Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 68
Filter
1.
Br Dent J ; 232(10): 744-746, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873487

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to provide an update on the previous version published towards the end of last year, titled 'BDJ Open (2019-2020) and the advantages of open access publishing'. In this paper, we will highlight articles published throughout 2021, in order to focus on which areas authors felt were important to publish open access and also which areas have been expanded upon in the journal. Furthermore, this paper will examine how open access publishing in BDJ Open has enabled the continuous process of hypothesis testing to be shared more widely, as well as how publishing protocols and early results open access gives strength to that by allowing earlier opportunity for comment by other researchers, both through the peer review process and through further correspondence to authors directly and to the journal editors who publish their work.


Subject(s)
Open Access Publishing , Publishing , Peer Review
2.
BMJ Open Ophthalmol ; 7(1)2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1868736

ABSTRACT

In addition to catastrophic loss of life, and dramatic and unwanted alterations to the daily lives of those left behind, the COVID-19 pandemic has fostered the publication and dissemination of an unprecedented quantity of peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications on a single subject. In particular, the ophthalmic literature is now replete with clinical and laboratory studies on putative eye involvement by SARS-CoV-2, the aetiologic agent of COVID-19. In this review, we critically appraise the published literature on COVID-19, and suggest that the quality of scientific peer review and editorial decision-making also suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Eye , Humans , Pandemics , Peer Review , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 110(1): 97-102, 2022 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1835456

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores. METHODS: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation). RESULTS: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Databases, Factual , Humans , Peer Review , SARS-CoV-2
5.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e060255, 2022 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832467

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We investigated characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing measures to prevent COVID-19 by (1) identifying SR registrations in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), (2) identifying published SRs in COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) and (3) estimating the proportion of PROSPERO registrations published as full SR between 8 and 16 months after registration. STUDY DESIGN: This meta-research study is part of the German CEOsys project, www.covid-evidenz.de. We searched PROSPERO entries registered between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2020, and we searched COVID-19 L-OVE for published SRs (search date: 5 May 2021) focusing on measures to prevent COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The two samples were screened for eligibility and key characteristics were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Of 612 PROSPERO registrations, 47 focused on prevention and were included. The preventive measures included public health interventions (20), followed by personal protective equipment (10), vaccinations (9) and others (8). In total, 13 of 47 (28%) PROSPERO registrations had been published as full SR (as preprint only (6), as peer-reviewed article only (6), as preprint and peer-reviewed article (1)). Median time between PROSPERO registration and publication was 5 months for peer-reviewed SRs and 2 months for preprints.Of the 2182 entries identified in COVID-19 L-OVE, 51 published SRs focused on prevention and were included. Similar to the PROSPERO sample, most published SRs focused on public health interventions (21). The number of included primary studies ranged between 0 and 64 (median: 7). Nine published SRs did not include any studies because of a lack of primary studies. CONCLUSION: Considering the urgent information needs of policymakers and the public, our findings reveal the high-speed publication of preprints and lack of primary studies in the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Further meta-research on COVID-19 SRs is important to improve research efficiency among researchers across the world. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240423.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Peer Review , Research Report , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
6.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e057859, 2022 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1794494

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Various cognitive behavioural models and theories have been used to address vaccine hesitancy. However, those models and theories have been criticised for focusing on cognitive influences on health behaviours at the expense of affective influences. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of affective elements as complementary predictors of health behaviours. Anticipated affect (ie, an expectation of one's affective response to the target behaviour) has received the most scrutiny. This scoping review will analyse studies of anticipated affect that aimed to encourage vaccination and organise implications for future research and practice in vaccine communication. Our report will focus on exploring the usefulness of affective influence in terms of a comparison with the cognitive influence on vaccination. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search several databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) and identify additional literature by searching the reference lists of eligible studies. Eligible studies are those that quantitatively or qualitatively examined anticipated affect and aimed to encourage vaccination. Only papers written in English will be included. We will include all eligible publications from database inception up to the date of the final database search. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of all identified studies. Two independent reviewers will share responsibility for data extraction and verification. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion to reach consensus. We will extract data such as study characteristics, type of vaccine, type of anticipated affect, participant characteristics, methodology and main results. Data will be extracted using a customised extraction template on Covidence. The findings will be synthesised in a descriptive, narrative review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work does not warrant any ethical or safety review. This scoping review will be presented at a relevant conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.


