Marc Raynaud1, Huanxi Zhang2, Kevin Louis1, Valentin Goutaudier1,3, Jiali Wang2, Quentin Dubourg4, Yongcheng Wei2, Zeynep Demir1,5, Charlotte Debiais1, Olivier Aubert1, Yassine Bouatou1, Carmen Lefaucheur6, Patricia Jabre7, Longshan Liu2, Changxi Wang2, Xavier Jouven1, Peter Reese1,8, Jean-Philippe Empana1, Alexandre Loupy9. 1. Paris Translational Research Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Hôpital Necker, 149 rue de Sèvres, 75015, Paris, France. 2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France. 4. Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France. 5. Paediatrics Unit, Necker University Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Immunology and Nephrology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France. 7. Cochrane Pre-hospital and Emergency Care, Necker University Hospital, Paris, France. 8. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Paris Translational Research Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Hôpital Necker, 149 rue de Sèvres, 75015, Paris, France. alexandre.loupy@inserm.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. METHODS: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. RESULTS: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337). CONCLUSIONS: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.
BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. METHODS: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. RESULTS: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337). CONCLUSIONS: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Critical appraisal; Quality of research; Systematic review
Authors: Sheree R Schwartz; Joel Chavez Ortiz; Justin D Smith; Laura K Beres; Aaloke Mody; Ingrid Eshun-Wilson; Nanette Benbow; Deepthi P Mallela; Stephen Tan; Stefan Baral; Elvin Geng Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Noah A Haber; Emma Clarke-Deelder; Avi Feller; Emily R Smith; Joshua A Salomon; Benjamin MacCormack-Gelles; Elizabeth M Stone; Clara Bolster-Foucault; Jamie R Daw; Laura Anne Hatfield; Carrie E Fry; Christopher B Boyer; Eli Ben-Michael; Caroline M Joyce; Beth S Linas; Ian Schmid; Eric H Au; Sarah E Wieten; Brooke Jarrett; Cathrine Axfors; Van Thu Nguyen; Beth Ann Griffin; Alyssa Bilinski; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; Kristin Kostka; Talita Duarte-Salles; Albert Prats-Uribe; Anthony Sena; Andrea Pistillo; Sara Khalid; Lana Lai; Asieh Golozar; Thamir M Alshammari; Dalia Dawoud; Fredrik Nyberg; Adam Wilcox; Alan Andryc; Andrew Williams; Anna Ostropolets; Carlos Areia; Chi Young Jung; Christopher Harle; Christian Reich; Clair Blacketer; Daniel Morales; David A Dorr; Edward Burn; Elena Roel; Eng Hooi Tan; Evan Minty; Frank DeFalco; Gabriel de Maeztu; Gigi Lipori; Heba Alghoul; Hong Zhu; Jason Thomas; Jiang Bian; Jimyung Park; Jordi Martínez Roldán; Jose Posada; Juan M Banda; Juan P Horcajada; Julianna Kohler; Karishma Shah; Karthik Natarajan; Kristine Lynch; Li Liu; Lisa Schilling; Martina Recalde; Matthew Spotnitz; Mengchun Gong; Michael Matheny; Neus Valveny; Nicole Weiskopf; Nigam Shah; Osaid Alser; Paula Casajust; Rae Woong Park; Robert Schuff; Sarah Seager; Scott DuVall; Seng Chan You; Seokyoung Song; Sergio Fernández-Bertolín; Stephen Fortin; Tanja Magoc; Thomas Falconer; Vignesh Subbian; Vojtech Huser; Waheed-Ul-Rahman Ahmed; William Carter; Yin Guan; Yankuic Galvan; Xing He; Peter Rijnbeek; George Hripcsak; Patrick Ryan; Marc Suchard Journal: Res Sq Date: 2021-03-01