scholarly journals Pharmacological interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of preprint articles: The good, the bad and the ugly

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Nicolalde ◽  
Diego Añazco ◽  
Mariam Mushtaq ◽  
Isabel Espinosa ◽  
Jimena Gimenez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On Dec 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints regarding pharmacological interventions against COVID-19 were cited, in spite of the fact that some of these preprints remained unpublished.Methods: We conducted a search on medRxiv and bioRxiv to identify preprints related to pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 from Jan 1st to Mar 31, 2020. We gathered metadata on included preprints and identified if they had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation numbers or usage, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract views, when compared to preprints that were not published.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which only 14 were published on peer-reviewed journals and 83 remained unpublished. The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations and metrics (PDF and abstract downloads) when compared to unpublished preprints.Conclusions: The use of preprints during this pandemic has been higher than in previous outbreaks, however, the publication rate in peer-reviewed journals in our sample was low. Preprints should be used as a mean to display preliminary data rapidly in order to obtain feedback by the scientific community, or to guide further research. However, due to the lack of peer-review, and potentially flawed data analysis, preprints alone should not be used to guide clinical practice, as the risk of unwarranted modifications to management is concerning.

scholarly journals Citations and publication rate of preprints on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: The good, the bad and, the ugly.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Nicolalde ◽  
Diego Añazco ◽  
Mariam Mushtaq ◽  
Isabel Espinosa ◽  
Jimena Gimenez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Result Section ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints regarding pharmacological interventions against COVID-19 were cited, in spite of the fact that some of these preprints remained unpublished.Methods: We conducted a search on medRxiv and bioRxiv to identify preprints related to pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. We included any study type that addressed or reported data on pharmacological interventions. We gathered metadata on June 26, 2020 of included preprints and identified if they had been published in a scholarly journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation counts or metrics, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract reads, when compared to unpublished preprints.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which 23 were published on scholarly journals and 74 remained unpublished (Publication rate of 23,7%). The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. The number of citations in our sample ranged from 0 to 1409 for published articles, and ranged from 0 to 175 citations for unpublished preprints. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations when compared to unpublished preprints (p=0,000013). We did not find a statistical difference in PDF download (p=0,167) and abstract reads (p= 0,181). In the published articles, the time from posting on a preprint server to publication on a journal ranged from 0 to 98 days (median: 42.0 days). The time period from date of submission to a journal to date of acceptance in our sample ranged from 1 to 228 days (median: 23 days). Almost half of the preprints that were subsequently published (47,8%) had modifications made to the result section after peer-review.Conclusions: The publication rate of the preprints in this sample was low (1 in 4), although review times in scholarly journals seems to be accelerated. However, there was no difference in the number of views or downloads between preprints already published in scholarly journals and those not yet.

scholarly journals Publication rate and citation counts for preprints released during the COVID-19 pandemic: the good, the bad and the ugly

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10927
Author(s):  
Diego Añazco ◽  
Bryan Nicolalde ◽  
Isabel Espinosa ◽  
Jose Camacho ◽  
Mariam Mushtaq ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Background Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints about COVID-19 were published in scholarly journals and cited. Methods We searched the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio to identify all preprints related to COVID-19 posted on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Research Square from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We used a custom-designed program to obtain metadata using the Crossref public API. After that, we determined the publication rate and made comparisons based on citation counts using non-parametric methods. Also, we compared the publication rate, citation counts, and time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal among the three different preprint servers. Results Our sample included 5,061 preprints, out of which 288 were published in scholarly journals and 4,773 remained unpublished (publication rate of 5.7%). We found that articles published in scholarly journals had a significantly higher total citation count than unpublished preprints within our sample (p < 0.001), and that preprints that were eventually published had a higher citation count as preprints when compared to unpublished preprints (p < 0.001). As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a preprint (p < 0.001). Our results also show that medRxiv had the highest publication rate, while bioRxiv had the highest citation count and shortest time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal. Conclusions We found a remarkably low publication rate for preprints within our sample, despite accelerated time to publication by multiple scholarly journals. These findings could be partially attributed to the unprecedented surge in scientific production observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might saturate reviewing and editing processes in scholarly journals. However, our findings show that preprints had a significantly lower scientific impact, which might suggest that some preprints have lower quality and will not be able to endure peer-reviewing processes to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Website quality: An analysis of scientific production

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Morales-Vargas ◽  
Rafael Pedraza-Jiménez ◽  
Lluís Codina
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Production ◽  
Information Architecture ◽  
General Application ◽  
Website Quality ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Constant Growth