Subject(s)
Research Design , Vaccination , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Peer Review , Review Literature as Topic
7.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(4): e34072, 2022 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1789307

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 crisis underscores the importance of preprints, as they allow for rapid communication of research results without delay in review. To fully integrate this type of publication into library information systems, we developed preview: a publicly available, central search engine for COVID-19-related preprints, which clearly distinguishes this source from peer-reviewed publications. The relationship between the preprint version and its corresponding journal version should be stored as metadata in both versions so that duplicates can be easily identified and information overload for researchers is reduced. OBJECTIVE: In this work, we investigated the extent to which the relationship information between preprint and corresponding journal publication is present in the published metadata, how it can be further completed, and how it can be used in preVIEW to identify already republished preprints and filter those duplicates in search results. METHODS: We first analyzed the information content available at the preprint servers themselves and the information that can be retrieved via Crossref. Moreover, we developed the algorithm Pre2Pub to find the corresponding reviewed article for each preprint. We integrated the results of those different resources into our search engine preVIEW, presented the information in the result set overview, and added filter options accordingly. RESULTS: Preprints have found their place in publication workflows; however, the link from a preprint to its corresponding journal publication is not completely covered in the metadata of the preprint servers or in Crossref. Our algorithm Pre2Pub is able to find approximately 16% more related journal articles with a precision of 99.27%. We also integrate this information in a transparent way within preVIEW so that researchers can use it in their search. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between the preprint version and its journal version is valuable information that can help researchers finding only previously unknown information in preprints. As long as there is no transparent and complete way to store this relationship in metadata, the Pre2Pub algorithm is a suitable extension to retrieve this information.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Algorithms , Humans , Peer Review
8.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e057675, 2022 04 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784827

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Research Design , Australia , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Peer Review , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
9.
Toxicol Pathol ; 50(3): 397-401, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759606

ABSTRACT

Histopathologic evaluation and peer review using digital whole-slide images (WSIs) is a relatively new medium for assessing nonclinical toxicology studies in Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) environments. To better understand the present and future use of digital pathology in nonclinical toxicology studies, the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) formed a working group to survey STP members with the goal of creating recommendations for implementation. The survey was administered in December 2019, immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the results suggested that the use of digital histopathology for routine GLP histopathology assessment was not widespread. Subsequently, in follow-up correspondence during the pandemic, many responding institutions either began investigating or adopting digital WSI systems to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. Therefore, the working group presents the survey results as a pre-pandemic baseline data set. Recommendations for use of WSI systems in GLP environments will be the subject of a separate publication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Toxicology , Communication , Humans , Pandemics , Peer Review , Policy , Toxicology/methods
10.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e054268, 2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736068

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Music-based interventions are used to improve well-being in individuals who are psychologically vulnerable and have long-term illnesses. To date, no study has systematically assessed the literature on music-based interventions aimed at improving well-being in people who have a vision impairment (VI). The purpose of the current protocol is to provide the methodology for a scoping review, to explore the therapeutic outcomes and strategies used in music-based interventions aimed specifically at people with a VI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol was developed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and guidelines. The anticipated start date for this study was July 2021. The proposed review will include studies that use music therapeutically as part of a treatment intervention for all VI populations. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria with regards to population, concept and context will be included. Electronic database searches will be conducted independently by two researchers and include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Further searches will include the reference lists of included studies and grey literature. A narrative synthesis will be conducted to map out the types of therapeutic music interventions undertaken and to compare therapeutic outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the methodology of this study consists of collecting data from publicly available articles, it does not require ethics approval. The findings of the planned scoping review are important to guide the development of future interventions, or strategies, that will attempt to use music to improve well-being in people with a VI. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.


Subject(s)
Music , Humans , Peer Review , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
11.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e060266, 2022 Feb 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703652

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The existing literature demonstrates that international students face a variety of stressors and barriers that can heighten the risk of suicide. However, up to now, no research has sought to summarise the available literature on the prevention strategies for suicide for international students in tertiary education. This document provides a scoping review protocol that aims to systematically chart and synthesise the published, unpublished and grey literature on the prevention strategies for suicide in the international student community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The enhanced six-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews of Arksey and O'Malley will be used. Two main research questions guide the review: (1) What is the extent, range and nature of the evidence regarding suicide prevention for international students? and (2) What suicide prevention strategies are promising for targeting international students? Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles, reports and policy documents will be eligible to be included in the review with no limits on publication date. Electronic searches of the CINAHL, ERIC, Medline, PsycInfo and ProQuest will be conducted to identify relevant academic publications. Grey literature searches will be undertaken on relevant databases as well as government and organisational websites. The reporting of the review will follow the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Criteria for evidence inclusion and exclusion will be used during literature screening and mapping. Screening and data charting of the published and grey literature will be conducted by three reviewers. Relevant stakeholders and experts will be consulted regarding the findings and their input will be integrated into the final report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and consultations with relevant stakeholders in policy and professional settings. Ethical approval is not required for this review.


Subject(s)
Suicide , Educational Status , Humans , Peer Review , Population Groups , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Students , Suicide/prevention & control , Systematic Reviews as Topic
12.
Public Underst Sci ; 31(5): 608-616, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700123

ABSTRACT

Preprints have gained prominence in the dissemination of scientific findings. This development has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to require the rapid dissemination of new scientific information. However, since preprints usually have not undergone peer review, they lack the rigour of other scientific publications such as journal articles. This presents a challenge for the news media tasked with keeping the public informed about the latest scientific developments in the context of great uncertainty during a global pandemic. This research note investigates the reporting of scientific information from preprints in 80 news articles identified in news articles related to COVID-19 published in four South African online media outlets. Our results show that despite the publication of guidelines for reporting on preprints in the media, there is still a way to go regarding the judicious use of scientific information from preprints by the news media.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Media , Pandemics , Peer Review , Uncertainty
13.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e055692, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673441

