Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 33574258!7878793!33574258     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33574258&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Nat+Commun 2021 ; 12 (1): 943 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33574258|t=2021. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research |pdf=|usr=}}{{33574258}} gab.com Text Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research JO: Nat Commun http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33574258 #FOAvip The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence. Twit Text FOAVip Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research ????Nat Commun http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33574258 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33574258 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33574258}}</ref> Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research #MMPMID33574258 Jung RG; Di Santo P; Clifford C; Prosperi-Porta G; Skanes S; Hung A; Parlow S; Visintini S; Ramirez FD; Simard T; Hibbert B Nat Commun 2021[Feb]; 12 (1): 943 PMID33574258show ga The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*Data Accuracy[MESH] |*Periodicals as Topic[MESH] |Animals[MESH] |Clinical Studies as Topic[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Peer Review, Research[MESH] |Research Design[MESH]Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing