The Sensitivity of Respiratory Tract Specimens for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Moore, A. J.; Nakahata, M. I.; Kalinich, C. C.; Nyhan, K.; Bromberg, D. J.; Shi, X.; Ko, A. I.; Grubaugh, N. D.; Casanovas-Massana, A.; Wyllie, A. L.
Show abstract
BackgroundHighly sensitive, non-invasive, and easily accessible diagnostics for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are essential for the control of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is a clear need to establish a gold standard diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans using respiratory tract specimens. MethodsSearches will be conducted in the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, bioRxiv, medRxiv, F1000, ChemRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, Preprints.org, Beilstein Archive, and Research Square. Relevant government documents and grey literature will be sought on the FDAs Emergency Use Authorizations website, the ECDCs website, and the website of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. Finally, papers categorized as diagnosis papers by the EPPI Centres COVID-19 living systematic map will be added to our screening process; those papers are tagged with the diagnosis topic based on human review, rather than database searches, and thus this set of papers might include ones that have not been captured by our search strategy.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research 93%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 92%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: how open is open? 93%
- Almost significant: trends and P values in the use of phrases describing marginally significant results in 567,758 randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2020 91%
- Randomized clinical trial quality has improved over time but is still not good enough: an analysis of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 94%
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 89%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 91%
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.