The Role of Societal Aspects in the Formation of Official COVID-19 Reports: A Data-Driven Analysis.

This paper investigates the role of socioeconomic considerations in the formation of official COVID-19 reports. To this end, we employ a dataset that contains 1159 pre-processed indicators from the World Bank Group GovData360 and TCdata360 platforms and an additional 8 COVID-19 variables generated based on reports from 138 countries. During the analysis, a rank-correlation-based complex method is used to identify the time- and space-varying relations between pandemic variables and the main topics of World Bank Group platforms. The results not only draw attention to the importance of factors such as air traffic, tourism, and corruption in report formation but also support further discipline-specific research by mapping and monitoring a wide range of such relationships. To this end, a source code written in R language is attached that allows for the customization of the analysis and provides up-to-date results.

Patterns of repeated diagnostic testing for COVID-19 in relation to patient characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whilst the COVID-19 diagnostic test has a high false-negative rate, not everyone initially negative is re-tested. Michigan Medicine, a primary regional centre, provided an ideal setting for studying testing patterns during the first wave of the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of patients who underwent repeated testing for COVID-19 and determine if repeated testing was associated with downstream outcomes amongst positive cases. METHODS: Characteristics, test results, and health outcomes for patients presenting for a COVID-19 diagnostic test were collected. We examined whether patient characteristics differed with repeated testing and estimated a false-negative rate for the test. We then studied repeated testing patterns in patients with severe COVID-19-related outcomes. RESULTS: Patient age, sex, body mass index, neighbourhood poverty levels, pre-existing type 2 diabetes, circulatory, kidney, and liver diseases, and cough, fever/chills, and pain symptoms 14 days prior to a first test were associated with repeated testing. Amongst patients with a positive result, age (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: (1.05, 1.34)) and pre-existing kidney diseases (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: (1.41, 3.68)) remained significant. Hospitalization (OR: 7.88; 95% CI: (5.15, 12.26)) and ICU-level care (OR: 6.93; 95% CI: (4.44, 10.92)) were associated with repeated testing. The estimated false-negative rate was 23.8% (95% CI: (19.5%, 28.5%)). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most patients were tested once and received a negative result, a meaningful subset underwent multiple rounds of testing. These results shed light on testing patterns and have important implications for understanding the variation of repeated testing results within and between patients.

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern. MAIN TEXT: Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.