Your browser doesn't support javascript.
The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies.
Beall, Reed F; Moradpour, Javad; Hollis, Aidan.
  • Beall RF; Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
  • Moradpour J; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Hollis A; Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258013, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480448
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika?

METHODS:

Using Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time.

RESULTS:

Industry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19's proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high.

CONCLUSIONS:

While the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Periodicals as Topic / Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / Ebolavirus / Influenza, Human / Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype / Zika Virus / Zika Virus Infection / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0258013

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Periodicals as Topic / Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / Ebolavirus / Influenza, Human / Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype / Zika Virus / Zika Virus Infection / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0258013