Developed by Shray Alag, The Harker School
Sections: Correlations,
Clinical Trials, and HPO
Navigate: Clinical Trials and HPO
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| drug904 | Chloroquine Wiki | 0.51 |
| drug1316 | EP Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug805 | CT-scan Wiki | 0.45 |
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| drug4325 | YinHu QingWen Decoction Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug4756 | standard western medicine treatment Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug844 | Cannabis, Medical Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug705 | CICI - Feasibility trial study group Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug3159 | Pulse oximetry Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug4326 | YinHu QingWen Decoction(low dose) Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug900 | Chinese medicine treatment Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug1302 | EEG Wiki | 0.45 |
| drug1564 | Follow up Wiki | 0.32 |
| drug1806 | Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate Regular dose Wiki | 0.32 |
| drug1805 | Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate Loading Dose Wiki | 0.32 |
| drug617 | Blood tests Wiki | 0.32 |
| drug492 | BNT162b1 Wiki | 0.26 |
| drug1265 | Doxycycline Wiki | 0.20 |
| drug2029 | Ivermectin Wiki | 0.10 |
| drug2981 | Placebo oral tablet Wiki | 0.08 |
| drug2916 | Placebo Wiki | 0.04 |
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| D020196 | Trauma, Nervous System NIH | 0.45 |
| D000070627 | Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy NIH | 0.45 |
| D005879 | Tourette Syndrome NIH | 0.45 |
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| D001714 | Bipolar Disorder NIH | 0.32 |
| D000690 | Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis NIH | 0.26 |
| D012640 | Seizures NIH | 0.26 |
| D016472 | Motor Neuron Disease NIH | 0.26 |
| D001930 | Brain Injuries, NIH | 0.25 |
| D000755 | Anemia, Sickle Cell NIH | 0.22 |
| D005356 | Fibromyalgia NIH | 0.20 |
| D003693 | Delirium NIH | 0.20 |
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries NIH | 0.15 |
| D000070642 | Brain Injuries, Traumatic NIH | 0.15 |
| D010300 | Parkinsonian NIH | 0.15 |
| D015212 | Inflammatory Bowel Diseases NIH | 0.15 |
| D003424 | Crohn Disease NIH | 0.13 |
| D059350 | Chronic Pain NIH | 0.12 |
| D016638 | Critical Illness NIH | 0.11 |
| D009103 | Multiple Sclerosis NIH | 0.11 |
| D012598 | Scoliosi NIH | 0.10 |
| D040921 | Stress Disorders, Traumatic NIH | 0.08 |
| D013313 | Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic NIH | 0.07 |
| D004194 | Disease NIH | 0.07 |
| D013577 | Syndrome NIH | 0.04 |
| D003141 | Communicable Diseases NIH | 0.03 |
| D007239 | Infection NIH | 0.02 |
| D045169 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome NIH | 0.02 |
| D018352 | Coronavirus Infections NIH | 0.02 |
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| HP:0001298 | Encephalopathy HPO | 1.00 |
| HP:0100754 | Mania HPO | 0.32 |
| HP:0006802 | Abnormal anterior horn cell morphology HPO | 0.26 |
| Name (Synonyms) | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|
| HP:0007354 | Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis HPO | 0.26 |
| HP:0001250 | Seizure HPO | 0.22 |
| HP:0002037 | Inflammation of the large intestine HPO | 0.15 |
| HP:0100280 | Crohn's disease HPO | 0.13 |
| HP:0012532 | Chronic pain HPO | 0.12 |
Navigate: Correlations HPO
There are 5 clinical trials
This will be a multistate, multicenter clinical study to determine the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis for a wide variety of chronic medical conditions.
Description: Covid-19 infection rates in cannabis users will be compared to rates in the general population. Our online questionnaire responses will compare infection rates of cannabis users in this study against the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Research Center data (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu).
Measure: Prevention of COVID-19 Time: Five yearsDescription: Severity of persistent symptoms in cannabis users testing positive for active infection and/or antibodies will also be compared to the general population. Patients will answer the widely used FLU-PRO questionnaire, which asks about flu symptoms and severity, to capture diagnoses, symptoms, and medical interventions related to COVID-19. The data from cannabis user patients will be compared with national and international data surveys, such as the Covid Symptom Study (https://covid.joinzoe.com/us-2).
Measure: Treatment of COVID-19 Time: Five yearsDescription: The primary objective is to assess the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis as medicine for treatment of chronic pain and other chronic debilitating diseases. Pain will be measured by Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) numeric scale. Change from baseline in BPI will be assessed at 3-month intervals. For prospective associations between cannabis use and outcomes, use of a lagged mixed-effects models will examine temporal associations between cannabis use and pain severity, opioid sparing, and patient satisfaction. Data will be analyzed from baseline and the annual follow-up waves.