A range of different methods and tools have been proposed by both academics and professionals in recent years for evaluating the quality of websites. Some are of general application and can be used to assess any type of website, while others have been adapted to the specialized characteristics of the websites employed in a given sector. This paper undertakes an analysis of existing scientific production in this field, with the aim of identifying its most relevant publications, its principal authors and the specific sectors served by the sites under evaluation. By triangulating review methods, 716 texts, published between 2000 and 2018, were identified in Scopus, Web of Science and other databases and examined. In addition to basic bibliographic information, the number of citations received by each text was recorded using Google Scholar. The area of knowledge in which each author works was also categorized based on his or her specific affiliations. The results point to a growing interest in website quality in a scientific community that has a presence in more than 70 countries. Its authors are drawn from various disciplines, although the highest number of publications is recorded in computer science, business and medical informatics. The most frequently cited texts are in fact seminal books in the associated disciplines of usability, information architecture and user experience. However, as of 2007, the number of texts describing evaluation tools for the websites of specific sectors – most notably, education (33%), health (27%) and commerce (21%) – increased their share. In conclusion, it is evident that website quality is a field of study undergoing constant growth and increasing specialization and one that offers ample opportunities for research.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and the Generation of Novel Scientific Knowledge in a Dangerous Time.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucie Perillat ◽  
Brian Baigrie
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Daunting Task ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Study Designs

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: One of the sectors challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic is medical research. COVID-19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper aims to explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in this paper. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges. Results: This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimizing biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. These two issues combined resulted in the generation of fleeting and inconsistent evidence that complicated the development of public health guidelines. The reporting of scientific findings highlighted the difficulty of finding a balance between accuracy and speed. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritizing relevant research questions, (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency, (3) evaluating evidence for the purpose of making evidence-based decisions and (4) sharing scientific findings with the rest of the scientific community. This paper demonstrates that these challenges have often compounded each other.

scholarly journals Clinical Presentation of Patients Infected with Coronavirus Disease 19: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 117863372095207
Author(s):  
Tadesse Sheleme ◽  
Firomsa Bekele ◽  
Tasissa Ayela
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Case Series ◽  
World Health ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sputum Production ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Study Designs

Background: The coronavirus disease-19 has been labeled a pandemic by World Health Organization. By virtue of its highly contagious attribution, this virus has spread across over the world and the numbers are still rapidly increasing. Increasing numbers of confirmed cases and mortality rates of coronavirus disease 2019 are occurring in several countries. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize clinical presentations of this newly emerging coronavirus disease. Methods: A systematic review of published articles was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A search was conducted on 18 to 25 April 2020. Search terms included “novel coronavirus,” “2019 novel coronavirus,” “Coronavirus disease 2019,” “COVID-19,” “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.” The studies published in the English language and their full texts available were included. The eligible study designs were cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and case series. Results: Thirty (30) studies which contain 4829 participants were included in this review. From included studies, the age of infected patients were found in range 0.25 to 94 years. The main clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients were fever (77.6%), cough (64.8%), fatigue (27.2%), dyspnea (21.2%) and sputum production (18.0%). Conclusion: This systematic review identified that fever, cough, fatigue, and dyspnea were the most common reported clinical features of coronavirus disease 19. Understanding of the clinical spectrum and impact of this novel disease is important for all individuals, especially for healthcare workers to manage and prevent it.

Status of Women Contribution in Political Research World: A Case Study of the Journal Political Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Sangita Gupta ◽  
Sumaira Jan ◽  
Sabha Ali
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Political Research ◽  
Female Authors ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Status Of Women

The study endeavors to highlight the contribution of women in the field of Political research globally. The study is based on the data gathered from journal, Political Analysis which comprises a list of articles published by authors for the period, 2004-2014. The proportion of the male and female authors listed in the publication was ascertained. There exists a colossal difference among male and female researchers in the field of Political Science research, which is evident from the fact that 88.30% of publications are being contributed by male authors while as just 11.70 % of publications are contributed by female authors. Furthermore, citation analysis reveals that highest number of citations is for the male contributions. In addition, the collaborative pattern indicates that largest share of the collaboration is between male-male authors. This evidently signifies that female researchers are still lagging behind in the field of Political Science research in terms of research productivity (publications)and thus, accordingly, need to excel in that particular field to overcome the gender difference. The study highlights status of women contribution in the Journal of Political Analysis from the period 2004-2014. The study provides a wider perspective of female research-contribution based on select parameters. However, the study can be further be enriched by taking into consideration various other criteria like what obstacles are faced by female researchers impeding their research, what are the effects of age and marital status on the research-productivity of female authors, etc.

scholarly journals Neurological symptoms, manifestations, and complications associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biyan Nathanael Harapan ◽  
Hyeon Joo Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Altered Mental Status ◽  
Neurological Complications ◽  
Neurological Symptoms ◽  
Neurological Manifestations ◽  
Fisher Syndrome ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
The Impact

AbstractSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus, is responsible for the outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. It is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic has become a challenging world issue. Although most COVID-19 patients primarily develop respiratory symptoms, an increasing number of neurological symptoms and manifestations associated with COVID-19 have been observed. In this narrative review, we elaborate on proposed neurotropic mechanisms and various neurological symptoms, manifestations, and complications of COVID-19 reported in the present literature. For this purpose, a review of all current published literature (studies, case reports, case series, reviews, editorials, and other articles) was conducted and neurological sequelae of COVID-19 were summarized. Essential and common neurological symptoms including gustatory and olfactory dysfunctions, myalgia, headache, altered mental status, confusion, delirium, and dizziness are presented separately in sections. Moreover, neurological manifestations and complications that are of great concern such as stroke, cerebral (sinus) venous thrombosis, seizures, meningoencephalitis, Guillain–Barré syndrome, Miller Fisher syndrome, acute myelitis, and posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) are also addressed systematically. Future studies that examine the impact of neurological symptoms and manifestations on the course of the disease are needed to further clarify and assess the link between neurological complications and the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. To limit long-term consequences, it is crucial that healthcare professionals can early detect possible neurological symptoms and are well versed in the increasingly common neurological manifestations and complications of COVID-19.

A Case Series of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-Positive Hospitalized Infants 60 Days of Age or Younger From 2 New York City Pediatric Emergency Departments

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 247-251
Author(s):  
Ameer Hassoun ◽  
Nessy Dahan ◽  
Christopher Kelly
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pediatric Emergency ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Vulnerable Group ◽  
Mild Disease ◽  
Young Infants ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

The emergence of novel coronavirus disease-2019 poses an unprecedented challenge to pediatricians. While the majority of children experience mild disease, initial case reports on young infants are conflicting. We present a case series of 8 hospitalized infants 60 days of age or younger with coronavirus disease-2019. A quarter of these patients had coinfections (viral or bacterial). None of these infants had severe disease. Continued vigilance in testing this vulnerable group of infants is warranted.

scholarly journals Professionals’, patients’ and families’ views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness: A systematic review using the framework method and pillar process

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110321
Author(s):  
Florence Reedy ◽  
Mark Pearson ◽  
Sarah Greenley ◽  
Joseph Clark ◽  
David C Currow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Synthesis Method ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Background: In combination with non-pharmacological interventions, opioids may safely reduce chronic breathlessness in patients with severe illness. However, implementation in clinical practice varies. Aim: To synthesise the published literature regarding health professionals’, patients’ and families’ views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness, identifying issues which influence implementation in clinical practice. Design: Systematic review and synthesis using the five-stage framework synthesis method. Data sources: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, ASSIA via Proquest) were searched (March 2020) using a predefined search strategy. Studies were also citation chained from key papers. Papers were screened against a priori eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using the framework synthesis method. Qualitative and quantitative data were synthesised using the pillar process. Included studies were critically appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: After de-duplication, 843 papers were identified. Following screening, 22 studies were included. Five themes were developed: (i) clinician/patient characteristics, (ii) education/knowledge/experience, (iii) relationship between clinician/family, (iv) clinician/patient fear of opioids and (v) regulatory issues. Conclusions: There are significant barriers and enablers to the use of opioids for the symptomatic reduction of chronic breathlessness based on the knowledge, views and attitudes of clinicians, patients and families. Clinicians’ interactions with patients and their families strongly influences adherence with opioid treatment regimens for chronic breathlessness. Clinicians’, patients’ and families’ knowledge about the delicate balance between benefits and risks is generally poor. Education for all, but particularly clinicians, is likely to be a necessary (but insufficient) factor for improving implementation in practice.

scholarly journals Management challenges in patients with comorbid COVID-19 associated delirium and serious mental illness – A case series

2021 ◽  
pp. 009121742098597
Author(s):  
Saba Syed ◽  
Michael Couse ◽  
Rashi Ojha
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Active Management ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Psychiatric Facility ◽  
Medical Teams ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Background There is still a lot unknown about the novel Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) and its effects in humans. This pandemic has posed several challenging clinical situations to healthcare providers. Objective We hope to highlight the distinctive challenges that COVID-19 presents in patients with serious mental illness and what steps primary medical teams can take to co-manage these patients with the psychiatry consultants. Methods We present a retrospective chart review of four patients who were on psychotropic polypharmacy and admitted to our hospital from the same long-term psychiatric facility with COVID-19 delirium and other associated medical complications. Results We illustrate how the primary medical teams and psychiatrists collaborated in clinical diagnosis, treatment, and management. Conclusions Patients with serious mental illness and COVID-19 infection require active collaboration between primary medical teams and psychiatrists for diagnostic clarification, reduction of psychotropic polypharmacy to avoid adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, prevention of psychiatric decompensation, and active management of agitation while balancing staff and patient safety concerns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document