Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(49): e345, 2021 Dec 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581389

ABSTRACT

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, publications on the disease have exploded globally. The present study analyzed PubMed and KoreaMed indexed COVID-19 publications by Korean researchers from January 1, 2020 to August 19, 2021. A total of 83,549 COVID-19 articles were recorded in PubMed and 1,875 of these were published by Korean authors in 673 journals (67 Korean and 606 overseas journals). The KoreaMed platform covered 766 articles on COVID-19, including 612 by Korean authors. Among the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) articles on COVID-19, PubMed covered 176 and KoreaMed 141 documents. Korean researchers contributed to 2.2% of global publications on COVID-19 in PubMed. The JKMS has published most articles on COVID-19 in Korea.


Subject(s)
Bibliographies as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Periodicals as Topic , PubMed , Publications , Abstracting and Indexing , Databases, Bibliographic , Global Health , Humans , Republic of Korea , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 142: 10-18, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1492240

ABSTRACT

AIM: The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the challenges to conducting evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose some recommendations addressing the identified gaps. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We searched several databases from the start of the Pandemic in December 2019 until 10th June 2021. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications was included in the review. The challenges cited in the included studies have been categorised into four distinct but interconnected themes including: upstream, Evidence synthesis, downstream and contextual challenges. These challenges have been further refined into issues with primary studies, databases, team capacity, process, resources, and context. Several proposals to improve the above challenges included: transparency in primary studies registration and reporting, establishment of online platforms that enables collaboration, data sharing and searching, the use of computable evidence and coordination of efforts at an international level. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the importance of including artificial intelligence, a framework for international collaboration and a sustained funding model to address many of the shortcomings and ensure we are ready for similar challenges in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Research Report/standards , Databases, Bibliographic , Evidence-Based Practice , Guidelines as Topic/standards , Humans , Information Dissemination
3.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 109(3): 414-421, 2021 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1481112

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of gender detection tools that allow the uploading of files (e.g., Excel or CSV files) containing first names, are usable by researchers without advanced computer skills, and are at least partially free of charge. METHODS: The study was conducted using four physician datasets (total number of physicians: 6,131; 50.3% female) from Switzerland, a multilingual country. Four gender detection tools met the inclusion criteria: three partially free (Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io) and one completely free (Wiki-Gendersort). For each tool, we recorded the number of correct classifications (i.e., correct gender assigned to a name), misclassifications (i.e., wrong gender assigned to a name), and nonclassifications (i.e., no gender assigned). We computed three metrics: the proportion of misclassifications excluding nonclassifications (errorCodedWithoutNA), the proportion of nonclassifications (naCoded), and the proportion of misclassifications and nonclassifications (errorCoded). RESULTS: The proportion of misclassifications was low for all four gender detection tools (errorCodedWithoutNA between 1.5 and 2.2%). By contrast, the proportion of unrecognized names (naCoded) varied: 0% for NamSor, 0.3% for Gender API, 4.5% for Wiki-Gendersort, and 16.4% for genderize.io. Using errorCoded, which penalizes both types of error equally, we obtained the following results: Gender API 1.8%, NamSor 2.0%, Wiki-Gendersort 6.6%, and genderize.io 17.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Gender API and NamSor were the most accurate tools. Genderize.io led to a high number of nonclassifications. Wiki-Gendersort may be a good compromise for researchers wishing to use a completely free tool. Other studies would be useful to evaluate the performance of these tools in other populations (e.g., Asian).


Subject(s)
Gender Identity , Information Storage and Retrieval , Databases, Bibliographic , Female , Humans , Male
4.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 38, 2021 01 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456003

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews involve searching multiple bibliographic databases to identify eligible studies. As this type of evidence synthesis is increasingly pursued, the use of various electronic platforms can help researchers improve the efficiency and quality of their research. We examined the accuracy and efficiency of commonly used electronic methods for flagging and removing duplicate references during this process. METHODS: A heterogeneous sample of references was obtained by conducting a similar topical search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases. References were de-duplicated via manual abstraction to create a benchmark set. The default settings were then used in Ovid multifile search, EndNote desktop, Mendeley, Zotero, Covidence, and Rayyan to de-duplicate the sample of references independently. Using the benchmark set as reference, the number of false-negative and false-positive duplicate references for each method was identified, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined. RESULTS: We found that the most accurate methods for identifying duplicate references were Ovid, Covidence, and Rayyan. Ovid and Covidence possessed the highest specificity for identifying duplicate references, while Rayyan demonstrated the highest sensitivity. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used de-duplication methods and provides strategies for improving their performance to avoid unintentionally removing eligible studies and introducing bias into systematic reviews. Along with availability, ease-of-use, functionality, and capability, these findings are important to consider when researchers are selecting database platforms and supporting software programs for conducting systematic reviews.


