The effect of COVID-19 on critical care research during the first year of the pandemic: A prospective longitudinal multinational survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Importance The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for high-quality evidence in critical care, while also increasing the barriers to conducting the research needed to produce such evidence. Objective To determine the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care clinical research. Design Monthly electronic survey (March 2020 - February 2021). Setting Adult or pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) from any country participating in at least one research study before the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants We recruited one researcher or research coordinator per center, identified via established research networks. Intervention(s) None Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Primary: Suspending recruitment in clinical research; Secondary: impact of specific factors on research conduct (5-point scales from no effect to very large effect). We assessed the association between research continuity and month, presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and population (pediatric vs. adult ICU) using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results 127 centers (57% pediatric) from 23 countries participated. 95 (75%) of centers suspended recruitment in at least some studies and 37 (29%) suspended recruitment in all studies on at least one month. The proportion of centers reporting recruitment in all studies increased over time (OR per month 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4, p < 0.001), controlling for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and type of ICU (pediatric vs. other). The five factors most frequently identified as having a large or very large effect on clinical research were: local prioritization of COVID-19 specific research (68, 54%), infection control policies limiting access to patients with COVID-19 (61, 49%), infection control policies limiting access to the ICU (52, 41.6%), increased workload of clinical staff (38, 30%), and safety concerns of research staff (36, 29%). Conclusions and Relevance Decisions to pause or pursue clinical research varied across centers. Research activity increased over time, despite the presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Guiding principles with local adaptation to safely sustain research during this and future pandemics are urgently needed. Key Points Question What was the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on research in 127 adult and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and February 2021? Findings 95 (75%) centers suspended recruitment into at least some studies. Active recruitment into studies increased over time (OR per month 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4, p < 0.001), controlling for ICU type and the presence of patients with COVID-19. Meaning Research activity varied across centers and increased over time, despite the presence of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Guiding principles to safely sustain research during this and future pandemics are urgently needed.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,041 | 0,069 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».