The effect of COVID-19 on critical care research during the first year of the pandemic: A prospective longitudinal multinational survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".