ABSTRACT
Importance The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by an unprecedented amount of published scientific articles.
Objective To assess the characteristics of articles published during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare it with articles published during 2009 H1N1 swine influenza pandemic.
Data sources Articles on COVID-19 and on H1N1 swine influenza indexed in PubMed (Medline) during the first 3 months of these pandemics.
Study selection Any article published in the respective study periods that included any terminology related to COVID-19 or H1N1 in the title, abstract or full-text was eligible for inclusion. Articles that did not present an English abstract, as well as correspondence to previous research and erratum were excluded.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Two operators conducted the selection of articles and data extraction procedures independently. The article is reported following STROBE guidelines for observational studies.
Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence of primary and secondary articles. Prevalence of reporting of limitations in the abstracts.
Results Of the 2482 articles retrieved, 1165 were included. Approximately half of them were secondary articles (575, 49.4%). Common primary articles were: human medical research (340, 59.1%), in silico studies (182, 31.7%) and in vitro studies (26, 4.5%). Of the human medical research, the vast majority were observational studies and cases series, followed by single case reports and one randomized controlled trial. Secondary articles were mainly reviews, viewpoints and editorials (373, 63.2%). The second largest category was guidelines or guidance articles, including 193 articles (32.7%), of which 169 were indications for specific departments, patients or procedures. Limitations were reported in 42 out of 1165 abstracts (3.6%), with 10 abstracts reporting actual methodological limitations.
In a similar timeframe in 2009 there were 223 articles published on the H1N1 pandemic. As compared to that pandemic, during COVID-19 there were higher chances to publish reviews and guidance articles and lower chances to publish in vitro and animal research studies.
Conclusions and Relevance As compared to the most recent pandemic, there is an overwhelming amount of information published on COVID-19. However, the majority of the articles published do not add significant information, possibly diluting the original information published. Also, only a negligible number of published articles reports limitations in the abstracts, hindering a rapid interpretation of their shortcomings.
Protocol Registration Our protocol was registered in Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/eanzr
Question Patients, health care professionals, policy makers, and the general public want to know what has been published on COVID-19 and what quality of research was available for decision making.
Findings Half of the publications with an abstract were original research studies, i.e., for every original research article (primary article) on COVID-19 there was at least one other article that discussed or summarized what was already known (secondary article). Only 3.6% of the abstracts reported a clear statement on the limitations of the article.
Meaning Clinicians and policy makers have to filter out a large body of secondary articles, which may slow down decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
No funding
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework as: ‘Characteristics of scientific articles on COVID-19 published during the initial three months of the pandemic: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study’
Email: reyndersmail{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
Currently data are not available since more research is being performed on them.
