| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 2. |
- Buckley, Jeffrey, 1992-, et al.
(författare)
-
An assessment of the transparency of contemporary technology education research employing interview-based methodologies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International journal of technology and design education. - : Springer Nature. - 0957-7572 .- 1573-1804.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A high level of transparency in reported research is critical for several reasons, such as ensuring an acceptable level of trustworthiness and enabling replication. Transparency in qualitative research permits the identification of specific circumstances which are associated with findings and observations. Thus, transparency is important for the repeatability of original studies and for explorations of the transferability of original findings. There has been no investigation into levels of transparency in reported technology education research to date. With a position that increasing transparency would be beneficial, this article presents an analysis of levels of transparency in contemporary technology education research studies which employed interviews within their methodologies, and which were published within the International Journal of Technology and Design Education and Design and Technology Education: An International Journal (n = 38). The results indicate room for improvement, especially in terms of documenting researcher positionality, determinations of data saturation, and how power imbalances were managed. A discussion is presented on why it is important to improve levels of transparency in reported studies, and a guide on areas to make transparent is presented for qualitative and quantitative research.
|
|
