Curating the Evidence About COVID-19 for Frontline Public Health and Clinical Care: The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium

  1. Andrew D. Redd
  2. Lauren S. Peetluk
  3. Brooke A. Jarrett
  4. Colleen Hanrahan
  5. Sheree Schwartz
  6. Amrita Rao
  7. Andrew E. Jaffe
  8. Austin D. Peer
  9. Carli B. Jones
  10. Chelsea S. Lutz
  11. Clifton D. McKee
  12. Eshan U. Patel
  13. Joseph G. Rosen
  14. Henri Garrison Desany
  15. Heather S. McKay
  16. John Muschelli
  17. Kathleen M. Andersen
  18. Malen A. Link
  19. Nikolas Wada
  20. Prativa Baral
  21. Ruth Young
  22. Denali Boon
  23. M. Kate Grabowski
  24. Emily S. Gurley
  25. the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium Team

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing the public health and medical response to the pandemic. However, early in the pandemic, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision-making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >60 faculty and trainees across the United States, formed in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6 through December 31, 2020, NCRC teams screened 54 192 peer-reviewed articles and preprints, of which 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. Most articles were peer-reviewed publications (n = 395, 75.0%), published in 102 journals; 25.1% (n = 132) of articles reviewed were preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics translate scientific knowledge for practitioners and help build capacity for this work among students. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/00333549211058732
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.26.21255437: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    For PubMed, queries are invoked with the easyPubMed R package [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/easyPubMed/index.html] and reformatted from XML using the rvest package (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rvest/index.html) to extract relevant information.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Through a formal collaboration with bioRxiv and medRxiv, NCRC reviews of most preprint papers are also automatically posted onto the preprint’s bioRxiv or medRxiv page.
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)
    Communicating reviews: The NCRC website launched on April 27, 2020.
    NCRC
    suggested: (David H Murdock Research Institute, RRID:SCR_012562)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.26.21255437 on medRxiv