Subject(s)
Information Storage and Retrieval , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Databases, Bibliographic , Humans , MEDLINE
5.
Nucleic Acids Res ; 49(W1): W619-W623, 2021 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1246737

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic will be remembered as one of the defining events of the 21st century. The rapid global outbreak has had significant impacts on human society and is already responsible for millions of deaths. Understanding and tackling the impact of the virus has required a worldwide mobilisation and coordination of scientific research. The COVID-19 Data Portal (https://www.covid19dataportal.org/) was first released as part of the European COVID-19 Data Platform, on April 20th 2020 to facilitate rapid and open data sharing and analysis, to accelerate global SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research. The COVID-19 Data Portal has fortnightly feature releases to continue to add new data types, search options, visualisations and improvements based on user feedback and research. The open datasets and intuitive suite of search, identification and download services, represent a truly FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) resource that enables researchers to easily identify and quickly obtain the key datasets needed for their COVID-19 research.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Databases, Factual , Datasets as Topic , Information Dissemination , Open Access Publishing , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Databases, Bibliographic , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/chemistry , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/ultrastructure , Time Factors , Viral Proteins/chemistry , Viral Proteins/genetics
6.
Rev. gaúch. enferm ; 42(spe): e20200205, 2021. tab, graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1243891

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Objective To identify symptoms of COVID-19 in adults in the scientific literature. Method Systematic review of studies published from December 1, 2019 to April 21, 2020 from the Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases, in order to answer the following research question: "What are the symptoms caused by COVID-19 in adults?" using the keywords "Symptoms", "Clinical Manifestations", "Coronavirus", "COVID-19". Results Of the total 105 references, 13 references that addressed the symptoms of COVID-19 were selected. Fever and normal or dry cough were symptoms present in all studies. Conclusion The symptoms identified in adult patients were fever, normal or dry cough, headache, pharyngalgia, dyspnea, diarrhea, myalgia, vomiting, sputum or expectoration, anxiety or chest pain, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain, rhinorrhea, runny nose or nasal congestion, dizziness, chills, systemic pain, mental confusion, hemoptysis, asthma, taste disorder, smell disorder, belching and tachycardia.


RESUMEN Objetivo Verificar en la literatura científica las manifestaciones sintomáticas de COVID-19 en adultos. Método Una revisión sistemática realizada en las bases de datos Scopus, Web of Science y PubMed con estudios publicados del 1 de diciembre de 2019 al 21 de abril de 2020, con el fin de responder a la pregunta orientadora: "¿Cuáles son las manifestaciones sintomáticas causada por COVID-19 en adultos?" utilizando las palabras clave: "Síntomas", "Manifestaciones clínicas", "Coronavirus", "COVID-19". Resultados Del total de 105 referencias, se seleccionaron 13 que abordaron las manifestaciones sintomáticas de COVID-19, con fiebre y tos normal o seca presente en todos los estudios. Conclusión Las manifestaciones sintomáticas identificadas en pacientes adultos fueron: fiebre, tos normal o seca, dolor de cabeza, faringalgia, disnea, diarrea, mialgia, vómitos, esputo o expectoración, angustia o dolor en el pecho, fatiga, náuseas, anorexia, dolor abdominal, rinorrea, secreción nasal o congestión nasal, mareos, escalofríos, dolor sistémico, confusión mental, hemoptisis, asma, alteración del gusto, alteración del olfato, eructos y taquicardia.


RESUMO Objetivo Verificar na literatura científica as manifestações sintomáticas da COVID-19 em pessoas adultas. Método Revisão sistemática utilizando as bases Scopus, Web of Science e PubMed com estudos publicados de 1 de dezembro de 2019 a 21 de abril de 2020, a fim de responder à questão norteadora: "Quais as manifestações sintomáticas causada pela COVID-19 em pessoas adultas?" utilizando-se as palavras-chave: "Symptoms", "Clinical Manifestations", "Coronavirus", "COVID-19". Resultados Do total de 105 referências, foram selecionadas 13 que abordaram as manifestações sintomáticas da COVID-19, estando a febre e a tosse normal ou seca presente em todos os estudos. Conclusão As manifestações sintomáticas identificadas nos pacientes adultos foram: febre, tosse normal ou seca, cefaleia, faringalgia, dispneia, diarreia, mialgia, vômito, escarro ou expectoração, angústia ou dor no peito, fadiga, náusea, anorexia, dor abdominal, rinorreia, coriza ou congestão nasal, tontura, calafrios, dor sistêmica, confusão mental, hemoptise, asma, comprometimento do paladar, comprometimento do olfato, arroto e taquicardia.


