Protocolo

← vista completa

Publicado el 1 de abril de 2020 | http://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2020.03.7867

Síntesis de evidencia relevante para COVID-19: protocolo común para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas y revisiones panorámicas

Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews

Gabriel Rada , Francisca Verdugo-Paiva, Camila Ávila, Macarena Morel-Marambio, Rocío Bravo-Jeria, Franco Pesce, Eva Madrid, Ariel Izcovich

La versión en español del artículo aún no está disponible.

Esta obra de Medwave está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 3.0 Unported. Esta licencia permite el uso, distribución y reproducción del artículo en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se otorgue el crédito correspondiente al autor del artículo y al medio en que se publica, en este caso, Medwave.

Autores

Gabriel Rada

radagabriel@epistemonikos.org.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2435-0710

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0199-9744

Camila Ávila

Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5348-6284

Macarena Morel-Marambio

Centro Evidencia UC, Cochrane Chile partner center, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3410-3131

Rocío Bravo-Jeria

Centro Evidencia UC, Cochrane Chile partner center, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-5578

Franco Pesce

Living Knowledge, Santiago, Chile

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9209-4109

Eva Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8095-5549

Ariel Izcovich

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9053-4396

Figuras

Artículo no tiene figuras.

Foro

No hay mensajes

Historial

Citación Rada G, Verdugo-Paiva F, Ávila C, Morel-Marambio M, Bravo-Jeria R, Pesce Fet al. Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews. Medwave 2020;20(3):e7867 doi: 10.5867/medwave.2020.03.7867

Envío 27/03/2020

Aceptación 31/03/2020

Publicación 01/04/2020

Métricas del artículo

Artículo no tiene métricas.

Notas

Palabras claves

COVID-19, Coronavirus Infections, Systematic Review

Origen y arbitraje

No solicitado.. Con revisión editorial interna, modalidad fast track.

Referencias

  1. World Health Organization. Director-General's remarks at the media briefing on 2019-nCoV on 11 February 2020. World Health Organization; 2020. [Internet] | Link
  2. Hui DS, I Azhar E, Madani TA, Ntoumi F, Kock R, Dar O, et al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health - The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Feb;91:264-266. | CrossRef | PubMed
  3. Dong E, Du H, Gardner L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 19. pii: S1473-3099(20)30120-1. | CrossRef | PubMed
  4. Ioannidis JPA. Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020 Mar 23:e13223. | CrossRef | PubMed
  5. Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020 Mar 10. pii: S0883-9441(20)30390-7. | CrossRef | PubMed
  6. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, 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 Mar 20:105949. | CrossRef | PubMed
  7. Chen Jun, Liu Danping. A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with common coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Journal of Zhejiang University (Medical Science). 2020 [Accessed March 26] 49(1):0-0 [Internet] | Link
  8. Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies. Biosci Trends. 2020 Mar 16;14(1):72-73. | CrossRef | PubMed
  9. Akl EA, Haddaway NR, Rada G, Lotfi T. Evidence synthesis 2.0: when systematic, scoping, rapid, living, and overviews of reviews come together. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Mar 4. pii: S0895-4356(19)30986-2. | CrossRef | PubMed
  10. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143. | CrossRef | PubMed
  11. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545. | CrossRef | PubMed
  12. Roberts I, Ker K. How systematic reviews cause research waste. Lancet. 2015 Oct 17;386(10003):1536. | CrossRef | PubMed
  13. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Aug 21;147(4):224-33. | PubMed
  14. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 19;6(1):131. | CrossRef | PubMed
  15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 1;4:1. | CrossRef | PubMed
  16. Epistemonikos database methods. Santiago: Foundation Epistemonikos (Accessed on March 26, 2020). [Internet] | Link
  17. Methods for the special L·OVE of Coronavirus infection. Santiago: Foundation Epistemonikos (Accessed on March 26, 2020). [Internet] | Link
  18. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Resources for review authors. 2017 (Accessed March 26). [Internet] | Link
  19. Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P, Hayden JA, Abrams K, Timmis A, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ. 2013 Feb 5;346:e5595. | CrossRef | PubMed
  20. Jin X, Pang B, Zhang J, Liu Q, Yang Z, Feng J, et al. Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COS-COVID), Engineering. 2020 March 18 (Accessed March 26). [Internet] | Link
  21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):395-400. | CrossRef | PubMed
  22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):158-72. | CrossRef | PubMed
  23. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):173-83. | CrossRef | PubMed
  24. L·OVE platform. Santigo: Foundation Epistemonikos (Accessed on March 26, 2020). [Internet] | Link
  25. Epistemonikos Foundation. Collaboratron™ [Software], 2020. [Internet] | Link
  26. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919. | CrossRef | PubMed
  27. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36. | CrossRef | PubMed
  28. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 19;158(4):280-6. | CrossRef | PubMed
  29. Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS,et al. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;170(1):W1-W33. | CrossRef | PubMed
  30. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. | CrossRef | PubMed
  31. Guyatt GH, Ebrahim S, Alonso-Coello P, Johnston BC, Mathioudakis AG, Briel M, et al. GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:14-22. | CrossRef | PubMed
  32. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3.5 Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. [Computer program]