Dear David,
Thanks for your enquiry to ChatGPT in relation to my statement: “However, to date we have been unable to identify a single example of how access to the full text of a research paper saved a life, or even contributed directly to clinical decision-making."
ChatGPT gave five 'examples'. Yesterday I looked at the first example (detection of COVID-19 by real-time RT-CPR) and concluded it was not relevant.
Here is the second example:
#2: The RECOVERY trial “dexamethasone” result was released OA as a medRxiv preprint on 22 Jun 2020. Multiple studies document immediate practice change and associated mortality reduction after the OA preprint emerged (with later peer-review confirming the effect).
Example impact documentation: an interrupted-time-series analysis found an “abrupt increase in dexamethasone use and an associated decrease in mortality” after RECOVERY’s release; a Japanese nationwide analysis shows steroid prescribing pivoting specifically to dexamethasone once guidance incorporated the (OA-circulating) RECOVERY result.
Reference: Horby P, Landray MJ, RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Effect of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 – Preliminary Report. medRxiv. 2020 Jun 22.doi:10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273.
COMMENT (NPW): This research has been described by the evidence-based medicine leader Paul Glasziou. He says 'RECOVERY has been remarkable, going from first meeting to first patient recruited in a record-setting nine days, recruiting 13% of all COVID-19 hospitalised patients in the UK during the first COVID-19 wave; and a few months later giving clear answers on the effectiveness of dexamethasone.'
What was remarkable was the overall process. The publication of the pre-print was one part of a wider process. I note the researchers findings were published as an 'official' paper just a few weeks' later in the New England Journal of Medicine ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7383595/ ). It would be interesting to know how this was achieved (perhaps the researchers were already in contact with the NEJM during the course of their research?). The NEJM paper was accompanied by an editorial commentary by Clifford Lane and Anthony Fauci ('Research in the context of a pandemic' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7383591/ ).
I would argue that what would have been most useful to clinicians and policymakers was perhaps not the preprint, but the NEJM paper (which would have been edited, formatted and peer-reviewed) and associated commentary.
This is a good example in that it demonstrates how pre-prints can accelerate research communication. But it also seems to me to underline the importance of journals and their role in editing and peer-review.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org