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The instituted elderly in nursing home need professional support targeting to maintain their daily activities and quality of life. Social support affects the health of elderly through its influence as a stress buffering or main effects on emotions, cognitions and behaviour that improve health outcomes. Understanding and identifying available interventions for the elderly in the literature related to integrating social support into interventions will be benefits to guide future practice, research and policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review designed by Arksey and O'Malley has been used in this study. Key words, inclusion and exclusion criteria were elaborated to search the primary articles that published in English from 2010 to 2021 mainly from PubMed, Science Direct, Public Library of Science, SocioHub, Wiley Online Library and PsycINFO databases targeting to reach the selected articles and combined the results with reference lists and hand searches. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 will be used to identify the quality of the studies. Authors developed the Data Extraction Form for data extraction and analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews tool will be employed for reporting guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Authors forecast to obtain relevant studies reporting integrating specific dimensions of supportive functions into interventions for the elderly in nursing home. This finding will benefit in quality improvement of supportive interventions in nursing home and to continue the further experimental study. The findings will be disseminated via electronic and hard copy through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and internal organisation meeting.


Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Social Support , Aged , Humans , Nursing Homes , Peer Review , Population Groups , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
15.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261622, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1597835

ABSTRACT

The skill of analyzing and interpreting research data is central to the scientific process, yet it is one of the hardest skills for students to master. While instructors can coach students through the analysis of data that they have either generated themselves or obtained from published articles, the burgeoning availability of preprint articles provides a new potential pedagogical tool. We developed a new method in which students use a cognitive apprenticeship model to uncover how experts analyzed a paper and compare the professional's cognitive approach to their own. Specifically, students first critique research data themselves and then identify changes between the preprint and final versions of the paper that were likely the results of peer review. From this activity, students reported diverse insights into the processes of data presentation, peer review, and scientific publishing. Analysis of preprint articles is therefore a valuable new tool to strengthen students' information literacy and understanding of the process of science.


Subject(s)
Data Analysis , Preprints as Topic , Science/education , Teaching , Communication , Humans , Peer Review , Teaching Materials
16.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(50): e338, 2021 Dec 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596045

ABSTRACT

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethics, Research , Humans , Peer Review , Pilot Projects , Publishing
17.
Int J Dev Biol ; 65(7-8-9): 457-464, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1571997

ABSTRACT

The Spanish Society for Developmental Biology (SEBD) organized its 17th meeting in November 2020 (herein referred to as SEBD2020). This meeting, originally programmed to take place in the city of Bilbao, was forced onto an online format due to the SARS-CoV2, COVID-19 pandemic. Although, we missed the live personal interactions and missed out on the Bilbao social scene, we were able to meet online to present our work and discuss our latest results. An overview of the activities that took place around the meeting, the different scientific sessions and the speakers involved are presented here. The pros and cons of virtual meetings are discussed.


Subject(s)
Developmental Biology/methods , Developmental Biology/trends , Animals , Cell Biology/trends , Developmental Biology/education , Humans , Internet , Models, Animal , Nervous System , Peer Review , Publications , Publishing , Regeneration , Schools , Societies, Medical , Spain
18.
West J Emerg Med ; 22(4): 958-962, 2021 Jun 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1553972

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals. METHODS: We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications. RESULTS: The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts. CONCLUSION: We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medicine , Abstracting and Indexing , Humans , Peer Review
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e054900, 2021 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523045

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has necessitated greater adoption of virtual care (eg, telephone (audio), videoconference) delivery models. Virtual care provides opportunities for innovative practice in care planning with older persons and meaningful family engagement by synchronously involving multiple care providers. Nevertheless, there remains a paucity of summarising evidence regarding virtual team-based care planning for older persons. The purpose of this scoping review is to summarise evidence on the utilisation of virtual team-based care planning for older persons in formal care settings. Specifically, (1) what has been reported in the literature on the impact or outcomes of virtual team-based care planning? (2) What are the facilitators and barriers to implementation? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow a rigorous and well-established methodology by the Joanna Briggs Institute, supplemented by the Arksey & O'Malley and Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien frameworks. A three-step search strategy will be used to conduct a search on virtual team-based care planning for older persons in formal care settings. Keywords and index terms will be identified from an initial search in PubMed and AgeLine, and used to conduct the full search in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, PsycInfo and Scopus. Reference lists of included articles and grey literature retrieved through Google and Google Scholar will also be reviewed. Three researchers will screen titles and abstracts, and will conduct full-text review for inclusion. Extracted data will be mapped in a table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for data collection from publicly accessible information. Findings will be presented at conferences, submitted for open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and made accessible to multiple stakeholders. The scoping review will summarise the literature on virtual team-based care planning for the purpose of informing the implementation of a virtual PIECES™ intervention (Physical/Intellectual/Emotional health, Capabilities, Environment, and Social).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Research Design , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Peer Review , Review Literature as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL