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2. Among 57,865 individuals, per capita testing rates, individual (older age, male sex, non-White race, non-English preferred language, and non-private insurance), and census tract-level (increased population density, higher household occupancy, and lower education) measures were associated with likelihood of infection. Among those infected, individual age, sex, race, language, and insurance, and census tract-level measures of lower education, more multi-family homes, and extreme household crowding were associated with increased likelihood of hospitalization, while higher per capita testing rates were associated with decreased likelihood. Only individual-level variables (older age, male sex, Medicare insurance) were associated with increased mortality among those hospitalized. ConclusionsThis study of the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a major U.S. city presents the cascade of outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection within a large, multi-ethnic cohort. SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization rates, but not death rates among those hospitalized, are related to census tract-level socioeconomic characteristics including lower educational attainment and higher household crowding and occupancy, but not neighborhood measures of race, independent of individual factors.
