Social Media and Research Publication Activity During Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of rapid dissemination of scientific and medical discoveries. Current platforms available for the distribution of scientific and clinical research data and information include preprint repositories and traditional peer-reviewed journals. In recent times, social media has emerged as a helpful platform to share scientific and medical discoveries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to comparatively analyze activity on social media (specifically, Twitter) and that related to publications in the form of preprint and peer-reviewed journal articles in the context of COVID-19 and gastroenterology during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: COVID-19-related data from Twitter (tweets and user data) and articles published in preprint servers (bioRxiv and medRxiv) as well as in the PubMed database were collected and analyzed during the first 6 months of the pandemic, from December 2019 through May 2020. Global and regional geographic and gastrointestinal organ-specific social media trends were compared to preprint and publication activity. Any relationship between Twitter activity and preprint articles published and that between Twitter activity and PubMed articles published overall, by organ system, and by geographic location were identified using Spearman's rank-order correlation. RESULTS: Over the 6-month period, 73,079 tweets from 44,609 users, 7164 journal publications, and 4702 preprint publications were retrieved. Twitter activity (ie, number of tweets) peaked in March 2020, whereas preprint and publication activity (ie, number of articles published) peaked in April 2020. Overall, strong correlations were identified between trends in Twitter activity and preprint and publication activity (P<.001 for both). COVID-19 data across the three platforms mainly concentrated on pulmonology or critical care, but when analyzing the field of gastroenterology specifically, most tweets pertained to pancreatology, most publications focused on hepatology, and most preprints covered hepatology and luminal gastroenterology. Furthermore, there were significant positive associations between trends in Twitter and publication activity for all gastroenterology topics (luminal gastroenterology: P=.009; hepatology and inflammatory bowel disease: P=.006; gastrointestinal endoscopy: P=.007), except pancreatology (P=.20), suggesting that Twitter activity did not correlate with publication activity for this topic. Finally, Twitter activity was the highest in the United States (7331 tweets), whereas PubMed activity was the highest in China (1768 publications). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential of social media as a vehicle for disseminating scientific information during a public health crisis. Sharing and spreading information on COVID-19 in a timely manner during the pandemic has been paramount; this was achieved at a much faster pace on social media, particularly on Twitter. Future investigation could demonstrate how social media can be used to augment and promote scholarly activity, especially as the world begins to increasingly rely on digital or virtual platforms. Scientists and clinicians should consider the use of social media in augmenting public awareness regarding their scholarly pursuits.

LitCovid: an open database of COVID-19 literature.

Since the outbreak of the current pandemic in 2020, there has been a rapid growth of published articles on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, with about 10,000 new articles added each month. This is causing an increasingly serious information overload, making it difficult for scientists, healthcare professionals and the general public to remain up to date on the latest SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research. Hence, we developed LitCovid (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/), a curated literature hub, to track up-to-date scientific information in PubMed. LitCovid is updated daily with newly identified relevant articles organized into curated categories. To support manual curation, advanced machine-learning and deep-learning algorithms have been developed, evaluated and integrated into the curation workflow. To the best of our knowledge, LitCovid is the first-of-its-kind COVID-19-specific literature resource, with all of its collected articles and curated data freely available. Since its release, LitCovid has been widely used, with millions of accesses by users worldwide for various information needs, such as evidence synthesis, drug discovery and text and data mining, among others.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates.

An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline, SSRN, and Medrxiv were searched using a set of terms and Boolean operators on 25/04/2020 and re-searched on 14/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 16/06/2020. Articles were screened for inclusion by both authors. Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 by using the metan command, based on IFR and confidence intervals extracted from each study. Google/Google Scholar was used to assess the grey literature relating to government reports. RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 24 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and June 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point estimate of IFR of 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policymaking on this front.