Search

Background: As evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic surged, databases, platforms, and repositories evolved with features and functions to assist users in promptly finding the most relevant evidence. In response, research synthesis teams adopted novel searching strategies to sift through the vast amount of evidence to synthesize and disseminate the most up-to-date evidence. This paper explores the key database features that facilitated systematic searching for rapid evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform knowledge management infrastructure during future global health emergencies. Methods: This paper outlines the features and functions of previously existing and newly created evidence sources routinely searched as part of the NCCMT's Rapid Evidence Service methods, including databases, platforms, and repositories. Specific functions of each evidence source were assessed as they pertain to searching in the context of a public health emergency, including the topics of indexed citations, the level of evidence of indexed citations, and specific usability features of each evidence source. Results: Thirteen evidence sources were assessed, of which four were newly created and nine were either pre-existing or adapted from previously existing resources. Evidence sources varied in topics indexed, level of evidence indexed, and specific searching functions. Conclusion: This paper offers insights into which features enabled systematic searching for the completion of rapid reviews to inform decision makers within 5–10 days. These findings provide guidance for knowledge management strategies and evidence infrastructures during future public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The failure of randomised controlled trials to adequately reflect areas of highest health need have been repeatedly highlighted. This has implications for the validity and generalisability of findings, for equity and efficiency, but also for research capacity-building. Rai et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 21:80, 2021) recently argued that the poor alignment between UK clinical research activity (specifically multi-centre RCTs) and local prevalence of disease was, in part, the outcome of behaviour and decision-making by Chief Investigators involved in trial research. They argued that a shift in research culture was needed. Following our recent multi-site mixed methods evaluative study about NHS 111 online we identify some of the additional structural barriers to delivering health research "where populations with the most disease live", accounting for the Covid-19 disruption to processes and delivery.Methods: The NHS 111 study used a mixed-method research design, including interviews with healthcare staff and stakeholders within the primary, urgent and emergency health care system, and a survey of users and potential users of the NHS 111 online service. This paper draws on data collated by the research team during site identification and selection, as we followed an action research cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. The process results were discussed among the authors, and grouped into the two themes presented.Results: We approached 22 primary and secondary care sites across England, successfully recruiting half of these. Time from initial approach to first participant recruitment in successful sites ranged from one to ten months. This paper describes frontline bureaucratic barriers to research delivery and recruitment in the local Clinical Research Network system and secondary care sites carrying large research portfolios, alongside the adaptive practices of research practitioners that mitigate these.Conclusions: This paper augments the recommendations of Rai et al., describing delays encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggesting in addition to cultural change, it may be additionally important to dismantle infrastructural barriers and improve support to research teams so they can conduct health research "where populations with the most disease live". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 brought enormous challenges to public health surveillance and underscored the importance of developing and maintaining robust systems for accurate surveillance. As public health data collection efforts expand, there is a critical need for infectious disease modeling researchers to continue to develop prospective surveillance metrics and statistical models to accommodate the modeling of large disease counts and variability. This paper evaluated different likelihoods for the disease count model and various spatiotemporal mean models for prospective surveillance., Methods: We evaluated Bayesian spatiotemporal models, which are the foundation for model-based infectious disease surveillance metrics. Bayesian spatiotemporal mean models based on the Poisson and the negative binomial likelihoods were evaluated with the different lengths of past data usage. We compared their goodness of fit and short-term prediction performance with both simulated epidemic data and real data from the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: The simulation results show that the negative binomial likelihood-based models show better goodness of fit results than Poisson likelihood-based models as deemed by smaller deviance information criteria (DIC) values. However, Poisson models yield smaller mean square error (MSE) and mean absolute one-step prediction error (MAOSPE) results when we use a shorter length of the past data such as 7 and 3 time periods. Real COVID-19 data analysis of New Jersey and South Carolina shows similar results for the goodness of fit and short-term prediction results. Negative binomial-based mean models showed better performance when we used the past data of 52 time periods. Poisson-based mean models showed comparable goodness of fit performance and smaller MSE and MAOSPE results when we used the past data of 7 and 3 time periods., Conclusion: We evaluate these models and provide future infectious disease outbreak modeling guidelines for Bayesian spatiotemporal analysis. Our choice of the likelihood and spatiotemporal mean models was influenced by both historical data length and variability. With a longer length