Measure: Treatment of Symptoms Time: Five yearsDescription: Secondary objectives include evaluating increases or decreases in quality of life, and increases or decreases in concomitant opioid use. Satisfaction with treatment will be measured by a Visual Analog Score (VAS). Change From baseline in Satisfaction with treatment measured by (VAS) be assessed at 3-month intervals.
Measure: Cannabis Impact on Quality of Life Time: Five yearsDescription: Tertiary objectives will examine preferences for routes of administration, and preferences for THC / CBD ratios. Categorical factors will be summarized using frequencies and percentages, while continuous measure distributions will be described using means, standard deviations, and quartiles of interest.
Measure: Cannabis Route and Dosing Time: Five yearsDescription: Incidence of Treatment-Related Adverse Events will be measured by Physician Global Assessment (PGA) numeric scale. Number of participants with Treatment-Related Adverse Events will be assessed by CTCAE v4.0.
Measure: Monitoring Adverse Events Time: Five yearsChildren with acquired brain injury (ABI) often struggle with complex impairments, including cognitive (such as memory and attention), social, emotional and behavioral challenges. There is broad agreement that there is a lack of evidence-based knowledge about rehabilitation for children with ABI in the chronic phase. The current study is a feasibility study of a planned randomized controlled trial (RCT), the CICI-intervention, directed towards children with ABI and their families in the chronic phase. The feasibility study aims to evaluate the study protocol, the assessment procedures and the technical solutions prior to performing the RCT. A feasibility study with six participating children and families will be conducted in close collaboration with schools and local health care providers. The intervention to be tested (the CICI-intervention) focuses on the child's and family's individually identified target outcome areas to be addressed, with corresponding rehabilitation goals. The intervention aims to enhance everyday functioning in the home and school environment by reducing ABI-related symptoms, and by attaining rehabilitation goals in areas noted as challenging by the participants. In the future RCT-study the efficacy of the CICI-intervention will be measured in terms of goal attainment, community participation, cognitive, behavioral, social, and family functioning.
Description: The therapists will monitor discrepancies between intervention delivery and the CICI-manual by using extensive checklists relating to each of the intervention sessions. The number of non-delivered treatment components will be counted, and the percentage of deviation will be calculated compared to the total number of treatment components. High feasibility: 15 % deviation or less, Moderate feasibility: 15-25 % deviation, Low feasibility: > 25 % deviation
Measure: Protocol adherence assessed by study-specific checklists Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the child, will determine child responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists of the following items (the wording adapted to the child's age): I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: Child Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Responsiveness subscale (6 items) on the Acceptability Scale, rated by the caregiver, will determine caregiver responsiveness. The responsiveness subscale consists if the following items: I would recommend participating in the study to others, the therapist was warm and understanding, I trusted the therapist, I had the opportunity to state my opinions about the therapist's suggestions, my opinions were taken seriously, I was given sufficient information during the study about the work we were doing. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: Caregiver Responsiveness to the intervention assessed by ratings on the study specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (6 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The child version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items: The program has helped me, the program has helped my family, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have learned something new that helps me, I have learned more about what I struggle with after the injury, I have learned what I can say to others about what I struggle with due to the injury. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: a. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by child ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the Usefulness subscale (9 items) in the Acceptability Scale will determine perceived usefulness of the intervention. The caregiver version of the usefulness subscale consists of the following items: The program has helped my child, the program has helped my family, the program has helped me, I would recommend participating in the program to others, I have gained more insight into my child´s challenges, I will use my new knowledge in the future, I have used my new knowledge in other settings, I found it useful to meet other families who are in a similar situation as we are, the school meetings were useful. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: b. Usefulness of the intervention assessed by caregiver ratings on the study-specific Acceptability Scale for this study. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The therapist will log consent rate of families and schools. High feasibility: ≥ 30%, Moderate feasibility: 15-29%, Low feasibility: <15%
Measure: Recruitment procedures assessed by a) consent rate Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: Therapist will record duration of recruitment procedures, hereunder the telephone screening interview and other telephone calls. High feasibility: 3 hours or less, Moderate feasibility: ˃3 and ≤5 hours, Low feasibility: >5 hours
Measure: Recruitment procedures assessed by b) duration of phone calls and screening interview per family Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: High feasibility: One family excluded at or after baseline, Moderate feasibility: Two families excluded at or after baseline, Low feasibility: More than two families excluded at or after baseline
Measure: Recruitment procedures assessed by c) the number of participants excluded at or after baseline Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: Description: Number of families out of six that participate in the first intervention meeting (after baseline) and complete the entire intervention. High feasibility: Six families completed the intervention, Moderate feasibility: Five families completed the intervention, Low feasibility: Four or fewer families completed the intervention
