• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19.伊维菌素与新冠疫情期间医疗保健证据的完整性
Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 1;10:788972. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972. eCollection 2022.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
5
Participatory Approach to Develop Evidence-Based Clinical Ethics Guidelines for the Care of COVID-19 Patients: A Mixed Method Study From Nepal.参与式方法制定 COVID-19 患者护理循证临床伦理指南:来自尼泊尔的混合方法研究。
Front Public Health. 2022 Jun 27;10:873881. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.873881. eCollection 2022.
6
Against Authority: The Bioethics of Ivermectin Use for COVID-19 Infection.反权威:伊维菌素用于 COVID-19 感染的生物伦理学。
Am J Ther. 2023 May 1;30(3):e232-e241. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001629.
7
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
8
Ethical considerations: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.伦理考虑:大流行和灾害期间危重症和伤员的照护:CHEST 共识声明。
Chest. 2014 Oct;146(4 Suppl):e145S-55S. doi: 10.1378/chest.14-0742.
9
Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.医疗保健利益相关者对影响重症监护远程医疗(CCT)实施因素的看法和经验:定性证据综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 18;2(2):CD012876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012876.pub2.
10
An umbrella review of systematic reviews on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention and management, and patient needs.系统评价的伞式综述,关于 COVID-19 大流行对癌症预防和管理以及患者需求的影响。
Elife. 2023 Apr 4;12:e85679. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85679.

引用本文的文献

1
Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare.探讨决策者在选择多个系统评价时所面临的挑战和策略:对医疗保健中 AI 决策支持工具的启示。
BMJ Open. 2024 Jul 5;14(7):e084124. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084124.
2
Off-label drug use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: topic modelling and sentiment analysis of ivermectin in South Africa and Nigeria as a case study.非洲 COVID-19 大流行期间的标签外用药:以南非和尼日利亚的伊维菌素为例的主题建模和情绪分析。
J R Soc Interface. 2023 Sep;20(206):20230200. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2023.0200. Epub 2023 Sep 13.
3
Misleading Meta-Analyses during COVID-19 Pandemic: Examples of Methodological Biases in Evidence Synthesis.新冠疫情期间具有误导性的荟萃分析:证据综合中方法学偏倚的实例
J Clin Med. 2022 Jul 14;11(14):4084. doi: 10.3390/jcm11144084.

本文引用的文献

1
Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection.伊维菌素治疗新型冠状病毒感染的随机试验的荟萃分析
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 6;8(11):ofab358. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofab358. eCollection 2021 Nov.
2
Intensive Treatment With Ivermectin and Iota-Carrageenan as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Health Care Workers From Tucuman, Argentina.在阿根廷图库曼的医护人员中,使用伊维菌素和iota-卡拉胶进行强化治疗作为COVID-19暴露前预防措施。
Am J Ther. 2021 Aug 16;28(5):e601-e604. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001433.
3
Ivermectin, A Reanalysis of the Data.伊维菌素,数据的重新分析
Am J Ther. 2021;28(5):e579-e580. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001443.
4
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19.综述表明伊维菌素在 COVID-19 预防和治疗中的疗效的新证据。
Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299-e318. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377.
5
Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies.有缺陷的伊维菌素预印本凸显了新冠药物研究的挑战。
Nature. 2021 Aug;596(7871):173-174. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02081-w.
6
Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.伊维菌素预防和治疗 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 28;7(7):CD015017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2.
7
Evaluation of Ivermectin as a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India.评估伊维菌素治疗轻度至中度 COVID-19 的潜力:印度东部的一项双盲随机安慰剂对照试验。
J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2021;24:343-350. doi: 10.18433/jpps32105.
8
Early COVID-19 therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in outpatient settings significantly improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to known outcomes in untreated patients.在门诊环境中,早期使用阿奇霉素联合硝唑尼特、伊维菌素或羟氯喹治疗COVID-19,与未治疗患者的已知结局相比,显著改善了COVID-19的治疗结果。
New Microbes New Infect. 2021 Sep;43:100915. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100915. Epub 2021 Jul 7.
9
Ivermectin and mortality in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials.伊维菌素与 COVID-19 患者的死亡率:随机对照试验的系统评价、荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021 Jul-Aug;15(4):102186. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.102186. Epub 2021 Jun 27.
10
Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.伊维菌素治疗 2019 年冠状病毒病:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Mar 23;74(6):1022-1029. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab591.

伊维菌素与新冠疫情期间医疗保健证据的完整性

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19.

机构信息

College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

Center for Bioethics and Humanities, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2022 Mar 1;10:788972. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972
PMID:35299698
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8921859/
Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

摘要

新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行的特点是缺乏明确的证据来指导医疗保健专业人员、公众和政策制定者。由此产生的不确定性,加上随着更多证据的出现而不断变化的指导方针,增加了决策者报告的压力和焦虑。研究结果是为医疗保健决策提供证据的关键。人们提出了许多重要问题,例如各种干预措施是否安全有效。发现的证据指导做出治疗决策的人,并影响那些选择在研究中进一步评估干预措施的人。随着新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行的加剧,许多药物的有效性和安全性受到质疑。伊维菌素将被用于探讨如何批判性地评估医疗保健证据,即使在大流行期间也必须如此。据称,这种药物在治疗新型冠状病毒肺炎方面有效,各种研究和系统评价都发现了支持性证据。其中一些现在已经与对欺诈或研究报告不佳的担忧联系在一起。本文将重点关注科学文献,以及明显欺诈性的研究是如何发表的,并影响治疗决策、正在进行的研究和公共卫生指南。在像大流行这样的紧急情况下,研究证据至关重要,但在紧急情况下,不应忽视批判性评估(或评估)研究的道德责任,因为这些研究随时可用。这些责任以各种方式适用于编辑、同行评审者、新闻媒体记者以及做出治疗决策的人,包括临床医生、政策制定者和公众。虽然研究文章的作者对拒绝欺诈性或不准确的主张负有主要的道德责任,但健康研究的读者必须仔细评估所有出版物。为了发现和拒绝欺诈性的医疗保健主张,读者需要与他们对这些文章的参与程度相匹配的批判性评价技能。本文将描述批判性评价的核心原则,以及如何根据不同类型的读者对其进行调整。将指出发展批判性评价技能的范例工具,并以探索伊维菌素疗效为例进行审查。随着医疗保健证据的利益相关者越来越能够识别出精心设计和合乎道德的研究,他们将能够同时发现和拒绝欺诈性报告,并防止它们影响医疗保健决策。