Chinese contribution to NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ from 2011 to 2020: a 10-year bibliometric study

Background New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and British Medical Journal (BMJ) are collectively known as “the Top Four Medical Journals (TFMJ)” in China. Through the analysis of Chinese scholars’ publications in the TFMJ in the recent 10 years, this study aimed to clarify the current situation of high-quality medical research conducted by Chinese scholars and institutions. Methods Data were retrieved and downloaded manually from PubMed (2011–2020). Information on the publication year, journal, author, affiliation, and citation, etc. were extracted and analyzed using R software. Results A total of 761 articles were involved in the final analysis. The number of articles published by Chinese scholars in the TFMJ was 135/29,942 (0.45%) in BMJ, 124/14,033 (0.88%) in JAMA, 314/16,117 (1.94%) in Lancet, and 188/15,242 (1.23%) in NEJM (P<0.001). Besides, the letter was the main research type, which was up to 44.54%, and the original research only accounted for 17.47%. The most popular subspecialty and subject were infectious diseases and COVID-19, respectively. The most productive researcher was Chen Wang, and Bin Cao was the most cited Chinese scholar. The most productive institute was Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. The most cited study was “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China”. Conclusions The presence of Chinese scholars in the TFMJ has grown, but there is still much room to improve. A Matthew effect in China's high-level scientific research was demonstrated.

Chinese contribution to NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ from 2011 to 2020: a 10-year bibliometric study.

Background: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and British Medical Journal (BMJ) are collectively known as "the Top Four Medical Journals (TFMJ)" in China. Through the analysis of Chinese scholars' publications in the TFMJ in the recent 10 years, this study aimed to clarify the current situation of high-quality medical research conducted by Chinese scholars and institutions. Methods: Data were retrieved and downloaded manually from PubMed (2011-2020). Information on the publication year, journal, author, affiliation, and citation, etc. were extracted and analyzed using R software. Results: A total of 761 articles were involved in the final analysis. The number of articles published by Chinese scholars in the TFMJ was 135/29,942 (0.45%) in BMJ, 124/14,033 (0.88%) in JAMA, 314/16,117 (1.94%) in Lancet, and 188/15,242 (1.23%) in NEJM (P<0.001). Besides, the letter was the main research type, which was up to 44.54%, and the original research only accounted for 17.47%. The most popular subspecialty and subject were infectious diseases and COVID-19, respectively. The most productive researcher was Chen Wang, and Bin Cao was the most cited Chinese scholar. The most productive institute was Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. The most cited study was "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". Conclusions: The presence of Chinese scholars in the TFMJ has grown, but there is still much room to improve. A Matthew effect in China's high-level scientific research was demonstrated.

Corrected QT interval in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Focus on drugs therapy.

ABSTRACT: Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation has been associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, we assessed the effects of different drugs and cardiac injury on QTc interval prolongation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The study cohort consisted of 395 confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus. All hospitalized patients were treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), quinolones, interferon, Arbidol, or Qingfei Paidu decoction (QPD) and received at least 1 electrocardiogram after drug administration.Fifty one (12.9%) patients exhibited QTc prolongation (QTc ≥ 470 ms). QTc interval prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality (both P < .001). Administration of CQ/HCQ (odds ratio [OR], 2.759; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.318-5.775; P = .007), LPV/r (OR, 2.342; 95% CI, 1.152-4.760; P = .019), and quinolones (OR, 2.268; 95% CI, 1.171-4.392; P = .015) increased the risk of QTc prolongation. In contrast, the administration of Arbidol, interferon, or QPD did not increase the risk of QTc prolongation. Notably, patients treated with QPD had a shorter QTc duration than those without QPD treatment (412.10 [384.39-433.77] vs 420.86 [388.19-459.58]; P = .042). The QTc interval was positively correlated with the levels of cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase-MB fraction [rho = 0.14, P = .016], high-sensitivity troponin I [rho = .22, P < .001], and B-type natriuretic peptide [rho = 0.27, P < .001]).In conclusion, QTc prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The risk of QTc prolongation was higher in patients receiving CQ/HCQ, LPV/r, and quinolones. QPD had less significant effects on QTc prolongation than other antiviral agents.

Arrhythmias in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China: Incidences and implications.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact populations around the globe. Information regarding the incidences and implications of arrhythmias in COVID-19 is limited. METHODS: A total of 463 patients with COVID-19 and who had at least one electrocardiogram recording from February 1 to March 19, 2020, in Wuhan Union Hospital were enrolled in the study. RESULTS: Arrhythmias occurred in 85 of 463 (18.4%) patients: atrial arrhythmias in 10.2%, junctional arrhythmias in 0.2%, ventricular arrhythmias in 3.5%, and conduction block in 7.3%. Compared with patients without arrhythmias, those with arrhythmias had higher mortality, both during the time from symptom onset (p < 0.001) and from admission to follow-up (p < 0.001). The frequencies of severe COVID-19 (44.7% vs. 21.2%; p < 0.001) and death (25.9% vs. 10.1%; p < 0.001) were higher in patients with arrhythmias than in those without arrhythmias. Atrial arrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias could predict severity and mortality, their odds ratios (OR) were 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.35 to 8.40), 5.80 (95% CI 1.89 to 17.76) respectively for severity, and were 3.51 (95% CI 1.74 to 7.08), 3.41 (95% CI 1.13 to 10.24) respectively for mortality. High levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and IL-10 were associated with the occurrence of arrhythmias (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Arrhythmias were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Atrial arrhythmia was the most frequent arrhythmia type. IL-6 and IL-10 levels can predict the risk of arrhythmias in COVID-19 patients.