Theodora Oikonomidi1,2,3, Isabelle Boutron4,5,6, Olivier Pierre4,5,6, Guillaume Cabanac7, Philippe Ravaud4,5,6,8. 1. Université de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France. theodora.oikonomidi@inserm.fr. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France. theodora.oikonomidi@inserm.fr. 3. Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France. theodora.oikonomidi@inserm.fr. 4. Université de Paris, UMR 1153 CRESS Inserm, 75004, Paris, France. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, (AP-HP), 75004, Paris, France. 6. Cochrane France, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, 75004, Paris, France. 7. University of Toulouse, IRIT UMR 5505 CNRS, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing use of preprints to disseminate evidence on the effect of interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to multiple evidence sources for a single study, which may differ in the reported evidence. We aim to describe the proportion of evidence on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 from preprints and journal articles and map changes in evidence between and within different sources reporting on the same study. METHODS: Meta-research study. We screened the Cochrane living systematic review and network meta-analysis (COVID-NMA) database to identify all preprints and journal articles on all studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 published up to 15 August 2020. We compared all evidence sources (i.e., preprint and associated journal article) and the first and latest versions of preprints for each study to identify changes in two evidence components: study results (e.g., numeric change in hazard ratio, odds ratio, event rate, or change in p value > or < 0.05 in any outcome) and abstract conclusions (classified as positive, negative or neutral regarding the intervention effect, and as reporting uncertainty in the findings or not). Changes in study results were further classified as important changes if they (1) represented a change in any effect estimate by ≥ 10% and/or (2) led to a change in the p value crossing the threshold of 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 556 studies. In total, 338 (61%) had been reported in a preprint: 66 (20%) of these had an associated journal article (median time to publication 76 days [interquartile range (IQR) 55-106]) and 91 (27%) had > 1 preprint version. A total of 139 studies (25% of the overall sample) were reported in multiple evidence sources or versions of the same source: for 63 (45%), there was a change in at least one evidence component between or within sources (42 [30%] had a change in study results, and in 29 [21%] the change was classified as important; 33 [24%] had a change in the abstract conclusion). For studies with both a preprint and an article, a median of 29% (IQR 14-50) of total citations were attributed to the preprint instead of the article. CONCLUSIONS: Results on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 are often reported in multiple evidence sources or source versions for a single study. Evidence is not stable between and within evidence sources. Real-time linkage of all sources per study could help to keep systematic reviews up-to-date.
BACKGROUND: The increasing use of preprints to disseminate evidence on the effect of interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to multiple evidence sources for a single study, which may differ in the reported evidence. We aim to describe the proportion of evidence on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 from preprints and journal articles and map changes in evidence between and within different sources reporting on the same study. METHODS: Meta-research study. We screened the Cochrane living systematic review and network meta-analysis (COVID-NMA) database to identify all preprints and journal articles on all studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 published up to 15 August 2020. We compared all evidence sources (i.e., preprint and associated journal article) and the first and latest versions of preprints for each study to identify changes in two evidence components: study results (e.g., numeric change in hazard ratio, odds ratio, event rate, or change in p value > or < 0.05 in any outcome) and abstract conclusions (classified as positive, negative or neutral regarding the intervention effect, and as reporting uncertainty in the findings or not). Changes in study results were further classified as important changes if they (1) represented a change in any effect estimate by ≥ 10% and/or (2) led to a change in the p value crossing the threshold of 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 556 studies. In total, 338 (61%) had been reported in a preprint: 66 (20%) of these had an associated journal article (median time to publication 76 days [interquartile range (IQR) 55-106]) and 91 (27%) had > 1 preprint version. A total of 139 studies (25% of the overall sample) were reported in multiple evidence sources or versions of the same source: for 63 (45%), there was a change in at least one evidence component between or within sources (42 [30%] had a change in study results, and in 29 [21%] the change was classified as important; 33 [24%] had a change in the abstract conclusion). For studies with both a preprint and an article, a median of 29% (IQR 14-50) of total citations were attributed to the preprint instead of the article. CONCLUSIONS: Results on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 are often reported in multiple evidence sources or source versions for a single study. Evidence is not stable between and within evidence sources. Real-time linkage of all sources per study could help to keep systematic reviews up-to-date.
Authors: Barbara Clyne; Kieran A Walsh; Eamon O'Murchu; Melissa K Sharp; Laura Comber; Kirsty K O' Brien; Susan M Smith; Patricia Harrington; Michelle O'Neill; Conor Teljeur; Máirín Ryan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Patrick D M C Katoto; Issoufou Aboubacar; Batouré Oumarou; Eric Adehossi; Blanche-Philomene Melanga Anya; Aida Mounkaila; Adamou Moustapha; El Khalef Ishagh; Gbaguidi Aichatou Diawara; Biey Joseph Nsiari-Muzeyi; Tambwe Didier; Charles Shey Wiysonge Journal: Confl Health Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 2.723
Authors: Maia Salholz-Hillel; Peter Grabitz; Nicholas J DeVito; Molly Pugh-Jones; Daniel Strech Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 2.692