of past data usage and more over-dispersed data, the negative binomial likelihood shows a better model fit than the Poisson likelihood. However, as we use a shorter length of the past data for our surveillance analysis, the difference between the Poisson and the negative binomial models becomes smaller. In this case, the Poisson likelihood shows robust posterior mean estimate and short-term prediction results., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Numerous clinical trials have been initiated to find effective treatments for COVID-19. These trials have often been initiated in regions where the pandemic has already peaked. Consequently, achieving full enrollment in a single trial might require additional COVID-19 surges in the same location over several years. This has inspired us to pool individual patient data (IPD) from ongoing, paused, prematurely-terminated, or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in real-time, to find an effective treatment as quickly as possible in light of the pandemic crisis. However, pooling across trials introduces enormous uncertainties in study design (e.g., the number of RCTs and sample sizes might be unknown in advance). We sought to develop a versatile treatment efficacy assessment model that accounts for these uncertainties while allowing for continuous monitoring throughout the study using Bayesian monitoring techniques., Methods: We provide a detailed look at the challenges and solutions for model development, describing the process that used extensive simulations to enable us to finalize the analysis plan. This includes establishing prior distribution assumptions, assessing and improving model convergence under different study composition scenarios, and assessing whether we can extend the model to accommodate multi-site RCTs and evaluate heterogeneous treatment effects. In addition, we recognized that we would need to assess our model for goodness-of-fit, so we explored an approach that used posterior predictive checking. Lastly, given the urgency of the research in the context of evolving pandemic, we were committed to frequent monitoring of the data to assess efficacy, and we set Bayesian monitoring rules calibrated for type 1 error rate and power., Results: The primary outcome is an 11-point ordinal scale. We present the operating characteristics of the proposed cumulative proportional odds model for estimating treatment effectiveness. The model can estimate the treatment's effect under enormous uncertainties in study design. We investigate to what degree the proportional odds assumption has to be violated to render the model inaccurate. We demonstrate the flexibility of a Bayesian monitoring approach by performing frequent interim analyses without increasing the probability of erroneous conclusions., Conclusion: This paper describes a translatable framework using simulation to support the design of prospective IPD meta-analyses., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Identifying mechanisms to maintain CBPR studies during an infectious disease pandemic is vital. The current paper describes the changes in methods and processes conducted within a CBPR mixed-methods study to a virtual setting during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic., Method: The DC Community Organizing for Optimal Culinary Knowledge study with Heart (DC COOKS with Heart) was designed to assess the feasibility of a dietary behavior intervention among African-American adults that are at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study is under the umbrella of an ongoing CBPR study and community advisory board that facilitates community involvement in study design and promotes ongoing engagement with community members and leaders. The study population for D.C. COOKS with Heart consists of adult African-American individuals who live in two low-resource neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., which were impacted disproportionately by COVID. Eligible study participants who previously participated in the DC CHOC community-based studies were contacted to participate in Phase 1. The quantitative part of the mixed-methods included survey data collection., Results: Due to the pandemic, the mode of data collection for surveys changed from self-administered face-to-face to internet-based. All virtual study procedures were conducted between March and April, 2021. Anticipated benefits of the virtual setting included participant safety during the pandemic, ease of logistics for participants. Anticipated challenges included administration of electronic devices to participants, research team training, and potential threats to established trust related to the privacy and confidentiality of participants., Conclusion: The transition to a virtual setting for study procedures in a mixed-methods study was conducted successfully in terms of recruitment, retention of participants, and training of research team members. The virtual transition required established and ongoing engagement through the community advisory board and CBPR practices, institutional support through virtual research policies, collaborations with information technology-based teams, and equipment administration for the study., Trials Registration: NCT04305431 . Registered on March 12, 2020., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The existing Z-test for uncertainty events does not give information about the measure of indeterminacy/uncertainty associated with the test., Methods: This paper introduces the Z-test for uncertainty events under neutrosophic statistics. The test statistic of the existing test is modified under the philosophy of the Neutrosophy. The testing process is introduced and applied to the Covid-19 data., Results: Based on the information, the proposed test is interpreted as the probability that there is no reduction in uncertainty of Covid-19 is accepted with a probability of 0.95, committing a type-I error is 0.05 with the measure of an indeterminacy 0.10. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that the proposed test is informative than the existing test. The proposed test is also better than the Z-test for uncertainty under fuzzy-logic as the test using fuzz-logic gives the value of the statistic from 2.20 to 2.42 without any information about the measure of indeterminacy. The test under interval statistic only considers the values within the interval rather than the crisp value., Conclusions: From the Covid-19 data analysis, it is found that the proposed Z-test for uncertainty events under the neutrosophic statistics is efficient than the existing tests under classical statistics, fuzzy approach, and interval statistics in terms of information, flexibility, power of the test, and adequacy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The rising burden of the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic in South Africa has motivated the application of modeling strategies to predict the COVID-19 cases and deaths. Reliable and accurate short and long-term forecasts of COVID-19 cases and deaths, both at the national and provincial level, are a key aspect of the strategy to handle the COVID-19 epidemic in the country.Methods: In this paper we apply the previously validated approach of phenomenological models, fitting several non-linear growth curves (Richards, 3 and 4 parameter logistic, Weibull and Gompertz), to produce short term forecasts of COVID-19 cases and deaths at the national level as well as the provincial level. Using publicly available daily reported cumulative case and death data up until 22 June 2020, we report 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30-day ahead forecasts of cumulative cases and deaths. All predictions are compared to the actual observed values in the forecasting period.Results: We observed that all models for cases provided accurate and similar short-term forecasts for a period of 5 days ahead at the national level, and that the three and four parameter logistic growth models provided more accurate forecasts than that obtained from the Richards model 10 days ahead. However, beyond 10 days all models underestimated the cumulative cases. Our forecasts across the models predict an additional 23,551-26,702 cases in 5 days and an additional 47,449-57,358 cases in 10 days. While the three parameter logistic growth model provided the most accurate forecasts of cumulative deaths within the 10 day period, the Gompertz model was able to better capture the changes in cumulative deaths beyond this period. Our forecasts across the models predict an additional 145-437 COVID-19 deaths in 5 days and an additional 243-947 deaths in 10 days.Conclusions: By comparing both the predictions of deaths and cases to the observed data in the forecasting period, we found that this modeling approach provides reliable and accurate forecasts for a maximum period of 10 days ahead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a substantial body of COVID-19 medical literature has been generated. As of June 2020, gaps and longitudinal trends in the COVID-19 medical literature remain unidentified, despite potential benefits for research prioritisation and policy setting in both the COVID-19 pandemic and future large-scale public health crises.Methods: In this paper, we searched PubMed and Embase for medical literature on COVID-19 between 1 January and 24 March 2020. We characterised the growth of the early COVID-19 medical literature using evidence maps and bibliometric analyses to elicit cross-sectional and longitudinal trends and systematically identify gaps.Results: The early COVID-19 medical literature originated primarily from Asia and focused mainly on clinical features and diagnosis of the disease. Many areas of potential research remain underexplored, such as mental health, the use of novel technologies and artificial intelligence, pathophysiology of COVID-19 within different body systems, and indirect effects of COVID-19 on the care of non-COVID-19 patients. Few articles involved research collaboration at the international level (24.7%). The median submission-to-publication duration was 8 days (interquartile range: 4-16).Conclusions: Although in its early phase, COVID-19 research has generated a large volume of publications. However, there are still knowledge gaps yet to be filled and areas for improvement for the global research community. Our analysis of early COVID-19 research may be valuable in informing research prioritisation and policy planning both in the current COVID-19 pandemic and similar global health crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mortality is a key component of the natural history of COVID-19 infection. Surveillance data on COVID-19 deaths and case diagnoses are widely available in the public domain, but they are not used to model time to death because they typically do not link diagnosis and death at an individual level. This paper demonstrates that by comparing the unlinked patterns of new diagnoses and deaths over age and time, age-specific mortality and time to death may be estimated using a statistical method called deconvolution., Methods: Age-specific data were analysed on 816 deaths among 6235 cases over age 50 years in Victoria, Australia, from the period January through December 2020. Deconvolution was applied assuming logistic dependence of case fatality risk (CFR) on age and a gamma time to death distribution. Non-parametric deconvolution analyses stratified into separate age groups were used to assess the model assumptions., Results: It was found that age-specific CFR rose from 2.9% at age 65 years (95% CI:2.2 - 3.5) to 40.0% at age 95 years (CI: 36.6 - 43.6). The estimated mean time between diagnosis and death was 18.1 days (CI: 16.9 - 19.3) and showed no evidence of varying by age (heterogeneity P = 0.97). The estimated 90% percentile of time to death was 33.3 days (CI: 30.4 - 36.3; heterogeneity P = 0.85). The final age-specific model provided a good fit to the observed age-stratified mortality patterns., Conclusions: Deconvolution was demonstrated to be a powerful analysis method that could be applied to extensive data sources worldwide. Such analyses can inform transmission dynamics models and CFR assessment in emerging outbreaks. Based on these Australian data it is concluded that death from COVID-19 occurs within three weeks of diagnosis on average but takes five weeks in 10% of fatal cases. Fatality risk is negligible in the young but rises above 40% in the elderly, while time to death does not seem to vary by age.