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , General Symptoms , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 , Asthma , Vomiting , Anorexia , Databases, Bibliographic , Cough , Ageusia , Diarrhea , Dizziness , Fatigue , Fever , Olfaction Disorders
7.
Biosci Trends ; 15(2): 64-73, 2021 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140771

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected tens of millions of people globally since it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. There is an urgent need for safe and effective preventive vaccines to curb this pandemic. A growing amount of related research has been published. This study aimed to provide the current status of COVID-19 vaccine using bibliometric analysis. We searched Embase.com and MEDLINE comprehensively and included articles, articles in press, reviews, short surveys, conference abstracts and conference papers about COVID-19 vaccine. VOSviewer1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these papers. A total of 1,312 papers were finally included. The BMJ has been the most popular journal in this field. The United States maintained a top position worldwide and has provided a pivotal influence, followed by China, India and United Kingdom. Among all the institutions, Harvard University was regarded as a leader for research collaboration. We analyzed the keywords and identified seven COVID-19 vaccine research hotspot clusters. COVID-19 vaccine research hotspots focus on clinical trials on vaccine safety and efficacy, research on vaccine immunology and immunoinformatics, and vaccine hesitancy. Our analysis results demonstrated that cooperation between countries, institutions, and authors were insufficient. The results suggested that clinical trials on vaccine safety, efficacy, immunology, immunoinformatics, production and delivery are research hotspots. Furthermore, we can predict that there will be a lot of research focusing on vaccine adverse reactions.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , Databases, Bibliographic , Humans , MEDLINE , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Safety
8.
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 19: eAO6002, 2021. graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1139025

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Objective: To carry out a scoping review of the meta-analyses published regarding about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evaluating their main characteristics, publication trends and methodological quality. Methods: A bibliometric search was performed in PubMed®, Scopus and Web of Science, focusing on meta-analyses about COVID-2019 disease. Bibliometric and descriptive data for the included articles were extracted and the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Results: A total of 348 meta-analyses were considered eligible. The first meta-analysis about COVID-19 disease was published on February 26, 2020, and the number of meta-analyses has grown rapidly since then. Most of them were published in infectious disease and virology journals. The greatest number come from China, followed by the United States, Italy and the United Kingdom. On average, these meta-analyses included 23 studies and 15,200 participants. Overall quality was remarkably low, and only 8.9% of them could be considered as of high confidence level. Conclusion: Although well-designed meta-analyses about COVID-19 disease have already been published, the majority are of low quality. Thus, all stakeholders playing a role in COVID-19 deseases, including policy makers, researchers, publishers and journals, should prioritize well-designed meta-analyses, performed only when the background information seem suitable, and discouraging those of low quality or that use suboptimal methods.


RESUMO Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão de escopo das metanálises publicadas sobre a doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), avaliando suas principais características, tendências de publicação e qualidade metodológica. Métodos: Uma busca bibliométrica foi realizada em PubMed®, Scopus e Web of Science, com foco em metanálises sobre a doença pelo COVID-19. Foram extraídos dados bibliométricos e descritivos dos artigos incluídos, e a qualidade metodológica foi avaliada usando a ferramenta A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Resultados: Um total de 348 metanálises foram consideradas elegíveis. A primeira delas foi publicada em 26 de fevereiro de 2020, e, desde então, o número dessas publicações cresceu rapidamente. A maioria foi publicada em periódicos de infectologia e virologia. Grande parte é proveniente da China, seguida dos Estados Unidos, da Itália e do Reino Unido. Em média, as metanálises incluíram 23 estudos e 15.200 participantes. Em geral, a qualidade metodológica foi baixa, e apenas 8,9% delas podem ser consideradas de algum grau de confiabilidade Conclusão: Embora algumas metanálises bem conduzidas sobre a doença pelo COVID-19 tenham sido publicadas, a maioria apresenta baixa qualidade. Todos os envolvidos na abordagem da doença pelo COVID-19, incluindo formuladores de políticas, pesquisadores, editoras e periódicos, devem dar prioridade a metanálises de alta qualidade, realizadas apenas quando os dados são viáveis, e desencorajar as de baixa qualidade ou conduzidas com métodos subótimos.


