Search

ObjectiveThe Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) and the John Snow Memorandum (JSM), each signed by numerous scientists, have proposed hotly debated strategies for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The current analysis aimed to examine whether the prevailing narrative that GBD is a minority view among experts is true.MethodsThe citation impact and social media presence of the key GBD and JSM signatories was assessed. Citation data were obtained from Scopus using a previously validated composite citation indicator that incorporated also coauthorship and author order and ranking was against all authors in the same Science-Metrix scientific field with at least five full papers. Random samples of scientists from the longer lists of signatories were also assessed. The number of Twitter followers for all key signatories was also tracked.ResultsAmong the 47 key GBD signatories, 20, 19 and 21, respectively, were top-cited authors for career impact, recent single-year (2019) impact or either. For comparison, among the 34 key JSM signatories, 11, 14 and 15, respectively, were top cited. Key signatories represented 30 different scientific fields (9 represented in both documents, 17 only in GBD and 4 only in JSM). In a random sample of n=30 scientists among the longer lists of signatories, five in GBD and three in JSM were top cited. By April 2021, only 19/47 key GBD signatories had personal Twitter accounts versus 34/34 of key JSM signatories; 3 key GBD signatories versus 10 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers and extraordinary Kardashian K-indices (363–2569). By November 2021, four key GBD signatories versus 13 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers.ConclusionsBoth GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.

Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and MetaAnalyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, promoting a more balanced assessment of benefits and harms. Methods A development strategy, endorsed by the EQUATOR Network and existing reporting guidelines (including the PRISMA statement, PRISMA for abstracts, and PRISMA for protocols), was used. After the development of a draft checklist of items, a modified Delphi process was initiated. The Delphi consisted of three rounds of electronic feedback followed by an in-person meeting. Results The PRISMA harms checklist contains four essential reporting elements to be added to the original PRISMA statement to improve harms reporting in reviews. These are reported in the title (“Specifically mention ‘harms’ or other related terms, or the harm of interest in the review”), synthesis of results (“Specify how zero events were handled, if relevant”), study characteristics (“Define each harm addressed, how it was ascertained (eg, patient report, active search), and over what time period”), and synthesis of results (“Describe any assessment of possible causality”). Additional guidance regarding existing PRISMA items was developed to demonstrate relevance when synthesising information about harms. Conclusions The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.