Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 253
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(47): e27950, 2021 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604259

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convenient accessibility and rapid publication of studies related to the ongoing pandemic prompted shorter preparation time for studies. Whether the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of published systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses are affected during the specific pandemic condition is yet to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, methodological quality, and reporting characteristics of published SRs/meta-analyses related to COVID-19.The Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to identify published SRs/meta-analyses related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study screening, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. The methodology quality of included SRs/meta-analyses was evaluated using revised version of a measurement tool to assess SRs, and the reporting characteristics were assessed based on the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses guidelines.A total of 47 SRs/meta-analyses were included with a low to critically low methodological quality. The median number of days from the date of literature retrieval to the date that the study was first available online was 21 days; due to the limited time, only 7 studies had study protocols, and the studies focused on a wide range of COVID-19 topics. The rate of compliance to the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses checklists of reporting characteristics ranged from 14.9% to 100%. The rate of compliance to the items of protocol and registration, detailed search strategy, and assessment of publication bias was less than 50%.SRs/meta-analyses on COVID-19 were poorly conducted and reported, and thus, need to be substantially improved.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Publishing/standards , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Quality Control , SARS-CoV-2
3.
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
4.
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
5.
Elife ; 102021 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1513072

ABSTRACT

Research in many different areas of medicine will benefit from new approaches to peer review and publishing.


Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research , Preprints as Topic , Publishing , Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans
6.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(22): e162, 2021 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1512015

ABSTRACT

Scholarly journals are hubs of hypotheses, evidence-based data, and practice recommendations that shape health research and practice worldwide. The advancement of science and information technologies has made online accessibility a basic requirement, paving the way for the advent of open access publishing, and more recently, to web-based health journalism. Especially in the time of the current pandemic, health professionals have turned to the internet, and primarily to social media, as a source of rapid information transfer and international communication. Hence, the current pandemic has ushered an era of digital transformation of science, and we attempt to understand and assess the impact of this digitization on modern health journalism.


Subject(s)
Journalism, Medical , Open Access Publishing , Social Media , COVID-19 , Humans , Internet , Pandemics , Publishing/trends
7.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(5)2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504398

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship. METHODS: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution. RESULTS: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in. CONCLUSION: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.


Subject(s)
Global Health , Periodicals as Topic , Female , Geography , Humans , Male , Publishing , Retrospective Studies
8.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 37(11): 2017-2018, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500876

Subject(s)
Language , Publishing , Humans
9.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258935, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496518

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable. OBJECTIVE: To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020. KEY RESULTS: We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Journal Impact Factor , Plagiarism , Publishing , Scientific Misconduct
11.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0258064, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1458024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has triggered an avalanche of research publications, the various aspects of which need to be assessed. The objective of this study is to determine the scientific community's response patterns to COVID-19 through a bibliometric analysis of the time-trends, global contribution, international collaboration, open-access provision, science domains of focus, and the behavior of journals. METHODS: The bibliographic records on COVID-19 literature were retrieved from both PubMed and Scopus. The period for searching was set from November 1, 2019, to April 15, 2021. The bibliographic data were coupled with COVID-19 incidence to explore possible association, as well as World Bank indicators and classification of economies. RESULTS: A total of 159132 records were included in the study. Following the escalation of incidences of COVID-19 in late 2020 and early 2021, the monthly publication count made a new peak in March 2021 at 20505. Overall, 125155 (78.6%) were national, 22548 (14.2%) were bi-national, and 11429 (7.2%) were multi-national. Low-income countries with 928 (66.8%) international publications had the highest percentage of international. The open-access provision decreased from 85.5% in February 2020 to 62.0% in April 2021. As many as 82841 (70.8%) publications were related to health sciences, followed by life sciences 27031 (23.1%), social sciences 20291 (17.3%), and physical sciences 15141 (12.9%). The top three medical subjects in publications were general internal medicine, public health, and infectious diseases with 28.9%, 18.3%, and 12.6% of medical publications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The association between the incidence and publication count indicated the scientific community's interest in the ongoing situation and timely response to it. Only one-fifth of publications resulted from international collaboration, which might lead to redundancy without adding significant value. Our study underscores the necessity of policies for attraction of international collaboration and direction of vital funds toward domains of higher priority.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , COVID-19 , Biomedical Research , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics , PubMed , Public Health , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/trends , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
13.
Nurs Adm Q ; 45(3): 175-176, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1450475
14.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257841, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435624

ABSTRACT

Selecting a target journal is a universal decision faced by authors of scientific papers. Components of the decision, including expected turnaround time, journal acceptance rate, and journal impact factor, vary in terms of accessibility. In this study, I collated recent turnaround times and impact factors for 82 journals that publish papers in the field of fisheries sciences. In addition, I gathered acceptance rates for the same journals when possible. Findings indicated clear among-journal differences in turnaround time, with median times-to-publication ranging from 79 to 323 days. There was no clear correlation between turnaround time and acceptance rate nor between turnaround time and impact factor; however, acceptance rate and impact factor were negatively correlated. I found no field-wide differences in turnaround time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, though some individual journals took significantly longer or significantly shorter to publish during the pandemic. Depending on their priorities, authors choosing a target journal should use the results of this study as guidance toward a more informed decision.


Subject(s)
Fisheries/organization & administration , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Bibliometrics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data
15.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257093, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435606

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs. RESULTS: 53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Publications/standards , Publishing/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Data Management/standards , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , PubMed/standards , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
18.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) ; 22(11): 840-847, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394701

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The spreading speed of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the medical community to produce efforts in updating and sharing the evidence about this new disease, trying to preserve the accuracy of the data but at the same time avoiding the potentially harmful delay from discovery to implementation. The aim of our analysis was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical literature in terms of proportion of COVID-19-related published papers and temporal patterns of publications within a sample of general/internal medicine and cardiology journals. METHODS: We searched through PubMed scientific papers published from 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 about COVID-19 in ten major medical journals, of which five were in general/internal medicine and five in the cardiology field. We analyzed the proportion of COVID-19-related papers, and we examined temporal trends in the number of published papers. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of COVID-19-related papers was 18.5% (1986/10 756). This proportion was higher among the five selected general/internal medicine journals, compared with cardiology journals (23.8% vs 9.5%). The vast majority of papers were not original articles; in particular, in cardiology journals, there were 28% 'original articles', 17% 'review articles' and 55.1% 'miscellaneous', compared with 20.2%, 5.1% and 74.7% in general/internal medicine journals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the big impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific literature. General and internal medicine journals were mainly involved, with cardiology journals only at a later time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Information Dissemination/methods , Publishing , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiology/methods , Humans , Internal Medicine/methods , Periodicals as Topic , Publishing/organization & administration , Publishing/trends , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Yearb Med Inform ; 30(1): 219-225, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1392953

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Provide an overview of the emerging themes and notable papers which were published in 2020 in the field of Bioinformatics and Translational Informatics (BTI) for the International Medical Informatics Association Yearbook. METHODS: A team of 16 individuals scanned the literature from the past year. Using a scoring rubric, papers were evaluated on their novelty, importance, and objective quality. 1,224 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms extracted from these papers were used to identify themes and research focuses. The authors then used the scoring results to select notable papers and trends presented in this manuscript. RESULTS: The search phase identified 263 potential papers and central themes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), machine learning, and bioinformatics were examined in greater detail. CONCLUSIONS: When addressing a once in a centruy pandemic, scientists worldwide answered the call, with informaticians playing a critical role. Productivity and innovations reached new heights in both TBI and science, but significant research gaps remain.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Computational Biology , Machine Learning , Biological Specimen Banks , Computer Security , Publishing/trends , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...