Cross-sectional evaluation of medical reversals among National Institute of Health guideline practices implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: how often did experts err in a time of crisis? DOI Creative Commons
Alec Kacew, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad

et al.

BMJ Open, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 14(12), P. e085210 - e085210

Published: Dec. 1, 2024

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid and often widespread implementation of medical practices without robust data. Many these have since been tested in large, randomised trials were found to be error. We sought identify incorrect recommendations, or reversals, among National Institute Health guidelines Food Drug Administration (FDA) approvals authorisations. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Participants Recommended FDA authorisations for prevention, treatment and/or management. Main outcome measures frequency characteristics defined as that implemented recommended during pandemic, but later failed find benefit. Results 332 recommendations. 85 (25.6%) opposed a practice, 23 (6.9%) continue pre-COVID standard care deviation 224 (67.5%) reccommended new practice. assessing 72 (32.1%), which 25 (35%) error deemed reversals. Among 21 (84%) prescription medications 1 (4%) was convalescent plasma. 17 (68%) repurposed medications. Two (8%) procedures mechanical interventions one device. 16 (64%) reversals pertained hospital setting (4 intensive units), 4 (16%) non-specific (ie, applicable any setting), non-hospital healthcare workers. Conclusion When faced with novel policymakers rapidly made hundreds specific More than two out three never robustly tested. fashion, Pandemic recommendation errors substantial. Early coordinated efforts initiate trials, even dire situations, may mitigate perpetuation ineffective practices.

Language: Английский

Cross-sectional evaluation of medical reversals among National Institute of Health guideline practices implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: how often did experts err in a time of crisis? DOI Creative Commons
Alec Kacew, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad

et al.

BMJ Open, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 14(12), P. e085210 - e085210

Published: Dec. 1, 2024

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid and often widespread implementation of medical practices without robust data. Many these have since been tested in large, randomised trials were found to be error. We sought identify incorrect recommendations, or reversals, among National Institute Health guidelines Food Drug Administration (FDA) approvals authorisations. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Participants Recommended FDA authorisations for prevention, treatment and/or management. Main outcome measures frequency characteristics defined as that implemented recommended during pandemic, but later failed find benefit. Results 332 recommendations. 85 (25.6%) opposed a practice, 23 (6.9%) continue pre-COVID standard care deviation 224 (67.5%) reccommended new practice. assessing 72 (32.1%), which 25 (35%) error deemed reversals. Among 21 (84%) prescription medications 1 (4%) was convalescent plasma. 17 (68%) repurposed medications. Two (8%) procedures mechanical interventions one device. 16 (64%) reversals pertained hospital setting (4 intensive units), 4 (16%) non-specific (ie, applicable any setting), non-hospital healthcare workers. Conclusion When faced with novel policymakers rapidly made hundreds specific More than two out three never robustly tested. fashion, Pandemic recommendation errors substantial. Early coordinated efforts initiate trials, even dire situations, may mitigate perpetuation ineffective practices.

Language: Английский

Citations

0