Mapping Scientific Productivity Trends and Hotspots in Remdesivir Research Publications: A Bibliometric Study from 2016 to 2021.

In response to global efforts to control and exterminate infectious diseases, this study aims to provide insight into the productivity of remdesivir research and highlight future directions. To achieve this, there is a need to summarize and curate evidence from the literature. As a result, this study carried out comprehensive scientific research to detect trends in published articles related to remdesivir using a bibliometric analysis. Keywords associated with remdesivir were used to access pertinent published articles using the Scopus database. A total of 5321 research documents were retrieved, primarily as novel research articles (n = 2440; 46%). The number of publications increased exponentially from 2020 up to the present. The papers published by the top 12 institutions focusing on remdesivir accounted for 25.69% of the overall number of articles. The USA ranked as the most productive country, with 906 documents (37.1%), equivalent to one-third of the global publications in this field. The most productive institution was Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, in the USA (103 publications). The New England Journal of Medicine was the most cited, with an h-index of 13. The publication of research on remdesivir has gained momentum in the past year. The importance of remdesivir suggests that it needs continued research to help global health organizations detect areas requiring instant action to implement suitable measures. Furthermore, this study offers evolving hotspots and valuable insights into the scientific advances in this field and provides scaling-up analysis and evidence diffusion on remdesivir.

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic.

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

The Two Pandemics.

This article reflects on the importance and the impact of scientific publications in the midst of a global health crisis. It aims to raise awareness about the responsibility of accepting manuscripts in such sensitive times and is intended to motivate the production of high-quality papers through a critical vision.

Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of infectious diseases generate outbreaks of scientific evidence. In 2016 epidemics of Zika virus emerged, and in 2020, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared patterns of scientific publications for the two infections to analyse the evolution of the evidence. METHODS: We annotated publications on Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 that we collected using living evidence databases according to study design. We used descriptive statistics to categorise and compare study designs over time. RESULTS: We found 2286 publications about Zika virus in 2016 and 21,990 about SARS-CoV-2 up to 24 May 2020, of which we analysed a random sample of 5294 (24%). For both infections, there were more epidemiological than laboratory science studies. Amongst epidemiological studies for both infections, case reports, case series and cross-sectional studies emerged first, cohort and case-control studies were published later. Trials were the last to emerge. The number of preprints was much higher for SARS-CoV-2 than for Zika virus. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in the overall pattern of publications might be generalizable, whereas differences are compatible with differences in the characteristics of a disease. Understanding how evidence accumulates during disease outbreaks helps us understand which types of public health questions we can answer and when.

The impact of COVID-19 on academic productivity by female physicians and researchers in transfusion medicine.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the disparities in gender equity that exist in different medical specialties. The COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened the inequity faced by female physicians as they are challenged by increasing household and childcare duties in addition to their professional responsibilities. Given these hurdles, fewer women than men have published in various medical disciplines. In this brief report, we wanted to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic output of female physicians and researchers in transfusion medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared all articles in four transfusion medicine journals published from January 1 to July 31, 2019 with the same time period in 2020. Overall, 1024 articles were reviewed for whether they included women as first or senior authors. RESULTS: Overall, women were first authors in 45.9% (n = 458) of all publications and senior authors in 35% (n = 356) of all publications. There was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of women as first authors between 2019 (49.1%) and 2020 (42.7%) (p = .04). There was no significant change in the percentage of women as senior authors between 2019 (35.4%) and 2020 (35.5%) (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other medical specialties, the COVID-19 pandemic has further increased the disparities faced by female researchers in transfusion medicine as evidenced by a decrease in publications with women as first authors.

Now we are 30: 10 more years of MASCC.

This paper chronicles the third decade of MASCC from 2010. There was a generational change in this decade, building on the solid foundation of the founders. It included the first female President, and a new Executive Director with a background in strategy and business development and operations as applied to healthcare. The headquarters moved from Copenhagen to Toronto. The first meeting to be held outside of Europe or North America was held in Adelaide, Australia, and the membership in the Asia Pacific region expanded. A program of international affiliates saw national supportive care organisations formally link with MASCC. In cancer supportive care, there was a raft of new toxicities to manage as immunotherapies were added to conventional cytotoxic treatment. There was also a greater emphasis on the psychosocial needs of patients and families. New MASCC groups were formed to respond to this evolution in cancer management. The MASCC journal, Supportive Care in Cancer, continued to grow in impact, and MASCC published two editions of a textbook of supportive care and survivorship. The decade ended with the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, but that served to highlight the importance of good supportive care to patients with cancer.

Open Access of COVID-19-related publications in the first quarter of 2020: a preliminary study based in PubMed.

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak has made funders, researchers and publishers agree to have research publications, as well as other research outputs, such as data, become openly available. In this extraordinary research context of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, publishers are announcing that their coronavirus-related articles will be made immediately accessible in appropriate open repositories, like PubMed Central, agreeing upon funders' and researchers' instigation. Methods: This work uses Unpaywall, OpenRefine and PubMed to analyse the level of openness of articles about COVID-19, published during the first quarter of 2020. It also analyses Open Access (OA) articles published about previous coronavirus (SARS CoV-1 and MERS CoV) as a means of comparison. Results: A total of 5,611 COVID-19-related articles were analysed from PubMed. This is a much higher amount for a period of 4 months compared to those found for SARS CoV-1 and MERS during the first year of their first outbreaks (335 and 116 articles, respectively).  Regarding the levels of openness, 88.8% of the SARS CoV-2 papers are freely available; similar rates were found for the other coronaviruses. Deeper analysis showed that (i) 67.4% of articles belong to an undefined Bronze category; (ii) 76.4% of all OA papers don't carry any license, followed by 10.4% which display restricted licensing. These patterns were found to be repeated in the three most frequent publishers: Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, although scientific production is much higher than during previous epidemics and is open, there is a caveat to this opening, characterized by the absence of fundamental elements and values ​​on which Open Science is based, such as licensing.

The mystery of the COVID toes - turning evidence-based medicine on its head.

The recent and rapid emergence of COVID-19 infection has led to a flood of publications describing all aspects of the disease and its presentation. The appearance of chilblain-like lesions, in children and young adults has particularly caught the attention of healthcare professionals with an interest in the foot. With such a novel infection, demand for information is high at a time when evidence is scarce. Consequently, there has been a renaissance in the publication of case studies. This type of research, previously relegated from many mainstream journals, as a low level source of evidence, has permitted the rapid reporting, publication and dissemination of much needed clinical data which can be used as a foundation to inform further research and investigations about a new global infection.