Comparison of COVID-19 Preprint and Peer-Reviewed Versions of Studies on Therapies for Critically Ill Patients.

Autor:	Morin C; Department of Pharmacy, Providence Alaska Medical Center, Anchorage, AK, USA., Padki A; Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, MA, USA., Wong A; Department of Pharmacy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA., Miano T; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Statistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.; Department of Pharmacy, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA., Kane-Gill SL; Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.; Department of Pharmacy, UPMC Presbyterian, Pittsburgh, PA, USA., Cozzi G; Department of Pharmacy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA., Deveau R; Department of Pharmacy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of intensive care medicine [J Intensive Care Med] 2023 Nov; Vol. 38 (11), pp. 1060-1067. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jun 20.
DOI:	10.1177/08850666231182563
Abstrakt:	Purpose: Significant increases in the volume of preprint articles due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined the reliability of preprint articles compared to their peer-reviewed publications. Materials and Methods: Preprint articles evaluating experimental studies of select treatment options (anticoagulation, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and tocilizumab) for COVID-19 in the critically ill, available in a peer-reviewed publication were screened for inclusion within Altmetric (n = 2040). A total of 40 articles met inclusion criteria, with 21 being randomly selected for evaluation. The primary outcome of this evaluation was a change in a study's reported primary outcome or statistical significance between preprint and peer-reviewed articles. Secondary outcomes included changes in primary/secondary outcome effect size and change in study conclusion. Results: One article (4.8%, 95% CI 0.12%-23.8%) had a change in the primary outcome. Seven articles (33.3%, 95% CI 14.6%-57.0%) had a change in the primary outcome's effect measure. Five studies (23.8%, 95% CI 8.2%-47.2%) had changes in statistical significance of at least one secondary outcome. Four studies (19.0%, 95% CI 5.4%-41.9%) had a change in study conclusion. Conclusions: In preprint articles of COVID-19 treatments, the provided primary outcome is generally reliable, while interpretation of secondary outcomes should be made with caution, while awaiting completion of the peer-review process. Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu