对柳叶刀 COVID-19 羟氯喹研究的批判性分析和回顾。

Mondher Toumi, Malgorzata Biernikiewicz, Shuyao Liang, Yitong Wang, Tingting Qiu, Ru Han
{"title":"对柳叶刀 COVID-19 羟氯喹研究的批判性分析和回顾。","authors":"Mondher Toumi, Malgorzata Biernikiewicz, Shuyao Liang, Yitong Wang, Tingting Qiu, Ru Han","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2020.1809236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b> A international registry analysis led by Mehra et al. to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) with or without a macrolide in 96,032 hospitalised COVID-19 patients were published on Lancet, which has raised considerable discussions in the public health community. This study aimed to critically review the quality and limitations of the Mehra et al. publication and discuss the potential influences on the use of HCQ/CQ worldwide. <b>Method</b> A critical review of this publication was conducted to examine the potential study bias in the study objectives, methodology, confounding factors and outcomes and summarise the external reviews. <b>Results</b> The very high homogeneity of the patients' characteristics at baseline was inconsistent with region specific epidemiology and several critical confounding factors. The results indicated that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a hazard ratio of 0.5, which suggested a technical problem in the estimation of the propensity scores. Several major risk factors for mortality identified in the analysis were treated as a minor risk or neutral or even protective factors. Antiviral treatments were recognised as an effective method to reduce mortality and were neither further studied nor integrated in the multivariate Cox model. <b>Conclusion</b> This research appeared to carry multiple biases. An extensive audit of the study, conditions of review and acceptance for publication in the Lancet of that study are requested to avoid damage to the publics' trust on the scientific community at this critical time of COVID-19 pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"1809236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/5f/ZJMA_8_1809236.PMC7733902.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A critical analysis and review of Lancet COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine study.\",\"authors\":\"Mondher Toumi, Malgorzata Biernikiewicz, Shuyao Liang, Yitong Wang, Tingting Qiu, Ru Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20016689.2020.1809236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose</b> A international registry analysis led by Mehra et al. to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) with or without a macrolide in 96,032 hospitalised COVID-19 patients were published on Lancet, which has raised considerable discussions in the public health community. This study aimed to critically review the quality and limitations of the Mehra et al. publication and discuss the potential influences on the use of HCQ/CQ worldwide. <b>Method</b> A critical review of this publication was conducted to examine the potential study bias in the study objectives, methodology, confounding factors and outcomes and summarise the external reviews. <b>Results</b> The very high homogeneity of the patients' characteristics at baseline was inconsistent with region specific epidemiology and several critical confounding factors. The results indicated that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a hazard ratio of 0.5, which suggested a technical problem in the estimation of the propensity scores. Several major risk factors for mortality identified in the analysis were treated as a minor risk or neutral or even protective factors. Antiviral treatments were recognised as an effective method to reduce mortality and were neither further studied nor integrated in the multivariate Cox model. <b>Conclusion</b> This research appeared to carry multiple biases. An extensive audit of the study, conditions of review and acceptance for publication in the Lancet of that study are requested to avoid damage to the publics' trust on the scientific community at this critical time of COVID-19 pandemic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1809236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/5f/ZJMA_8_1809236.PMC7733902.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1809236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1809236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 Mehra 等人在 Lancet 上发表了一项国际登记分析,调查了 96,032 名 COVID-19 住院患者在使用羟氯喹 (HCQ) 和氯喹 (CQ) 的同时使用或不使用大环内酯类药物的情况,引起了公共卫生界的广泛讨论。本研究旨在对 Mehra 等人出版物的质量和局限性进行批判性评论,并讨论对全球 HCQ/CQ 使用的潜在影响。方法 对该出版物进行批判性回顾,检查研究目标、方法、混杂因素和结果中可能存在的研究偏差,并总结外部回顾。结果 患者基线特征的高度同质性与特定地区的流行病学和几个关键的混杂因素不一致。结果表明,血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂与 0.5 的危险比相关,这表明倾向评分的估算存在技术问题。分析中发现的几个主要死亡风险因素被视为次要风险或中性甚至保护性因素。抗病毒治疗被认为是降低死亡率的有效方法,但既没有进一步研究,也没有纳入多变量 Cox 模型。结论 这项研究似乎存在多种偏差。在 COVID-19 大流行的关键时刻,为了避免损害公众对科学界的信任,需要对该研究、审查条件和接受在《柳叶刀》上发表该研究进行广泛审计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A critical analysis and review of Lancet COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine study.

Purpose A international registry analysis led by Mehra et al. to investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) with or without a macrolide in 96,032 hospitalised COVID-19 patients were published on Lancet, which has raised considerable discussions in the public health community. This study aimed to critically review the quality and limitations of the Mehra et al. publication and discuss the potential influences on the use of HCQ/CQ worldwide. Method A critical review of this publication was conducted to examine the potential study bias in the study objectives, methodology, confounding factors and outcomes and summarise the external reviews. Results The very high homogeneity of the patients' characteristics at baseline was inconsistent with region specific epidemiology and several critical confounding factors. The results indicated that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a hazard ratio of 0.5, which suggested a technical problem in the estimation of the propensity scores. Several major risk factors for mortality identified in the analysis were treated as a minor risk or neutral or even protective factors. Antiviral treatments were recognised as an effective method to reduce mortality and were neither further studied nor integrated in the multivariate Cox model. Conclusion This research appeared to carry multiple biases. An extensive audit of the study, conditions of review and acceptance for publication in the Lancet of that study are requested to avoid damage to the publics' trust on the scientific community at this critical time of COVID-19 pandemic.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Value of Further Investment in R&D Using Mixed Methods: A Case Study of Biosensor-Integrated Arteriovenous Grafts. Managing Pharmaceutical Costs in Health Systems: A Review of Affordability, Accessibility and Sustainability Strategies. Operational Efficiency of Public Hospitals in Greece During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis Using DEA and AHP Models. Gatekeeping or Provider Choice for Sustainable Health Systems? A Literature Review on Their Impact on Efficiency, Access, and Quality of Services. Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1