MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082758886 · doi:10.1186/s40779-020-00270-8

Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version)

2020· article· en· W3082758886 on OpenAlexaff
Yinghui Jin, Qingyuan Zhan, Zhiyong Peng, Xuequn Ren, Xuntao Yin, Lin Cai, Yufeng Yuan, Jirong Yue, Xiaochun Zhang, Qiwen Yang, Jianguang Ji, Jian‐Chuan Xia, Yirong Li, Fuxiang Zhou, Yadong Gao, Zhui Yu, Feng Xu, TU Ming-li, Liming Tan, Min Yang, Fang Chen, Xiaoju Zhang, Mei Zeng, Yu Zhu, Xincan Liu, Jian Yang, Dongchi Zhao, Yufeng Ding, Ning Hou, Xinghuan Wang, Hao Chen, Yonggang Zhang, Wei Li, Wen Chen, Yuexian Shi, Xiuzhi Yang, Xuejun Wang, Yanjun Zhong, Ming-Juan Zhao, Binghui Li, Linlu Ma, Hao Zi, Na Wang, Shaofu Yu, Luyao Li, Qiao Huang, Hong Weng, Xiangying Ren, Man-Ru Fan, Di Huang, Hongyang Xue, Lin-Xin Yu, Jin-Ping Gao, Tong Deng, Xian‐Tao Zeng, Hongjun Li, Zhenshun Cheng, Xiaomei Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medical Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GuidelineChemoprophylaxis2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Intensive care medicineClinical PracticeMEDLINEFamily medicineVirologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 covering the following areas: chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of COVID-19, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 34 statements. Among them, 6 were strong recommendations for, 14 were weak recommendations for, 3 were weak recommendations against and 11 were ungraded consensus-based statement. They covered topics of chemoprophylaxis (including agents and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) agents), diagnosis (including clinical manifestations, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), respiratory tract specimens, IgM and IgG antibody tests, chest computed tomography, chest x-ray, and CT features of asymptomatic infections), treatments (including lopinavir-ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, interferon, remdesivir, combination of antiviral drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interleukin-6 inhibitors, interleukin-1 inhibitors, glucocorticoid, qingfei paidu decoction, lianhua qingwen granules/capsules, convalescent plasma, lung transplantation, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)), and discharge management (including discharge criteria and management plan in patients whose RT-PCR retesting shows SARS-CoV-2 positive after discharge). We also created two figures of these recommendations for the implementation purpose. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.250
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary Medical ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207