Background: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles., Methods: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools., Results: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337)., Conclusions: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.

In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Precision medicine has led to the development of targeted treatment strategies tailored to individual patients based on their characteristics and disease manifestations. Although precision medicine often focuses on a single health outcome for individualized treatment decision rules (ITRs), relying only on a single outcome rather than all available outcomes information leads to suboptimal data usage when developing optimal ITRs. Methods: To address this limitation, we propose a Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model that leverages the wealth of correlated health outcomes collected in clinical trials. The approach jointly models mixed types of correlated outcomes, facilitating the "borrowing of information" across the multivariate outcomes, and results in a more accurate estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects compared to using single regression models for each outcome. We develop a treatment benefit index, which quantifies the relative benefit of the experimental treatment over the control treatment, based on the proposed multivariate outcome model. Results: We demonstrate the strengths of the proposed approach through extensive simulations and an application to an international Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trial. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method reduces the occurrence of erroneous treatment decisions compared to a single regression model for a single health outcome. Additionally, the sensitivity analyses demonstrate the robustness of the model across various study scenarios. Application of the method to the COVID-19 trial exhibits improvements in estimating the individual-level treatment efficacy (indicated by narrower credible intervals for odds ratios) and optimal ITRs. Conclusion: The study jointly models mixed types of outcomes in the context of developing ITRs. By considering multiple health outcomes, the proposed approach can advance the development of more effective and reliable personalized treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To describe the methodology for conducting the CalScope study, a remote, population-based survey launched by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and understand COVID-19 disease burden in California. Methods: Between April 2021 and August 2022, 666,857 randomly selected households were invited by mail to complete an online survey and at-home test kit for up to one adult and one child. A gift card was given for each completed survey and test kit. Multiple customized REDCap databases were used to create a data system which provided task automation and scalable data management through API integrations. Support infrastructure was developed to manage follow-up for participant questions and a communications plan was used for outreach through local partners. Results: Across 3 waves, 32,671 out of 666,857 (4.9%) households registered, 6.3% by phone using an interactive voice response (IVR) system and 95.7% in English. Overall, 25,488 (78.0%) households completed surveys, while 23,396 (71.6%) households returned blood samples for testing. Support requests (n = 5,807) received through the web-based form (36.3%), by email (34.1%), and voicemail (29.7%) were mostly concerned with the test kit (31.6%), test result (26.8%), and gift card (21.3%). Conclusions: Ensuring a well-integrated and scalable data system, responsive support infrastructure for participant follow-up, and appropriate academic and local health department partnerships for study management and communication allowed for successful rollout of a large population-based survey. Remote data collection utilizing online surveys and at-home test kits can complement routine surveillance data for a state health department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surveys have been used worldwide to provide information on the COVID-19 pandemic impact so as to prepare and deliver an effective Public Health response. Overlapping panel surveys allow longitudinal estimates and more accurate cross-sectional estimates to be obtained thanks to the larger sample size. However, the problem of non-response is particularly aggravated in the case of panel surveys due to population fatigue with repeated surveys. Objective: To develop a new reweighting method for overlapping panel surveys affected by non-response. Methods: We chose the Healthcare and Social Survey which has an overlapping panel survey design with measurements throughout 2020 and 2021, and random samplings stratified by province and degree of urbanization. Each measurement comprises two samples: a longitudinal sample taken from previous measurements and a new sample taken at each measurement. Results: Our reweighting methodological approach is the result of a two-step process: the original sampling design weights are corrected by modelling non-response with respect to the longitudinal sample obtained in a previous measurement using machine learning techniques, followed by calibration using the auxiliary information available at the population level. It is applied to the estimation of totals, proportions, ratios, and differences between measurements, and to gender gaps in the variable of self-perceived general health. Conclusion: The proposed method produces suitable estimators for both cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. For addressing future health crises such as COVID-19, it is therefore necessary to reduce potential coverage and non-response biases in surveys by means of utilizing reweighting techniques as proposed in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Factors influencing the health of populations are subjects of interdisciplinary study. However, datasets relevant to public health often lack interdisciplinary breath. It is difficult to combine data on health outcomes with datasets on potentially important contextual factors, like political violence or development, due to incompatible levels of geographic support; differing data formats and structures; differences in sampling