ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Patient-Related Metadata Reported in Sequencing Studies of SARS-CoV-2: Protocol for a Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: There has been an unprecedented effort to sequence the SARS-CoV-2 virus and examine its molecular evolution. This has been facilitated by the availability of publicly accessible databases, the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) and GenBank, which collectively hold millions of SARS-CoV-2 sequence records. Genomic epidemiology, however, seeks to go beyond phylogenetic analysis by linking genetic information to patient characteristics and disease outcomes, enabling a comprehensive understanding of transmission dynamics and disease impact.While these repositories include fields reflecting patient-related metadata for a given sequence, inclusion of these demographic and clinical details is scarce. The extent to which patient-related metadata is reported in published sequencing studies and its quality remains largely unexplored. Methods: The NIH's LitCovid collection will be used for automated classification of articles reporting having deposited SARS-CoV-2 sequences in public repositories, while an independent search will be conducted in PubMed for validation. Data extraction will be conducted using Covidence. The extracted data will be synthesized and summarized to quantify the availability of patient metadata in the published literature of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing studies. For the bibliometric analysis, relevant data points, such as author affiliations and citation metrics will be extracted. Discussion: This scoping review will report on the extent and types of patient-related metadata reported in genomic viral sequencing studies of SARS-CoV-2, identify gaps in this reporting, and make recommendations for improving the quality and consistency of reporting in this area. The bibliometric analysis will uncover trends and patterns in the reporting of patient-related metadata, including differences in reporting based on study types or geographic regions. Co-occurrence networks of author keywords will also be presented. The insights gained from this study may help improve the quality and consistency of reporting patient metadata, enhancing the utility of sequence metadata and facilitating future research on infectious diseases.
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.