English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection across the globe triggered an unprecedented increase in research activities that resulted in an astronomical publication output of observational studies. However, most studies failed to apply fully the necessary methodological techniques that systematically deal with different biases and confounding, which not only limits their scientific merit but may result in harm through misleading information. In this article, we address a few important biases that can seriously threaten the validity of observational studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on treatment selection bias due to patients’ preference on goals of care, medical futility and disability bias, survivor bias, competing risks, and the misuse of propensity score analysis. We attempt to raise awareness and to help readers assess shortcomings of observational studies of interventions in COVID-19.

Overlooked Shortcomings of Observational Studies of Interventions in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Illustrated Review for the Clinician