procedures and wording; and the stability of temporal trends. We present a computational package to combine spatially misaligned datasets, and provide an illustrative analysis of multi-dimensional factors in health outcomes. Methods: We rely on a new software toolkit, Sub-National Geospatial Data Archive (SUNGEO), to combine data across disciplinary domains and demonstrate a use case on vaccine hesitancy in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). We use data from the World Bank's High Frequency Phone Surveys (HFPS) from Kenya, Indonesia, and Malawi. We curate and combine these surveys with data on political violence, elections, economic development, and other contextual factors, using SUNGEO. We then develop a stochastic model to analyze the integrated data and evaluate 1) the stability of vaccination preferences in all three countries over time, and 2) the association between local contextual factors and vaccination preferences. Results: In all three countries, vaccine-acceptance is more persistent than vaccine-hesitancy from round to round: the long-run probability of staying vaccine-acceptant (hesitant) was 0.96 (0.65) in Indonesia, 0.89 (0.21) in Kenya, and 0.76 (0.40) in Malawi. However, vaccine acceptance was significantly less durable in areas exposed to political violence, with percentage point differences (ppd) in vaccine acceptance of -10 (Indonesia), -5 (Kenya), and -64 (Malawi). In Indonesia and Kenya, although not Malawi, vaccine acceptance was also significantly less durable in locations without competitive elections (-19 and -6 ppd, respectively) and in locations with more limited transportation infrastructure (-11 and -8 ppd). Conclusion: With SUNGEO, researchers can combine spatially misaligned and incompatible datasets. As an illustrative example, we find that vaccination hesitancy is correlated with political violence, electoral uncompetitiveness and limited access to public goods, consistent with past results that vaccination hesitancy is associated with government distrust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Near-real time surveillance of excess mortality has been an essential tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains critical for monitoring mortality as the pandemic wanes, to detect fluctuations in the death rate associated both with the longer-term impact of the pandemic (e.g. infection, containment measures and reduced service provision by the health and other systems) and the responses that followed (e.g. curtailment of containment measures, vaccination and the response of health and other systems to backlogs). Following the relaxing of social distancing regimes and reduction in the availability of testing, across many countries, it becomes critical to measure the impact of COVID-19 infection. However, prolonged periods of mortality in excess of the expected across entire populations has raised doubts over the validity of using unadjusted historic estimates of mortality to calculate the expected numbers of deaths that form the baseline for computing numbers of excess deaths because many individuals died earlier than they would otherwise have done: i.e. their mortality was displaced earlier in time to occur during the pandemic rather than when historic rates predicted. This is also often termed "harvesting" in the literature. Methods: We present a novel Cox-regression-based methodology using time-dependent covariates to estimate the profile of the increased risk of death across time in individuals who contracted COVID-19 among a population of hip fracture patients in England (N = 98,365). We use these hazards to simulate a distribution of survival times, in the presence of a COVID-19 positive test, and then calculate survival times based on hazard rates without a positive test and use the difference between the medians of these distributions to estimate the number of days a death has been displaced. This methodology is applied at the individual level, rather than the population level to provide a better understanding of the impact of a positive COVID-19 test on the mortality of groups with different vulnerabilities conferred by sociodemographic and health characteristics. Finally, we apply the mortality displacement estimates to adjust estimates of excess mortality using a "ball and urn" model. Results: Among the exemplar population we present an end-to-end application of our methodology to estimate the extent of mortality displacement. A greater proportion of older, male and frailer individuals were subject to significant displacement while the magnitude of displacement was higher in younger females and in individuals with lower frailty: groups who, in the absence of COVID-19, should have had a substantial life expectancy. Conclusion: Our results indicate that calculating the expected number of deaths following the first wave of the pandemic in England based solely on historical trends results in an overestimate, and excess mortality will therefore be underestimated. Our findings, using this exemplar dataset are conditional on having experienced a hip fracture, which is not generalisable to the general population. Fractures that impede mobility in the weeks that follow the accident/surgery considerably shorten life expectancy and are in themselves markers of significant frailty. It is therefore important to apply these novel methods to the general population, among whom we anticipate strong patterns in mortality displacement – both in its length and prevalence – by age, sex, frailty and types of comorbidities. This counterfactual method may also be used to investigate a wider range of disruptive population health events. This has important implications for public health monitoring and the interpretation of public health data in England and globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding how SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts long-term patient outcomes requires identification of comparable persons with and without infection. We report the design and implementation of a matching strategy employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) COVID-19 Observational Research Collaboratory (CORC) to develop comparable cohorts of SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected persons for the purpose of inferring potential causative long-term adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Veteran population. