Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32968602›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

Evaluating Trends in COVID-19 Research Activity in Early 2020: The Creation and Utilization of a Novel Open-Access Database.

Rebecca C Jones, Jasper C Ho, Hannah Kearney, Meghan Glibbery, Daniel L Levin, John Kim, Sara Markovic, Jillian Howden, Maya Amar, Mark A Crowther

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trends in Research on Patients With COVID-19 in Korean Medical Journals.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2024
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rebecca C JonesMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Jasper C HoMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Hannah KearneyMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Meghan GlibberyMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Daniel L LevinMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
John KimMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Sara MarkovicMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Jillian HowdenMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Maya AmarMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Mark A CrowtherMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented in recent history. The rapid global spread has demonstrated how the emergence of a novel pathogen necessitates new information to advise both healthcare systems and policy-makers. The directives for the management of COVID-19 have been limited to infection control measures and treatment of patients, which has left physicians and researchers alone to navigate the massive amount of research being published while searching for evidence-based strategies to care for patients. To tackle this barrier, we launched CovidReview.ca, an open-access, continually updated, online platform that screens available COVID-19 research to determine higher quality publications. This paper uses data from this review process to explore the activity and trends of COVID-19 research worldwide over time, while specifically looking at the types of studies being published. Materials and Methods The literature search was conducted on PubMed. Search terms included "COVID-19", "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", "coronavirus 19", "SARS-COV-2", and "2019-nCoV". All articles captured by this strategy were reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and categorized by type of research, relevant medical specialties, and type of publication. Criteria were developed to allow for inclusion or exclusion to the website. Due to the volume of research, only a level 1 (title and abstract) screen was performed. Results The time period for the analysis was January 17, 2020, to May 10, 2020. The total number of papers captured by the search criteria was 10,685, of which 2,742 were included on the website and 7,943 were excluded. The greatest increase in the types of studies over the 16 weeks was narrative review/expert opinion papers followed by case series/reports. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials remained the least published types of studies. Conclusions The surge of research that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic is unparalleled in recent years. From our analysis, it is clear that case reports and narrative reviews were the most widely published, particularly in the earlier days of this pandemic. Continued research that falls higher on the evidence pyramid and is more applicable to clinical settings is warranted.

Indexed as

coronaviruscovid-19covidreviewnovelpandemicresearchsars-cov-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2trends

Identifiers

PMID32968602
PMCPMC7505675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.