PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR CLINICAL COURSE OF PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: PROTOCOL FOR A RAPID LIVING SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

  1. César Ramos Rocha-Filho
  2. Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto
  3. Aline Pereira da Rocha
  4. Keilla Martins Milby
  5. Felipe Sebastião de Assis Reis
  6. Vinicius Tassoni Civile
  7. Nelson Carvas Junior
  8. Rodolfo Rodrigo Pereira Santos
  9. Gabriel Sodré Ramalho
  10. Giulia Fernandes Moça Trevisani
  11. Laura Jantsch Ferla
  12. Maria Eduarda dos Santos Puga
  13. Virgínia Fernandes Moça Trevisani
  14. Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Determining prognostic factors in a context of health crises such as the COVID-19 scenario may provide the best possible care for patients and optimize the management and the resource utilization of the health system. Thus, we aim to systematically review the prognostic factors for different outcomes of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: Protocol for a rapid living systematic review methodology following the recommendations proposed by the Cochrane Handbook. METHODS: We will include cohorts and case-control studies. We will search Medline via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Portal Regional BVS-LILACS, Scopus and WebofScience to identify studies. No language restrictions will be applied. We will perform the critical appraisal of included studies with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.06.20087692: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Compared with the methods of a systematic review, the review team will apply the following methodological shortcuts (6): Eligibility Criteria: Data Sources and Searches: We will search MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Elsevier, Cochrane Library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Portal Regional BVS - LILACS, and Webof Science, using relevant descriptors and synonyms, adapting the search to the requirements of each database.
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    The search strategy in MEDLINE via Pubmed is shown in Table 1.
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    The search strategy above will be used in Medline via Pubmed and will be adapted to the specifications of each database.
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Assessment of Methodological Quality in included studies and certainty of evidence: We will perform critical appraisal of included studies with Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) (10) scale as recommended by Cochrane Collaboration.
    Cochrane Collaboration
    suggested: None
    Data Synthesis and Analysis: We will perform analyses according to the recommendations of Cochrane, and the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group, and we will use Review Manager 5 to perform meta-analysis when possible for hazard or odds ratios.
    Cochrane
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Cochrane Prognosis
    suggested: None
    For these data, we will perform proportion meta-analysis using RStudio© software, with the “meta” package (version 4.9-6) and “metaprop” function.
    RStudio©
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Potential limitations for this study include the possibility of finding biased studies which can make them unsuitable for clustering or meta-analysis, or small sample studies that do not allow us to provide precise estimates. We believe that the strengths of this rapid systematic review include the transparency, the strict methods, the evaluation of the quality of evidence, and the extensive and more sensitive searches. This being said, we will be able to identify the current available evidence, differentiating the prognostic factors for each stage of the disease and to provide important information for clinical decision-making on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has recently emerged and caused a deadly pandemic. Reporting standards: This systematic review protocol was written as per the PRISMA-P guidelines (14).

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.06.20087692 on medRxiv