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, we identified VA health care system patients who were and were not infected with SARS-CoV-2 on a rolling monthly basis. We generated matched cohorts within each month utilizing a combination of exact and time-varying propensity score matching based on electronic health record (EHR)-derived covariates that can be confounders or risk factors across a range of outcomes. Results: From an initial pool of 126,689,864 person-months of observation, we generated final matched cohorts of 208,536 Veterans infected between March 2020-April 2021 and 3,014,091 uninfected Veterans. Matched cohorts were well-balanced on all 37 covariates used in matching after excluding patients for: no VA health care utilization; implausible age, weight, or height; living outside of the 50 states or Washington, D.C.; prior SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis per Medicare claims; or lack of a suitable match. Most Veterans in the matched cohort were male (88.3%), non-Hispanic (87.1%), white (67.2%), and living in urban areas (71.5%), with a mean age of 60.6, BMI of 31.3, Gagne comorbidity score of 1.4 and a mean of 2.3 CDC high-risk conditions. The most common diagnoses were hypertension (61.4%), diabetes (34.3%), major depression (32.2%), coronary heart disease (28.5%), PTSD (25.5%), anxiety (22.5%), and chronic kidney disease (22.5%). Conclusion: This successful creation of matched SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected patient cohorts from the largest integrated health system in the United States will support cohort studies of outcomes derived from EHRs and sample selection for qualitative interviews and patient surveys. These studies will increase our understanding of the long-term outcomes of Veterans who were infected with SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Methods: Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Results: A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality. Conclusions: Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Modelling the course of a disease regarding severe events and identifying prognostic factors is of great clinical relevance. Multistate models (MSM) can be used to describe diseases or processes that change over time using different states and the transitions between them. Specifically, they are useful to analyse a disease with an increasing degree of severity, that may precede death. The complexity of these models changes depending on the number of states and transitions taken into account. Due to that, a web tool has been developed making easier to work with those models. Results: MSMpred is a web tool created with the shiny R package that has two main features: 1) to allow to fit a MSM from specific data; 2) to predict the clinical evolution for a given subject. To fit the model, the data to be analysed must be upload in a prespecified format. Then, the user has to define the states and transitions as well as the covariates (e.g., age or gender) involved in each transition. From this information, the app returns histograms or barplots, as appropriate, to represent the distributions of the selected covariates and boxplots to show the patient' length of stay (for uncensored data) in each state. To make predictions, the values of selected covariates from a new subject at baseline has to be provided. From these inputs, the app provides some indicators of the subject's evolution such as the probability of 30-day death or the most likely state at a fixed time. Furthermore, visual representations (e.g., the stacked transition probabilities plot) are given to make predictions more understandable. Conclusions: MSMpred is an intuitive and visual app that eases the work of biostatisticians and facilitates to the medical personnel the interpretation of MSMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Numerous clinical trials have been initiated to find effective treatments for COVID-19. These trials have often been initiated in regions where the pandemic has already peaked. Consequently, achieving full enrollment in a single trial might require additional COVID-19 surges in the same location over several years. This has inspired us to pool individual patient data (IPD) from ongoing, paused, prematurely-terminated, or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in real-time, to find an effective treatment as quickly as possible in light of the pandemic crisis. However, pooling across trials introduces enormous uncertainties in study design (e.g., the number of RCTs and sample sizes might be unknown in advance). We sought to develop a versatile treatment efficacy assessment model that accounts for these uncertainties while allowing for continuous monitoring throughout the study using Bayesian monitoring techniques. Methods We provide a detailed look at the challenges and solutions for model development, describing the process that used extensive simulations to enable us to finalize the analysis plan. This includes establishing prior distribution assumptions, assessing and improving model convergence under different study composition scenarios, and assessing whether we can extend the model to accommodate multi-site RCTs and evaluate heterogeneous treatment effects. In addition, we recognized that we would need to assess our model for goodness-of-fit, so we explored an approach that used posterior predictive checking. Lastly, given the urgency of the research in the context of evolving pandemic, we were committed to frequent monitoring of the data to assess efficacy, and we set Bayesian monitoring rules calibrated for type 1 error rate and power. Results The primary outcome is an 11-point ordinal scale. We present the operating characteristics of the proposed cumulative proportional odds model for estimating treatment effectiveness. The model can estimate the treatment’s effect under enormous uncertainties in study design. We investigate to what degree the proportional odds assumption has to be violated to render the model inaccurate. We demonstrate the flexibility of a Bayesian monitoring approach by performing frequent interim analyses without increasing the probability of erroneous conclusions. Conclusion This paper describes a translatable framework using simulation to support the design of prospective IPD meta-analyses.

Abstract Background Identifying mechanisms to maintain CBPR studies during an infectious disease pandemic is vital. The current paper describes the changes in methods and processes conducted within a CBPR mixed-methods study to a virtual setting during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Method The DC Community Organizing for Optimal Culinary Knowledge study with Heart (DC COOKS with Heart) was designed to assess the feasibility of a dietary behavior intervention among African-American adults that are at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study is under the umbrella of an ongoing CBPR study and community advisory board that facilitates community involvement in study design and promotes ongoing engagement with community members and leaders. The study population for D.C. COOKS with Heart consists of adult African-American individuals who live in two low-resource neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., which were impacted disproportionately by COVID. Eligible study participants who previously participated in the DC CHOC community-based studies were contacted to participate in Phase 1. The quantitative part of the mixed-methods included survey data collection. Results Due to the pandemic, the mode of data collection for surveys changed from self-administered face-to-face to internet-based. All virtual study procedures were conducted between March and April, 2021. Anticipated benefits of the virtual setting included participant safety during the pandemic, ease of logistics for participants. Anticipated challenges included administration of electronic devices to participants, research team training, and potential threats to established trust related to the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Conclusion The transition to a virtual setting for study procedures in a mixed-methods study was conducted successfully in terms of recruitment, retention of participants, and training of research team members. The virtual transition required established and ongoing engagement through the community advisory board and CBPR practices, institutional support through virtual research policies, collaborations with information technology-based teams, and equipment administration for the study. Trials registration NCT04305431 . Registered on March 12, 2020.

Background: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, social science research has required recruiting many prospective participants. Many researchers have explicitly taken advantage of widespread public interest in COVID-19 to advertise their studies. Leveraging this interest, however, risks creating unrepresentative samples due to differential interest in the topic. In this study, we investigate the design of survey recruitment materials with respect to the views of resultant participants.Methods: Within a pan-Canadian survey (stratified random mail sampling, n = 1969), the design of recruitment invitations to prospective respondents was experimentally varied, with some prospective respondents receiving COVID-specific recruitment messages and others receiving more general recruitment messages (described as research about health and health policy). All respondents participated, however, in the same survey, allowing comparison of both demographic and attitudinal features between these groups.Results: Respondents recruited via COVID-19 specific postcards were more likely to agree that COVID-19 is serious and believe that they were likely to contract COVID-19 compared to non-COVID respondents (odds = 0.71, p = 0.04; odds = 0.74, p = 0.03 respectively; comparing health to COVID-19 framed respondents). COVID-19 specific respondents were more likely to disagree that the COVID-19 threat was exaggerated compared to the non-COVID survey respondents (odds = 1.44, p = 0.02).Conclusions: COVID-19 recruitment framing garnered a higher response rate, as well as a sample with greater concern about coronavirus risks and impacts than respondents who received more neutrally framed recruitment materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One critical variable in the time series analysis is the change point, which is the point where an abrupt change occurs in chronologically ordered observations. Existing parametric models for change point detection, such as the linear regression model and the Bayesian model, require that observations are normally distributed and that the trend line cannot have extreme variability. To overcome the limitations of the parametric model, we apply a nonparametric method, the Mann-Kendall-Sneyers (MKS) test, to change point detection for the state-level COVID-19 case time series data of the United States in the early outbreak of the pandemic.Methods: The MKS test is implemented for change point detection. The forward sequence and the backward sequence are calculated based on the new weekly cases between March 22, 2020 and January 31, 2021 for each of the 50 states. Points of intersection between the two sequences falling within the 95% confidence intervals are identified as the change points. The results are compared with two other change point detection methods, the pruned exact linear time (PELT) method and the regression-based method. Also, an open-access tool by Microsoft Excel is developed to facilitate the model implementation.Results: By applying the MKS test to COVID-19 cases in the United States, we have identified that 30 states (60.0%) have at least one change point within the 95% confidence intervals. Of these states, 26 states have one change point, 4 states (i.e., LA, OH, VA, and WA) have two change points, and one state (GA) has three change points. Additionally, most downward changes appear in the Northeastern states (e.g., CT, MA, NJ, NY) at the first development stage (March 23 through May 31, 2020); most upward changes appear in the Western states (e.g., AZ, CA, CO, NM, WA, WY) and the