ArticlePloS one2020
Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of COVID-19 on Otolaryngology Literature.The Laryngoscope · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Completeness and changes in data reporting pharmacological interventions to treat COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Scientometrics and meta-research in medical research: approaches required to ensure scientific rigor in an era of massive low-quality research.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Article
- Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta-research view.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024Article
- Publication of observational studies making claims of causation over time.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Properties and Mechanisms of Deletions, Insertions, and Substitutions in the Evolutionary History of SARS-CoV-2.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Flu vaccine administration in the period before SARS-CoV-2 infection and its outcomes: An umbrella review.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on global health journals: an analysis of impact factor and publication trends.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- The most influential COVID-19 articles: A systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2023Review
- Estimating the effect of COVID-19 on trial design characteristics: a registered report.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- The Impact of COVID-19 on Nursing Homes: Study Design and Population Description.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Irish Media Coverage of COVID-19 Evidence-Based Research Reports From One National Agency.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- From Cytokine Storm to Cytokine Breeze: Did Lessons Learned from Immunopathogenesis Improve Immunomodulatory Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe COVID-19?Biomedicines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals.
methodsWe searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups.
resultsThe 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001).
conclusionsWe conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.