Search

• Collected papers on estimations of four epidemiological parameters regarding COVID-19. • Quantitatively compared and synthesized preprints and peer-reviewed publications. • Verified the validity of the COVID-19 parameter estimations of the preprints. • Synthesized parameters can effectively capture the patterns of COVID-19. We aimed to explore the collective wisdom of preprints related to COVID-19 by comparing and synthesizing them with results of peer-reviewed publications. PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, and SSRN were searched for papers regarding the estimation of four epidemiological parameters of COVID-19: the basic reproduction number, incubation period, infectious period, and case-fatality-rate. Distributions of parameters and timeliness of preprints and peer-reviewed papers were compared. Four parameters in two groups were synthesized by bootstrapping, and their validities were evaluated by simulated cumulative cases of the susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered-dead-cumulative (SEIRDC) model. A total of 106 papers were included for analysis. The distributions of four parameters in two literature groups were close, and the timeliness of preprints was better. Synthesized estimates of the basic reproduction number (3.18, 95% CI 2.85–3.53), incubation period (5.44 days, 95% CI 4.98–5.99), infectious period (6.25 days, 95% CI 5.09–7.51), and case-fatality-rate (4.51%, 95% CI 3.41%–6.29%) were obtained. Simulated cumulative cases of the SEIRDC model matched well with the onset cases in China. The validity of the COVID-19 parameter estimations of the preprints was on par with that of peer-reviewed publications, and synthesized results of literatures could reduce the uncertainty and be used for epidemic decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020.Results: Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language. Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies (N = 88; 28%) and case reports (N = 86; 28%), analyzing patients' characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099. Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%). Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China (N = 522; 63%). The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine (N = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine (N = 16; 3%).Conclusions: Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of rapid dissemination of scientific and medical discoveries. Current platforms available for the distribution of scientific and clinical research data and information include preprint repositories and traditional peer-reviewed journals. In recent times, social media has emerged as a helpful platform to share scientific and medical discoveries., Objective: This study aimed to comparatively analyze activity on social media (specifically, Twitter) and that related to publications in the form of preprint and peer-reviewed journal articles in the context of COVID-19 and gastroenterology during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: COVID-19-related data from Twitter (tweets and user data) and articles published in preprint servers (bioRxiv and medRxiv) as well as in the PubMed database were collected and analyzed during the first 6 months of the pandemic, from December 2019 through May 2020. Global and regional geographic and gastrointestinal organ-specific social media trends were compared to preprint and publication activity. Any relationship between Twitter activity and preprint articles published and that between Twitter activity and PubMed articles published overall, by organ system, and by geographic location were identified using Spearman's rank-order correlation., Results: Over the 6-month period, 73,079 tweets from 44,609 users, 7164 journal publications, and 4702 preprint publications were retrieved. Twitter activity (ie, number of tweets) peaked in March 2020, whereas preprint and publication activity (ie, number of articles published) peaked in April 2020. Overall, strong correlations were identified between trends in Twitter activity and preprint and publication activity (P<.001 for both). COVID-19 data across the three platforms mainly concentrated on pulmonology or critical care, but when analyzing the field of gastroenterology specifically, most tweets pertained to pancreatology, most publications focused on hepatology, and most preprints covered hepatology and luminal gastroenterology. Furthermore, there were significant positive associations between trends in Twitter and publication activity for all gastroenterology topics (luminal gastroenterology: P=.009; hepatology and inflammatory bowel disease: P=.006; gastrointestinal endoscopy: P=.007), except pancreatology (P=.20), suggesting that Twitter activity did not correlate with publication activity for this topic. Finally, Twitter activity was the highest in the United States (7331 tweets), whereas PubMed activity was the highest in China (1768 publications)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential of social media as a vehicle for disseminating scientific information during a public health crisis. Sharing and spreading information on COVID-19 in a timely manner during the pandemic has been paramount; this was achieved at a much faster pace on social media, particularly on Twitter. Future investigation could demonstrate how social media can be used to augment and promote scholarly activity, especially as the world begins to increasingly rely on digital or virtual platforms. Scientists and clinicians should consider the use of social media in augmenting public awareness regarding their scholarly pursuits., (©Sonia L Taneja, Monica Passi, Sumona Bhattacharya, Samuel A Schueler, Sandeep Gurram, Christopher Koh. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.06.2021.)