Subject(s)
Humans , Bibliometrics , COVID-19 , United States , China , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Databases, Bibliographic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , United Kingdom , Italy
9.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(3)2021 01 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045434

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of society. Researchers worldwide have been working to provide new solutions to and better understanding of this coronavirus. In this research, our goal was to perform a Bibliometric Network Analysis (BNA) to investigate the strategic themes, thematic evolution structure and trends of coronavirus during the first eight months of COVID-19 in the Web of Science (WoS) database in 2020. To do this, 14,802 articles were analyzed, with the support of the SciMAT software. This analysis highlights 24 themes, of which 11 of the more important ones were discussed in-depth. The thematic evolution structure shows how the themes are evolving over time, and the most developed and future trends of coronavirus with focus on COVID-19 were visually depicted. The results of the strategic diagram highlight 'CHLOROQUINE', 'ANXIETY', 'PREGNANCY' and 'ACUTE-RESPIRATORY-SYNDROME', among others, as the clusters with the highest number of associated citations. The thematic evolution. structure presented two thematic areas: "Damage prevention and containment of COVID-19" and "Comorbidities and diseases caused by COVID-19", which provides new perspectives and futures trends of the field. These results will form the basis for future research and guide decision-making in coronavirus focused on COVID-19 research and treatments.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , COVID-19 , Databases, Bibliographic/trends , Pandemics , Humans
10.
Asian J Psychiatr ; 57: 102560, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1025410

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to analyze reports of COVID-19 related suicides (CRS) to identify associated factors with a broader goal to inform management and prevention strategies. METHODS: We searched scientific literature, government websites and online newspaper reports in English and nine regional languages to identify relevant CRS reports. RESULTS: A total of 151 CRS reports were retrieved. CRS was more frequently reported among males (80.8%), those whose COVID status was unknown (48.0%), and those in quarantine/isolation (49.0%). CONCLUSION: The above findings may assist identification of at-risk individuals for COVID-19 related suicidal behavior.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Databases, Bibliographic/statistics & numerical data , Newspapers as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Physical Distancing , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Suicide/statistics & numerical data , Television/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Sex Factors
12.
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(2): 1488-1493, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1000754

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. METHODS: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. RESULTS: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. DISCUSSION: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Research Design , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Databases, Bibliographic , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
14.
Laryngoscope ; 131(6): 1254-1265, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-866144

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this meta-analysis was to look at the pooled prevalence of symptoms, laboratory tests, and imaging of all COVID-19 infected patients. This will allow better identification of potential COVID-19 patients and take appropriate precautions. STUDY DESIGN: Meta analysis. METHODS: We searched three databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid to identify studies published between Dec-2019 and May-2020. All studies reporting upper-aerodigestive symptoms of COVID-19 infection were included. The meta-analysis was conducted following meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines, which have evaluated the pooled prevalence of 14 symptoms and nine laboratory investigations. RESULTS: Based on inclusion criteria, 67 publications consisting of 8302 patients were included. Among adults, the pooled proportion of hypertensive and diabetic patients was 18% and 7%. Cough (53% [0.46-0.61]), anosmia (38% [0.19-0.58]), loss/distortion of taste (31% [0.17-0.45]), and nasal obstruction (26% [0.12-0.39]) were the most common ear, nose & throat (ENT) symptoms. Fever (69% [0.62-0.76]) and fatigue (31% [0.26-0.37]) were the commonest generalized symptoms. C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were raised in 56% (0.41-0.71) and 49% (0.21-0.77), respectively. Interestingly, lymphopenia (41% [0.30-0.53]) and leucopenia (22% [0.16-0.29]) were more common than lymphocytosis (33% [0.02-0.64]) and leucocytosis (12% [0.09-0.16]). Fever (69% vs. 44%), cough (53% vs. 33%), and dyspnea (20% vs. 4%) were more common in adults as compared to the pediatric population. Diarrhea was more common among the pediatric cases (12%) versus (9%). The pooled estimate of fatality was 4%. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly experienced ENT symptom was cough followed by anosmia and dysguesia. Raised ESR and CRP with leukopenia and lymphopenia are common laboratory findings. Majority of the infected patients had abnormal computed tomography findings. COVID infection is less severe in pediatric patients. Laryngoscope, 131:1254-1265, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Adult , Anosmia/epidemiology , Anosmia/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Cough/epidemiology , Cough/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Databases, Bibliographic , Diagnosis, Differential , Dysgeusia/epidemiology , Dysgeusia/etiology , Humans , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
16.
In Vivo ; 34(3 Suppl): 1613-1617, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-528713

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: To evaluate the research trends in coronavirus disease (COVID-19). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was performed using a machine learning bibliometric methodology. Information regarding publication outputs, countries, institutions, journals, keywords, funding and citation counts was retrieved from Scopus database. RESULTS: A total of 1883 eligible papers were returned. An exponential increase in the COVID-19 publications occurred in the last months. As expected, China produced the majority of articles, followed by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Italy. There is greater collaboration between highly contributing authors and institutions. The "BMJ" published the highest number of papers (n=129) and "The Lancet" had the most citations (n=1439). The most ubiquitous topic was COVID-19 clinical features. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis presents the most influential references related to COVID-19 during this time and could be useful to improve understanding and management of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Coronavirus Infections , Machine Learning , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , China , Databases, Bibliographic , Humans , Information Dissemination , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Research/statistics & numerical data , Research Support as Topic , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL