A New Approach for Timely Systematic Reviews of Rapidly Evolving Research: Identifying Evidence in Which We Can Place Our Confidence
Tong, J.; Hubbard, R. A.; Saine, M. E.; Xu, H.; Zuo, X.; Kimmel, S. E.; Cuker, A.; Chen, Y.
Show abstract
Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the world in unprecedented ways since first emerging in December 2019. In the last two years, the scientific community has made an enormous effort to understand COVID-19 and potential interventions. As of June 15, 2021, there were more than 140,000 COVID-19 focused manuscripts on PubMed and preprint servers, such as medRxiv and BioRxiv. Preprints, which constitute more than 15% of all manuscripts, may contain more up-to-date research findings compared to published papers, due to the sometimes lengthy timeline between manuscript submission and publication. Including preprints in systematic reviews and meta-analyses thus has the potential to improve the timeliness of reviews. However, there is no clear guideline on whether preprints should be included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Using a prototypical example of a rapid systematic review examining the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 therapeutics, we propose including all preprints in the systematic review by assigning them a weight we term the "confidence score". Motivated by our observation that, unlike the traditional journal submission process which is unobserved, the timeline from submission to publication for a preprint can be observed and can be modeled as a time-to-event outcome. This observation provides a unique opportunity to model and quantify the probability that a preprint will be published, which can be used as a confidence score to weight preprints in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To obtain the confidence score, we propose a novel survival cure model, which incorporates both the time from posting to publication for a preprint, and key characteristics of the study described in the content of the preprint. Using meta data from 158 preprints on evaluating therapeutic options for COVID-19 posted through 09/03/2020, we demonstrate the utility of the confidence score in weighting of preprints in a systematic review. Our proposed method has the potential to advance timely systematic reviews of the evidence examining COVID-19 and other clinical conditions with rapidly evolving evidence bases by providing an approach for inclusion of unpublished manuscripts.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus 93%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 92%
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials 94%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 93%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 93%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 93%
- Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 93%
- Trends in Self-citation Rates in High-impact Neurology, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry Journals 92%
- International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials 92%
- Methodological Rigor in COVID-19 Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Analysis 91%
- Cancer patient survival can be accurately parameterized, revealing time-dependent therapeutic effects and doubling the precision of small trials 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.