Midwestern states (e.g., IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) at the third development stage (November 19, 2020 through January 31, 2021).Conclusions: This study is among the first to explore the potential of the MKS test applied for change point detection of COVID-19 cases. The MKS test is characterized by several advantages, including high computational efficiency, easy implementation, the ability to identify the change of direction, and no assumption for data distribution. However, due to its conservative nature in change point detection and moderate agreement with other methods, we recommend using the MKS test primarily for initial pattern identification and data pruning, especially in large data. With modification, the method can be further applied to other health data, such as injuries, disabilities, and mortalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial is aimed at addressing the urgent need to find effective treatments for patients hospitalised with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The trial has had many successes, including discovering that dexamethasone is effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality, the first treatment to reach this milestone in a randomised controlled trial. Despite this, it continues to use standard or 'fixed' randomisation to allocate patients to treatments. We assessed the impact of implementing response adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY using an array of performance measures, to learn if it could be beneficial going forward. This design feature has recently been implemented within the REMAP-CAP platform trial.Methods: Trial data was simulated to closely match the data for patients allocated to standard care, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir-ritonavir in the RECOVERY trial from March-June 2020, representing four out of five arms tested throughout this period. Trials were simulated in both a two-arm trial setting using standard care and dexamethasone, and a four-arm trial setting utilising all above treatments. Two forms of fixed randomisation and two forms of response-adaptive randomisation were tested. In the two-arm setting, response-adaptive randomisation was implemented across both trial arms, whereas in the four-arm setting it was implemented in the three non-standard care arms only. In the two-arm trial, randomisation strategies were performed at the whole trial level as well as within three pre-specified patient subgroups defined by patients' respiratory support level.Results: All response-adaptive randomisation strategies led to more patients being given dexamethasone and a lower mortality rate in the trial. Subgroup specific response-adaptive randomisation reduced mortality rates even further. In the two-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation reduced statistical power compared to FR, with subgroup level adaptive randomisation exhibiting the largest power reduction. In the four-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation increased statistical power in the dexamethasone arm but reduced statistical power in the lopinavir arm. Response-adaptive randomisation did not induce any meaningful bias in treatment effect estimates nor did it cause any inflation in the type 1 error rate.Conclusions: Using response-adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY could have increased the number of patients receiving the optimal COVID-19 treatment during the trial, while reducing the number of patients needed to attain the same study power as the original study. This would likely have reduced patient deaths during the trial and lead to dexamethasone being declared effective sooner. Deciding how to balance the needs of patients within a trial and future patients who have yet to fall ill is an important ethical question for the trials community to address. Response-adaptive randomisation deserves to be considered as a design feature in future trials of COVID-19 and other diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis has become a popular design to evaluate the effects of health interventions. However, the most common formulation for ITS, the linear segmented regression, is not always adequate, especially when the timing of the intervention is unclear. In this study, we propose a new model to overcome this limitation.Methods: We propose a new ITS model, ARIMAITS-DL, that combines (1) the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model and (2) distributed lag functional terms. The ARIMA technique allows us to model autocorrelation, which is frequently observed in time series data, and the decaying cumulative effect of the intervention. By contrast, the distributed lag functional terms represent the idea that the intervention effect does not start at a fixed time point but is distributed over a certain interval (thus, the intervention timing seems unclear). We discuss how to select the distribution of the effect, the model construction process, diagnosing the model fitting, and interpreting the results. Further, our model is implemented as an example of a statement of emergency (SoE) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Japan.Results: We illustrate the ARIMAITS-DL model with some practical distributed lag terms to examine the effect of the SoE on human mobility in Japan. We confirm that the SoE was successful in reducing the movement of people (15.0-16.0% reduction in Tokyo), at least between February 20 and May 19, 2020. We also provide the R code for other researchers to easily replicate our method.Conclusions: Our model, ARIMAITS-DL, is a useful tool as it can account for the unclear intervention timing and distributed lag effect with autocorrelation and allows for flexible modeling of different types of impacts such as uniformly or normally distributed impact over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]