长期 COVID 评估研究中对照组和比较组的可比性。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL American Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005
Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad
{"title":"长期 COVID 评估研究中对照组和比较组的可比性。","authors":"Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad","doi":"10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Awareness of long coronavirus disease (COVID) began primarily through media and social media sources, which eventually led to the development of various definitions based on methodologies of varying quality. We sought to characterize comparison groups in long COVID studies and evaluate comparability of the different groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research articles published in high-impact journals. We included studies on human patients with long COVID outcomes, and we abstracted study-related characteristics, as well as long COVID characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 83 studies, 3 were randomized controlled trials testing interventions for long COVID, and 80 (96.4%) were observational studies. Among the 80 observational studies, 76 (95%) were trying to understand the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for long COVID, 2 (2.5%) examined prevention strategies, and 2 (2.5%) examined treatment strategies. Among those 80 studies, 45 (56.2%) utilized a control or comparison group and 35 (43.8%) did not. Compared with 95% of observational studies that documented symptoms or assessed risk factors, all randomized studies assessed treatment strategies. We found 48.8% of observational studies did any adjustment for covariates, including demographics or health status. Of those that did adjust for covariates, 15 (38.5%) adjusted for 4 or fewer variables. We found that 26.5% of all studies and 45.8% of studies with a control/comparator group matched participants on at least 1 variable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Long COVID studies in high-impact journals primarily examine symptoms and risk factors of long COVID; often lack an adequate comparison group and often do not control for potential confounders. Our results suggest that standardized definitions for long COVID, which are often based on data from uncontrolled and potentially biased studies, should be reviewed to ensure that they are based on objective data.</p>","PeriodicalId":50807,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"148-152.e3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9912142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparability of Control and Comparison Groups in Studies Assessing Long COVID.\",\"authors\":\"Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Awareness of long coronavirus disease (COVID) began primarily through media and social media sources, which eventually led to the development of various definitions based on methodologies of varying quality. We sought to characterize comparison groups in long COVID studies and evaluate comparability of the different groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research articles published in high-impact journals. We included studies on human patients with long COVID outcomes, and we abstracted study-related characteristics, as well as long COVID characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 83 studies, 3 were randomized controlled trials testing interventions for long COVID, and 80 (96.4%) were observational studies. Among the 80 observational studies, 76 (95%) were trying to understand the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for long COVID, 2 (2.5%) examined prevention strategies, and 2 (2.5%) examined treatment strategies. Among those 80 studies, 45 (56.2%) utilized a control or comparison group and 35 (43.8%) did not. Compared with 95% of observational studies that documented symptoms or assessed risk factors, all randomized studies assessed treatment strategies. We found 48.8% of observational studies did any adjustment for covariates, including demographics or health status. Of those that did adjust for covariates, 15 (38.5%) adjusted for 4 or fewer variables. We found that 26.5% of all studies and 45.8% of studies with a control/comparator group matched participants on at least 1 variable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Long COVID studies in high-impact journals primarily examine symptoms and risk factors of long COVID; often lack an adequate comparison group and often do not control for potential confounders. Our results suggest that standardized definitions for long COVID, which are often based on data from uncontrolled and potentially biased studies, should be reviewed to ensure that they are based on objective data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"148-152.e3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9912142/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人们对长冠状病毒病(COVID)的认识主要是通过媒体和社交媒体开始的,这最终导致了基于不同质量方法的各种定义的发展。我们试图对长冠状病毒病研究中的比较组进行特征描述,并评估不同组别的可比性:我们在 Embase、Web of Science 和 PubMed 上检索了在高影响力期刊上发表的原创研究文章。我们纳入了对人类患者进行的长效 COVID 结果研究,并摘录了研究相关特征以及长效 COVID 特征:结果:在 83 项研究中,3 项是测试长 COVID 干预措施的随机对照试验,80 项(96.4%)是观察性研究。在这 80 项观察性研究中,76 项(95%)试图了解长 COVID 的发病率、流行率和风险因素,2 项(2.5%)研究了预防策略,2 项(2.5%)研究了治疗策略。在这 80 项研究中,45 项(56.2%)使用了对照组或比较组,35 项(43.8%)没有使用对照组或比较组。与 95% 记录症状或评估风险因素的观察性研究相比,所有随机研究都对治疗策略进行了评估。我们发现,48.8% 的观察性研究对包括人口统计学或健康状况在内的协变量进行了调整。在对协变量进行调整的研究中,有 15 项(38.5%)对 4 个或更少的变量进行了调整。我们发现,在所有研究中,26.5% 的研究和 45.8% 的研究设有对照/比较组,至少有一个变量与参与者相匹配:高影响力期刊上的长期慢性阻塞性肺病研究主要研究长期慢性阻塞性肺病的症状和风险因素;通常缺乏适当的比较组,也通常不控制潜在的混杂因素。我们的研究结果表明,长COVID的标准化定义往往基于未受控制且可能存在偏差的研究数据,因此应该对这些定义进行审查,以确保其基于客观数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparability of Control and Comparison Groups in Studies Assessing Long COVID.

Background: Awareness of long coronavirus disease (COVID) began primarily through media and social media sources, which eventually led to the development of various definitions based on methodologies of varying quality. We sought to characterize comparison groups in long COVID studies and evaluate comparability of the different groups.

Methods: We searched Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research articles published in high-impact journals. We included studies on human patients with long COVID outcomes, and we abstracted study-related characteristics, as well as long COVID characteristics.

Results: Of the 83 studies, 3 were randomized controlled trials testing interventions for long COVID, and 80 (96.4%) were observational studies. Among the 80 observational studies, 76 (95%) were trying to understand the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for long COVID, 2 (2.5%) examined prevention strategies, and 2 (2.5%) examined treatment strategies. Among those 80 studies, 45 (56.2%) utilized a control or comparison group and 35 (43.8%) did not. Compared with 95% of observational studies that documented symptoms or assessed risk factors, all randomized studies assessed treatment strategies. We found 48.8% of observational studies did any adjustment for covariates, including demographics or health status. Of those that did adjust for covariates, 15 (38.5%) adjusted for 4 or fewer variables. We found that 26.5% of all studies and 45.8% of studies with a control/comparator group matched participants on at least 1 variable.

Conclusion: Long COVID studies in high-impact journals primarily examine symptoms and risk factors of long COVID; often lack an adequate comparison group and often do not control for potential confounders. Our results suggest that standardized definitions for long COVID, which are often based on data from uncontrolled and potentially biased studies, should be reviewed to ensure that they are based on objective data.

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
American Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
449
审稿时长
9 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Medicine - "The Green Journal" - publishes original clinical research of interest to physicians in internal medicine, both in academia and community-based practice. AJM is the official journal of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, a prestigious group comprising internal medicine department chairs at more than 125 medical schools across the U.S. Each issue carries useful reviews as well as seminal articles of immediate interest to the practicing physician, including peer-reviewed, original scientific studies that have direct clinical significance and position papers on health care issues, medical education, and public policy.
期刊最新文献
Cardioesophageal Reflex. Should it trigger clinician's response? Caught in Transit: Thrombus Trapped in a Patent Foramen Ovale. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with nonrheumatic streptococcal pharyngitis associated myocarditis. Gut Microbiome Modulation in Allergy Treatment: The Role of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. The "Silk Road" that leads to Infliximab: A severe case of Behçet's disease.
×
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