Impact of COVID-19 on Otolaryngology Literature.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To understand the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volume, quality, and impact of otolaryngology publications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: Fifteen of the top peer-reviewed otolaryngology journals were queried on PubMed for COVID and non-COVID-related articles from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 (pandemic period) and pre-COVID articles from the year prior. Information on total number of submissions and rate of acceptance were collected from seven top-ranked journals. RESULTS: Our PubMed query returned 759 COVID articles, 4,885 non-COVID articles, and 4,200 pre-COVID articles, corresponding to a 34% increase in otolaryngology publications during the pandemic period. Meta-analysis/reviews and miscellaneous publication types made up a larger portion of COVID publications than that of non-COVID and pre-COVID publications. Compared to pre-COVID articles, citations per article 120 days after publication and Altmetric Attention Score were higher in both COVID articles (citations/article: 2.75 ± 0.45, P < .001; Altmetric Attention Score: 2.05 ± 0.60, P = .001) and non-COVID articles (citations/article: 0.03 ± 0.01, P = .002; Altmetric Attention Score: 0.67 ± 0.28, P = .016). COVID manuscripts were associated with a 1.65 times higher acceptance rate compared to non-COVID articles (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 was associated with an increase in volume, citations, and attention for both COVID and non-COVID articles compared to pre-COVID articles. However, COVID articles were associated with lower evidence levels than non-COVID and pre-COVID articles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:1364-1373, 2022.

Dissemination of Information During Public Health Crises: Early COVID-19 Data From The Laryngoscope.

OBJECTIVES: During a public health crisis, it is important for medical journals to share information in a timely manner while maintaining a robust peer-review process. This review reports and analyzes The Laryngoscope's publication trends and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and during previous pandemics. METHODS: Comprehensive review of two databases (PubMed and The Laryngoscope) was performed. COVID-19 manuscripts (published in The Laryngoscope during the first 4 months of the pandemic) were identified and compared to manuscripts pertaining to historic pandemics (published in The Laryngoscope during the first 2 years of each outbreak). Keywords included "Laryngoscope", "flu", "pandemic", "influenza", "SARS", "severe acute respiratory syndrome", "coronavirus", "COVID-19", and "SARS-CoV-2". Data were obtained from The Laryngoscope to characterize publication trends during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: From March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, The Laryngoscope had 203 COVID-19 submissions. As of July 8, 2020, 20 (9.9%) were accepted, 117 (57.6%) under review, and 66 (32.5%) rejected. During the first 4 months of the pandemic, 18 COVID-19 manuscripts were published. The mean number of days from submission to online publication was 45, compared to 170 in 2018 and 196 in 2019. A total of 4 manuscripts concerning previous pandemics were published during the initial 2 years of each outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: The Laryngoscope rapidly disseminated quality publications during the COVID-19 pandemic by upholding a robust peer-review process while expediting editorial steps, highlighting relevant articles online, and providing open access to make COVID-19-related publications available as quickly as possible. Laryngoscope, 130:2508-2515, 2020.

Establishing an Office-Based Framework for Resuming Otolaryngology Care in Academic Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 health crisis abruptly disrupted the practice of otolaryngology. This article aims to define the changes needed to operate an academic otolaryngology practice safely and efficiently from within the epicenter of the pandemic. We define the areas of normal patient workflow that have been affected by COVID-19, and we offer mitigation strategies with attention paid to the specific needs of subspecialties. DATA SOURCES: The article includes data specific to the office practice metrics of the Weill Cornell Medicine Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, as well as publically available data from New York Presbyterian Hospital system and the New York Times. REVIEW METHODS: Expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Through careful planning and execution, it is possible to reestablish safe otolaryngologic patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will require a significant change from prior practice models for successful implementation. Additionally, telemedicine can be positively integrated into the treatment of otolaryngology diseases for new and established patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The information conveyed in this review can be used as a guide by large and small otolaryngology groups to identify aspects of the patient visit that are "at risk" due to COVID-19, and it suggests sensible responses that can be made without a significant disruption to normal practice. The methods used to identify vulnerabilities with the patient visit process can be applied to future unforeseen crises, such as a resurgence of COVID-19 or a novel pandemic.