ArticleAnales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003)2021
[COVID-19: Critical appraisal of the evidence].
Article in Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Impact of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 on the incidence of infection in school settings].Vacunas · 2023Article
- Article
- [Main changes in the «COVID-19 in paediatrics» clinical practice guideline].Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003) · 2022Article
- Main changes in the "COVID-19 in paediatrics" clinical practice guideline.Anales de pediatria · 2022Article
- COVID-19 clinical features in primary care: COVIDPAP study.Anales de pediatria · 2022Observational
- [COVID-19 clinical features in primary care: COVIDPAP study].Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003) · 2022Article
- Characteristics and conflicting recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for COVID-19 management in children: A scoping review.Travel medicine and infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesize the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.