Talk Evidence

As 2021 hoves into view, we look back at a year of extraordinary evidence. Helen Macdonald is joined by Joe Ross, one of The BMJ's research editors, as well as a researcher at Yale. They discuss the way in which clinical pre-prints have become an important part of the research ecosystem, especially during the pandemic, and pick up on some of the non-coronavirus things you might have missed in the deluge of data.

If you've had time to digest this year's Christmas edition of The BMJ, you might have wondered how those papers get into The BMJ. Well in this Talk Evidence podcast, Helen Macdonald, UK research editor at The BMJ talks to two of her research team colleagues, John Fletcher and Tim Feeney, as they talk through why they chose their favourite papers. Toxicological analysis of George’s marvellous medicine https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4467 Does medicine run in the family—evidence from three generations of physicians in Sweden https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4453 The time to act is now https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4143

The vaccines are being rolled out - but approval is still on an emergency basis, and the evidence underpinning those decisions is only just becoming available for scrutiny. In this podcast we talk to Baruch Fischhoff, professor at Carnegie Mellon University and expert on public health communication about how that messaging should be done. Peter Doshi, associate editor at The BMJ, and vaccine regulation researcher also joins us to talk about the data now released on the vaccine trials - what questions does it raise, and what are the next steps for researching safety. For more on The BMJ's covid-19 coverage www.bmj.com/coronavirus

Uncertainty abounds - even as we get better data on treatments, with the big RCTs beginning to report, and new trials on masks, the evidence remains uncertain, in both the statistical realm (confidence intervals crossing 0) and in what to do in the face of that continuing lack of clear effect. As always Helen Macdonald and Duncan Jarvies are looking at the evidence, and this week are joined by John Brodersen, professor of general practice at the University of Copenhagen. Helen talks to Bram Rochwerg, methodology lead on the WHO treatment guidelines for covid, about why their latest review has stopped recommending remdesivir for covid-19 treatment. John tells us about the Danmask study - what question it was actually trying to answer. We also discuss the ways in which there is a tendency to express certainty where there is none, and why distrusting simple solutions to complex problems is a good rule of thumb. Reading list: A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3379 Covid-19’s known unknowns https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3979 Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

In this talk evidence covid-19 update, we’re taking on risk - how do you figure out your individual risk of dying from the disease? Try QCovid, but remember that it’s figuring out your risk back in April. When it comes to talking about risk, very few people actually engage with the number, so Alex Freeman from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge joins us to describe their research into more effective ways of presenting it. Huseyin Naci, from the London School of Economics, returns to the podcast to talk to us about the problems of pulling all the trial data together, and where covid-19 has made people work together most effectively in tackling that issue. Reading list; Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3731 Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19 –interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817v1 Producing and using timely comparative evidence on drugs: lessons from clinical trials for covid-19 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3869.full

In this Talk Evidence covid-19 update, Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at the University of Birmingham gives us an update on testing technology. Will the point of care tests make a different to big live events, and how research and regulation need to change to tame the testing wild west. Paul Glasziou, professor of evidence based practice at at Bond University has set up a new collaboration to try and get better at creating evidence for non-drug/vaccine control of pandemics - and ponders why we're good at drug research, but terrible at other kinds.

This episode was recorded on 18 September - just before the news came out about the new lockdown measures. We’ll hear Carl and Helen’s thoughts, but we also want to hear a broad range of views - so get in touch at bmj.com/podcasts. (1.15) The kids are back in school, and people are worried about the infection spreading. Helen takes us through the ISCARIC data on children's symptoms and outcomes from covid-19. (5.50) David Ludwig, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and BMJ editor, joins us to give an overview of paediatric covid. (15.30) Carl has thoughts about the spread of covid, and how it seems to be mirroring other respiratory illnesses. (18.00) We wonder about the evidence for the "rule of six"

There are have been local lockdowns in the UK, in places such as Oldham, Birmingham, Manchester – but what is the criteria for making that decision? In the non-Covid world: does honey alleviate symptoms in upper-respiratory tract infections? When does unexpected weight-loss warrant further investigation for cancer in primary care? Plus, in the light of findings from the Cumberlege review of safety in medical devices, the team discuss the issue of doctors’ declaration of interests.

1.00) Carl has been looking at PCR testing, and explains why it picks up both viable SARS-cov-2, but also fragments of it’s RNA - leading to potential over diagnosis. (8.50 ) What did the Living systematic review and accompanying guidelines say about treatment options for covid-19 (14.35) Helen talks to Reed Siemieniuk,  general internist from McMaster University, about creating a living network meta-analysis, to try and synthesis all the evidence on covid-19 (22.48) Helen also talks to Bram Rochwerg, associate professor at McMaster University and consultant intensivist at Hamilton Health Sciences, about turning the outcomes of a meta-analysis into guidelines, and why at the moment they’re still calling for more evidence on Remdesivir (30.08) Finally, there are worries about the uncertainty expressed in the living review - and in the way in which we communicate that. Helen goes back to Reed to find out how the review might evolve in the future. (33.50) Covid isn’t just an acute disease, there is emerging consensus that it’s systemic effects lead to long term problems for some patients - but there’s a lot of uncertainty there. (38.40) Carl talks about the IMMDS review and his involvement in it - and what recommendations we’ll be covering in future Talk Evidence programmes. Reading list: Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis -https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2980 Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline - https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2924 Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care - https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026

Fresh outbreaks of covid in Europe and a wave of infections in the United States have been in the news this week, highlighting the renewed need for social distancing – but to what extent? In this edition, we explore the real-world evidence for physical distancing measures as well as the research into whether or not facemasks make us behave more recklessly. We also discuss the non-covid themes of research transparency and a BMJ investigation into the lucrative business of orphan drugs.