Measure: Recruitment procedures assessed by d) the number of families that completed the whole intervention Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the following four items in the Acceptability Scale will determine the child burden of the assessment protocol: If the child was comfortable being tested and if the child was comfortable expressing his/her symptoms and opinions through the questionnaires, if the child understood the questionnaires and if the assessment made the child tired. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The total mean score on the following four items in the Acceptability Scale will determine the child burden of the assessment protocol perceived by the caregiver: If the child was comfortable being tested, if the child was comfortable expressing his/her symptoms and opinions through the questionnaires, if the child understood the questionnaires and if the assessment made the child tired. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: The burden of the assessment protocol for the child, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The following item in the Acceptability Scale will determine the caregiver burden of the assessment protocol: There were too many questionnaires. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: The burden of the assessment protocol for the caregivers, reported by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The caregivers' perceived relevance of the topics in caregiver-questionnaires will be measured with two items on the Acceptability Scale: I was able to give important information through the questionnaires, the questionnaires were not relevant for me. Mean score will be calculated. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: Caregiver reported relevance of topics in questionnaires Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The therapist will record the duration of the baseline assessment through logs. High feasibility: ≤ 3hours, Moderate feasibility: ˃3 hours and ˂4 hours, Low feasibility: ≥4 hours
Measure: Therapist reported burden of the baseline assessment measured by the duration of the assessment. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals for the caregivers will be measured with three items on the Acceptability Scale ("The goals we set were important", "The strategies we used for working towards the goals have helped my family", "The strategies we used for working towards the goals have helped my child"). Mean score will be calculated. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals as rated by caregivers on the study-specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree"). The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals for the child will be measured with one item on the Acceptability Scale ("The goals we set were important"). High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2.
Measure: The perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals rated by the child on the study-specific Acceptability Scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The therapist records the number of sessions interrupted due to technical failure, per family. High feasibility: Restart of equipment in 0-1 sessions per family, Moderate feasibility: Restart of equipment in 2-3 sessions per family, Low feasibility: Restart of equipment in 4-5 sessions per family.
Measure: Therapist-recorded technical failures in using videoconference in treatment delivery assessed by a study-specific log. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The therapist will record the time spent on installing the technical equipment for video conference use, including software, per family. High feasibility: Installment completed in ≤ 20 minutes in one go, Moderate feasibility: Installment completed in > 20 minutes in one go, Low feasibility: Additional visit required to complete installment.
Measure: Therapist-recorded time spent on installment of the equipment for using videoconference in treatment delivery Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: The study-specific acceptability Scale is rated on a scale from 0 ("Completely disagree") to 4 ("Completely agree") and includes one question concerning the quality of communication through videoconference. The wording is adapted to the children's age, and the children, their parents, and the therapists will rate the question. The mean score will be calculated. High feasibility: Mean score ≥ 3 ("Agree"), Moderate feasibility: Mean score ≥ 2 and < 3, Low feasibility: < 2 on the item assessing quality of communication through videoconference.
Measure: Experienced quality of communication in using videoconference in treatment delivery, assessed by the Acceptability scale. Time: Will be evaluated after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Description: Explored topics: responsiveness to the intervention, usefulness of the intervention, the perceived relevance of working with SMART-goals, and experienced quality of communication in using videoconference in treatment delivery.
Measure: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with all participating children, caregivers and teachers will be conducted to elaborate aspects of feasibility as described above. Time: Will be performed after the intervention period, i.e. 4-5 months after inclusion.Infection with SARS-CoV-2 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronarvirus type 2 was highlighted in December 2019 in the city of Wuhan in China, responsible for an pandemic evolution since March 11, 2020. The infection affects all ages of life, although affecting children in a very small proportion of cases. The typical presentation of the disease combines fever (98%), cough (76%), myalgia and asthenia (18%) as well as leukopenia (25%) and lymphopenia (63%). Upper airway involvement rare. The main clinical presentation requiring hospitalization of infected patients is that of atypical pneumonia which may require critical care management (27%), and progress to an acute respiratory distress syndrome (67%) involving life-threatening conditions in almost 25% of patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Other organ damage have been reported, mainly concerning kidney damage (29%) which may require renal replacement therapy in approximately 17% of patients. Neurological damage has been very rarely studied, yet reported in 36% of cases in a study including patients of varying severity. Finally, the mortality associated with this emerging virus is high in patients for whom critical care management is necessary, reported in 62% of patients. We therefore propose a prospective observational study which aim at reporting the prevalence of acute encephalopathy at initial management in Critical/Intensive care or Neurocritical care , to report its morbidity and mortality and to identify prognostic factors.
