Nahla A. Alshaikh
COVID-19 associated coagulopathy: A bibliometric investigation
Cell, May 2023; doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16507
Abstract
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 initiates an immune-hemostatic response. While both systems are intimately connected and necessary for an efficient immune response to contain the infection, excessive coagulation activation might exceed the valuable benefits by causing thrombotic consequences and excessive inflammation. This biological response is new to clinicians and researchers, and accordingly, tremendous studies have been conducted on coagulopathy and its relationship to COVID-19 disease during this pandemic. Therefore, it takes a research insight from a bibliometric perspective to determine research hotspots and trends of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (C19-CA). The analysis relies on the Scopus database for bibliographic content and Visualization of Similarities viewer software to map bibliometric data of C19-CA. Our study finds the most eminent authors, journals, institutions, funding organizations, and countries that publish in the C19-CA. Additionally; this research employs bibliometric analysis of co-authorship, co-citations, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of keywords. A total of 2242 studies were retrieved, and the number of annual publications of C19-CA showed remarkable growth. The top-publishing authors on C19-CA are Smadja, D.M., Diehl, J.L., and Gendron, N (France). The total number of articles published in English in these three years was 1241, with the original article accounting for 99.8% and conference papers accounting for 0.2%. Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China) is the top-productive institution, with the US being the top-publishing country. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis received the highest number of original articles. The research results were mainly published in the fields of Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, Immunology and Microbiology. Yuanyuan Li, who is (China), is the top-collaborating author. China and its authors have the highest number of citations. Keywords' co-occurrence analyses of the authors and all keywords revealed the following themes in C19-CA; abnormal coagulation parameters, pulmonary coagulopathy, venous and arterial thrombotic disorders, distinct features of coagulopathy, inflammation, and thrombosis in COVID-19, and anticoagulants and thrombolytic therapies. By combining bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer software, we identified C19-CA's leaders, collaborating institutions, and research hotspots, as well as give references for future research paths.
ZainabSyed et al.
COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations
Cell, April 2023; doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15184
Abstract
Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making.
Methods
Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views.
Results
Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928.
Conclusion
While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.
Neil K R Sehgal et al.
US COVID-19 clinical trial leadership gender disparities
The Lancet, March 2023; doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00017-1
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the careers of women, including those in academia and research. In June, 2020, only 430 (27·8%) of 1548 COVID-19 clinical trials were led by female principal investigators and in August, 2020, only 28·0% of first authors in COVID-19 manuscripts were women.1, 2 We sought to analyse disparities in gender, which was assumed from author's first name, in COVID-19 trial leadership throughout the pandemic. Only names with a probability of more than 0·8 of being either male or female were included. Furthermore, we investigated how the gender of trial leaders is associated with the gender of trial participants and trial intervention type.
Overall, the stark gender disparities documented in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic have reduced in the past 2 years, coinciding with a reduction in the number of clinical trials being done. Previous research hypothesised that the urgency of public health emergencies leads to fewer checks and balances of equity, allowing women to be excluded from leadership roles.1 Moreover, caregiving demands are often made of women, with female scientists reporting substantial declines in time for research at the onset of the pandemic.7 Research groups with the resources to rapidly shift focus to COVID-19 in the beginning of the pandemic and subsequently shift focus away when interest declines might be dominated by men. Along with decreases in urgency of research of COVID-19, decreases in the number of biological and drug trials might also explain increases in female leadership in the later stages of the pandemic. For example, women are under-represented in academic medicine and biomedical faculty, with better representation in behavioural fields, such as psychology.8, 9
As indicated in previous studies for other diseases, increased gender diversity in trial leadership is associated with increased gender equity in participant enrolment.4, 6 This association is not clearly causal, and past work is unclear on the explicit or implicit role of study leadership in cohort recruitment.6 The attenuation by intervention type for COVID-19 could be explained by specific interventions being targeted at critically ill patients who are predominantly male, although this would not explain the positive association in other diseases.
Gender diversity in research is crucial. Across medicine, gender-diverse teams produce more effective research.10 During future public health emergencies, lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic should be heeded, including ensuring the participation of women as both leaders and participants in clinical trials.
Perlis R.H. et al.
Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
JAMA, January 2023; doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53296
Abstract
Importance Although peer review is an important component of publication for new research, the viability of this process has been questioned, particularly with the added stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Objective To characterize rates of peer reviewer acceptance of invitations to review manuscripts, reviewer turnaround times, and editor-assessed quality of reviews before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large, open-access general medical journal.
Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective, pre-post cohort study examined all research manuscripts submitted to JAMA Network Open between January 1, 2019, and June 29, 2021, either directly or via transfer from other JAMA Network journals, for which at least 1 peer review of manuscript content was solicited. Measures were compared between the period before the World Health Organization declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020 (14.3 months), and the period during the pandemic (15.6 months) among all reviewed manuscripts and between pandemic-period manuscripts that did or did not address COVID-19.
Main Outcomes and Measures For each reviewed manuscript, the number of invitations sent to reviewers, proportions of reviewers accepting invitations, time in days to return reviews, and editor-assessed quality ratings of reviews were determined.
Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, the speed and editor-reported quality of peer reviews in an open-access general medical journal improved modestly during the initial year of the pandemic. Additional study will be necessary to understand how the pandemic has affected reviewer burden and fatigue.
Bai A.D. et al.
Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles - A Systematic Review
JAMA, January 2023; doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53301
Abstract
Importance Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.
Objective To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.
Evidence Review This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.
Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.
