MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3017796721 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30086-8

A real-time dashboard of clinical trials for COVID-19

2020· letter· en· W3017796721 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2020
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLopinavirHydroxychloroquineMedicineFavipiravirRitonavirClinical trialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Randomized controlled trialLopinavir/ritonavirInternal medicineVirologyViral loadDiseaseHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency, clinical trial research assessing the efficacy and safety of clinical candidate interventions to treat COVID-19 are emerging at an unprecedented rate. As of April 21, 2020, well over 500 clinical trials have been registered at the various international and national clinical trial registry sites. Findings from randomised clinical trials that have been published as of April 21, 2020, have investigated the efficacy of lopinavir–ritonavir compared with standard of care,1Cao B Wang Y Wen D et al.A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19.N Engl J Med. 2020; (published online March 18.)DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2001282Crossref Scopus (3870) Google Scholar hydroxychloroquine compared with best supportive care,2Chen J Liu L Liu P et al.A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with common coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).J Zhejiang Univ (Med Sci). 2020; (published onlne March 6.)DOI:10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03Google Scholar favipiravir compared with arbidol,3Chen C Huang J Yin P et al.Favipiravir versus arbidol for COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.medRxiv. 2020; (published onine April 8.) (preprint)DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20037432Google Scholar and lopinavir–ritonavir compared with arbidol.4Yao X Ye F Zhang M et al.In vitro antiviral activity and projection of optimized dosing design of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Clin Infect Dis. 2020; (published online March 9.)DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa237Crossref Scopus (1958) Google Scholar Other non-randomised trials have investigated hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin.5Gautret P Lagier JC Parola P et al.Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020; (published online March 20.)DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949Crossref PubMed Scopus (3763) Google Scholar Over 300 trials are enrolling participants and cover further investigations of the above drugs and promising therapies such as remdesivir, IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab), convalescent plasma therapy, stem-cell transfusion, vaccine candidates, several other well known direct acting antiv irals, and traditional Chinese medicines. Most of these trials will offer comparative efficacy data versus standard of care according to local COVID-19 treatment guidelines, but a handful of randomised controlled trials will also provide head-to-head evidence between high profile interventions. The figure shows the network of completed, ongoing, and planned COVID-19 interventional clinical trials of these interventions or intervention groups that are being explored in at least two trials. Given the accelerated rate at which trial information and findings are emerging, an urgent need exists to track clinical trials, avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, and understand what trials are being done and where. In response, we have developed a COVID-19 clinical trials registry to collate all trials. Data are pulled from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, including those from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Research Information Service - Republic of Korea, EU Clinical Trials Register, ISRCTN, Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, Japan Primary Registries Network, and German Clinical Trials Register. Both automated and manual searches are done to ensure minimisation of duplicated entries and for appropriateness to the research questions. Identified studies are then manually reviewed by two separate reviewers before being entered into the registry. Concurrently, we have developed artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for data searches to identify potential clinical studies not captured in trial registries. These methods provide estimates of the likelihood of importance of a study being included in our database, such that the study can then be reviewed manually for inclusion. Use of AI-based methods saves 50–80% of the time required to manually review all entries without loss of accuracy. Finally, we will use content aggregator services, such as LitCovid, to ensure our data acquisition strategy is complete. With this three-step process, the probability of missing important publications is greatly diminished and so the resulting data are representative of global COVID-19 research efforts. Trials for COVID-19 are then mapped according to geographical, trial, patient, and intervention characteristics, when these data are available. These data are stored securely in a backend database and outputs are visualised on a front-end feature. As trial findings are communicated, these data must be centralised and meta-analysed in real-time. Syntheses of these trials are urgently needed to assist clinicians, researchers, and policy makers to make evidence-informed decisions to minimise the morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. We declare no competing interests.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,452
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,436
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,452
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,522
Tête enseignante GPT0,608
Écart entre enseignants0,086 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle