Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review.
Dena ZeraatkarTyler PitreGareth LeungEllen CusanoArnav AgarwalFaran KhalidZaira EscamillaMatthew Adam CooperMaryam GhadimiYing WangFrancisca Verdugo-PaivaGabriel RadaElena KumAnila QasimJessica Julia BartoszkoReed Alexander Cunningham SiemieniukChirag PatelGordon GuyattRomina Brignardello-PetersenPublished in: BMJ medicine (2022)
No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.
Keyphrases
- meta analyses
- public health
- decision making
- healthcare
- systematic review
- coronavirus disease
- sars cov
- emergency department
- clinical trial
- randomized controlled trial
- mental health
- study protocol
- risk assessment
- health information
- machine learning
- electronic health record
- phase iii
- climate change
- respiratory syndrome coronavirus
- drug induced