Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Anesth Analg ; 133(2): 515-525, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1311271

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Twitter is a web-based social media platform that allows instantaneous sharing of user-generated messages (tweets). We performed an infodemiology study of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Twitter conversation related to anesthesiology to describe how Twitter has been used during the pandemic and ways to optimize Twitter use by anesthesiologists. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of tweets related to the specialty of anesthesiology and COVID-19 tweeted between January 21 and October 13, 2020. A publicly available COVID-19 Twitter dataset was filtered for tweets meeting inclusion criteria (tweets including anesthesiology keywords). Using descriptive statistics, tweets were reviewed for tweet and account characteristics. Tweets were filtered for specific topics of interest likely to be impactful or informative to anesthesiologists of COVID-19 practice (airway management, personal protective equipment, ventilators, COVID testing, and pain management). Tweet activity was also summarized descriptively to show temporal profiles over the pandemic. RESULTS: Between January 21 and October 13, 2020, 23,270 of 241,732,881 tweets (0.01%) met inclusion criteria and were generated by 15,770 accounts. The majority (51.9%) of accounts were from the United States. Seven hundred forty-nine (4.8%) of all users self-reported as anesthesiologists. 33.8% of all tweets included at least one word or phrase preceded by the # symbol (hashtag), which functions as a label to search for all tweets including a specific hashtag, with the most frequently used being #anesthesia. About half (52.2%) of all tweets included at least one hyperlink, most frequently linked to other social media, news organizations, medical organizations, or scientific publications. The majority of tweets (67%) were not retweeted. COVID-19 anesthesia tweet activity started before the pandemic was declared. The trend of daily tweet activity was similar to, and preceded, the US daily death count by about 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The toll of the pandemic has been reflected in the anesthesiology conversation on Twitter, representing 0.01% of all COVID-19 tweets. Daily tweet activity showed how the Twitter community used the platform to learn about important topics impacting anesthesiology practice during a global pandemic. Twitter is a relevant platform through which to communicate about anesthesiology topics, but further research is required to delineate its effectiveness, benefits, and limitations for anesthesiology discussions.


Subject(s)
Anesthesiologists/trends , Anesthesiology/trends , COVID-19 , Information Dissemination , Scholarly Communication/trends , Social Media/trends , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Time Factors
2.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246427, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059664

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has yielded an unprecedented quantity of new publications, contributing to an overwhelming quantity of information and leading to the rapid dissemination of less stringently validated information. Yet, a formal analysis of how the medical literature has changed during the pandemic is lacking. In this analysis, we aimed to quantify how scientific publications changed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric study of published studies in four high-impact medical journals to identify differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 related publications compared to non-pandemic studies. Original investigations related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 published in March and April 2020 were identified and compared to non-COVID-19 research publications over the same two-month period in 2019 and 2020. Extracted data included publication characteristics, study characteristics, author characteristics, and impact metrics. Our primary measure was principal component analysis (PCA) of publication characteristics and impact metrics across groups. RESULTS: We identified 402 publications that met inclusion criteria: 76 were related to COVID-19; 154 and 172 were non-COVID publications over the same period in 2020 and 2019, respectively. PCA utilizing the collected bibliometric data revealed segregation of the COVID-19 literature subset from both groups of non-COVID literature (2019 and 2020). COVID-19 publications were more likely to describe prospective observational (31.6%) or case series (41.8%) studies without industry funding as compared with non-COVID articles, which were represented primarily by randomized controlled trials (32.5% and 36.6% in the non-COVID literature from 2020 and 2019, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study of publications in four general medical journals, COVID-related articles were significantly different from non-COVID articles based on article characteristics and impact metrics. COVID-related studies were generally shorter articles reporting observational studies with less literature cited and fewer study sites, suggestive of more limited scientific support. They nevertheless had much higher dissemination.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , COVID-19 , Periodicals as Topic , Communication , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Principal Component Analysis
3.
J Anesth ; 35(3): 345-350, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-705281

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected anesthetic care worldwide, including the provision of anesthesia for pediatric patients. Hospitals have balanced the risks associated with the potential surges of resource-intensive COVID-19 patients against the probable morbidity of delaying elective surgical procedures. These decisions are complicated by the unclear influence that COVID-19 has on the perioperative risk for disease-positive pediatric patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE for publications involving pediatric patients with COVID-19 who underwent general anesthesia. A total of eight publications met inclusion criteria, and together described 20 patients. Nine patients had documented preoperative COVID-19 symptoms and one perioperative death was reported. Overall, further studies are needed to increase patient numbers and properly assess the perioperative risk. As we continue to provide care without clear guiding data, we present a discussion of modified anesthetic techniques for pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , COVID-19 , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Child , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL