Suppr超能文献

为 COVID-19 社交隔离干预措施保持平衡并进行随机试验。

Preserving equipoise and performing randomised trials for COVID-19 social distancing interventions.

机构信息

Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

University Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 (Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes), F-35000, Rennes, France.

出版信息

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020 Oct 28;29:e184. doi: 10.1017/S2045796020000992.

Abstract

In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modelling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomised-controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomised trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomised trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials.

摘要

在 2019 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,广泛的社会隔离干预措施(例如,禁止公众集会、关闭学校、工作场所和除基本业务以外的所有场所、强制居家政策、旅行限制、边境关闭等)大量被采用。这些措施的紧急部署是以虚假可信度的建模和观察数据为依据的。对于这些措施是否有效存在重大争议,对于这些措施可能带来的危害程度也存在不确定性。鉴于如何、何时以及是否应该在重新开放期间应用和(或)取消/修改特定的 COVID-19 社会隔离干预措施存在平衡,我们认为需要进行信息性随机对照试验。虽然已经进行了少数这样的随机试验,但迄今为止所做的试验表明,随机试验方案是可行的。在这里,我们讨论了研究设计选择、对照(干预和对照组)选择、结果选择以及进行此类试验的其他考虑因素。我们还讨论并驳斥了反对进行此类试验的常见反对意见。

相似文献

2
Clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic.临床试验与新冠疫情
Hell J Nucl Med. 2020 Jan-Apr;23(1):4-5. doi: 10.1967/s002449912014.
8
COVID-19: we need randomised trials of school closures.新冠疫情:我们需要针对学校停课的随机试验。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Dec;74(12):1078-1079. doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-214262. Epub 2020 Sep 9.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

5
Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed.对新冠疫情的预测失败了。
Int J Forecast. 2022 Apr-Jun;38(2):423-438. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.08.004. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
7
Will COVID-19 be evidence-based medicine's nemesis?新冠病毒肺炎会成为循证医学的克星吗?
PLoS Med. 2020 Jun 30;17(6):e1003266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003266. eCollection 2020 Jun.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验