Description: ratio of patients with acute encephalopathy among the total of patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection at Critical/Intensive care or Neurocritical care admission
Measure: prevalence Time: at Critical/Intensive care or Neurocritical care admissionDescription: A favorable outcome is defined by a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) of 5. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) will be determined patients charts review, phone call, and/or general practitioner interview conducted by an independent assessor. The GOS score : [1: Death, 2: Persistent vegetative state, 3: Severe disability, 4: Moderate disability, 5 : Low disability]
Measure: Favorable outcome Time: 3 monthsDescription: A favorable outcome is defined by a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSe) >= 5. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSe) will be determined patients charts review, phone call, and/or general practitioner interview conducted by an independent assessor. The GOSe score : [1: Death, 2: Persistent vegetative state, 3: Severe disability Lower, 4: Severe disability Upper, 5: Moderate disability Lower, 6: Moderate disability Upper, 7 : Good recovery lower, 8 : Good recovery Upper]
Measure: Favorable outcome Time: 3 monthsDelirium and acute neurocognitive impairment are increasingly observed in adult and pediatric patients with COVID-19. Prospective clinical studies combining clinical and laboratory examinations including specific biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury were not performed for COVID-19. The value of biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury was proven in preliminary studies. These biomarkers could thus contribute to the systematic detection of neurocognitive impairment in patients with COVID-19. Due to worldwide increasing numbers of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury are highly valuable to detect and monitor cognitive impairment, especially with regard to limited resources available to perform time-consuming brain imaging. Biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury are therefore not only of great interest to detect neurocognitive impairment but also to quantify the severity of brain injury in patients with COVID-19.
Description: Assessment of neurocognitive impairment using validated tools
Measure: Incidence of delirium/neurocognitive impairment in adult and pediatric patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: Day 90Description: Measurement of biomarker levels (e.g. NSE, S100B, neurofilament proteins) derived from blood samples
Measure: Change in neuroaxonal injury biomarker levels in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: Change from baseline biomarker levels at day 28Description: Assessment of the neurocognitive performance of patients using validated tests (e.g. Short Blessed Test)
Measure: Neurocognitive 3-months outcome in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: Day 90Description: Assessment of the change in the neurocognitive performance of patients using validated tests (e.g. IQCODE)
Measure: Neurocognitive 3-months outcome in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: Change from baseline IQCODE results at day 90Description: Assessment of the overall quality of life using validated tests [e.g. Modified Rankin Scale with a range from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (dead)]
Measure: Quality of life in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 after hospital discharge Time: Day 90Description: Cumulative days in hospital
Measure: Length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: 1 yearDescription: Survival after 90 days
Measure: 90-day survival in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 Time: Day 90The SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in December 2019 in Wuhan City, China. The infection affects all age groups, although childhood is the lowest proportion of those affected. The main clinical manifestations that require hospitalization of infected patients are SARS pneumonia, which may require treatment in the intensive care unit (27%) and its progression into acute respiratory distress syndrome (67%) with life-threatening conditions in almost 25% of patients diagnosed with "SARS-CoV-2 infection". Nervous system damage with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been practically not investigated, but neurological disorders have been reported in 36% of these patients. Finally, the mortality rate associated with the new virus is high in patients who require treatment in intensive care units (62% of cases). Therefore, we are conducting a prospective study to identify acute encephalopathy predictors in patients with COVID-19.
Description: The percentage of patients who have developed encephalopathy
Measure: The percentage of patients who have developed encephalopathy Time: 10 daysAlphabetical listing of all HPO terms. Navigate: Correlations Clinical Trials
Data processed on September 26, 2020.
An HTML report was created for each of the unique drugs, MeSH, and HPO terms associated with COVID-19 clinical trials. Each report contains a list of either the drug, the MeSH terms, or the HPO terms. All of the terms in a category are displayed on the left-hand side of the report to enable easy navigation, and the reports contain a list of correlated drugs, MeSH, and HPO terms. Further, all reports contain the details of the clinical trials in which the term is referenced. Every clinical trial report shows the mapped HPO and MeSH terms, which are also hyperlinked. Related HPO terms, with their associated genes, protein mutations, and SNPs are also referenced in the report.
Drug Reports MeSH Reports HPO Reports