Publications and retracted articles of COVID-19 pharmacotherapy-related research: A systematic review

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Evaluating the dependability of reference-driven citation forecasts amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis across diverse journals

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor significantly influences research publishing and funding decisions. With the surge in research due to COVID-19, this study investigates whether references remain reliable citation predictors during this period.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary journals (PLoS One, Medicine [Baltimore], J. Formos. Med. Assoc., and Eur. J. Med. Res.) were analyzed using the Web of Science database for 2020 to 2022 publications. The study employed descriptive, predictive, and diagnostic analytics, with tools such as 4-quadrant radar plots, univariate regressions, and country-based collaborative maps via the follower-leading cluster algorithm.

RESULTS

Six countries dominated the top 20 affiliations: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, and Brazil. References remained strong citation indicators during the COVID-19 period, except for Eur. J. Med. Res. due to its smaller sample size (n = 492) than other counterparts (i.e., 41,181, 12,793, and 1464). Three journals showed higher network density coefficients, suggesting a potential foundation for reference-based citation predictions.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations among journals, references effectively predict article citations during the COVID-19 era, underlining the importance of network density. Future studies should delve deeper into the correlation between network density and citation prediction.

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).

RESULTS

379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).

CONCLUSIONS

Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

Prognostic Factors of COVID-19: An Umbrella Review Endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the urgency for updated evidence to inform public health and clinical care placed systematic literature reviews (SLRs) at the cornerstone of research. We aimed to summarize evidence on prognostic factors for COVID-19 outcomes through published SLRs and to critically assess quality elements in the findings' interpretation. An umbrella review was conducted via electronic databases from January 2020 to April 2022. All SLRs (and meta-analyses) in English were considered. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess SLR quality. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD4202232576). Out of 4,564 publications, 171 SLRs were included of which 3 were umbrella reviews. Our primary analysis included 35 SLRs published in 2022, which incorporated studies since the beginning of the pandemic. Consistent findings showed that, for adults, older age, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer were more strongly predictive of risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and mortality due to COVID-19. Male sex was associated with higher risk of short-term adverse outcomes, but female sex was associated with higher risk of long COVID. For children, socioeconomic determinants that may unravel COVID-19 disparities were rarely reported. This review highlights key prognostic factors of COVID-19, which can help clinicians and health officers identify high-risk groups for optimal care. Findings can also help optimize confounding adjustment and patient phenotyping in comparative effectiveness research. A living SLR approach may facilitate dissemination of new findings. This paper is endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

Background

Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making.

Methods

Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views.

Results

Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928.

Conclusion

While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.

A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of previous research that has investigated retractions within the biomedical fields and assess their methodological quality. We searched three major electronic databases for articles on retractions within the biomedical field: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. In total, 162 articles were included in the analysis. We evaluated their methodological quality using the items of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Cochrane guidance. The studies had been published in more than 20 biomedical disciplines or fields of investigation, and two-thirds were published after 2017. Concerning methodology, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; five studies did not meet any of the suggested AMSTAR-2 categories or Cochrane guidelines. The most prevalent reported reasons for retraction were fraud and plagiarism (21.0%). In summary, there has been increasing interest in assessing the characteristics and impact of retractions in the biomedical sciences. The studies cited types of misconduct more often than honest errors as a major reason for retraction. The methodological quality of the existing studies in this area appears to be suboptimal. Future investigators should improve upon this, particularly in the quality of the data selection and extraction.

How COVID-19 Affected the Journal Impact Factor of High Impact Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Journal impact factor (IF) is the leading method of scholarly assessment in today's research world, influencing where scholars submit their research and where funders distribute their resources. COVID-19, one of the most serious health crises, resulted in an unprecedented surge of publications across all areas of knowledge. An important question is whether COVID-19 affected the gold standard of scholarly assessment.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we aimed to comprehensively compare the productivity trends of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature as well as track their evolution and scholarly impact across 3 consecutive calendar years.

METHODS

We took as an example 6 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine [Annals], The British Medical Journal [The BMJ], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], The Lancet, Nature Medicine [NatMed], and The New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]) and searched the literature using the Web of Science database for manuscripts published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021. To assess the effect of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 literature in their scholarly impact, we calculated their annual IFs and percentage changes. Thereafter, we estimated the citation probability of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publications along with their rates of publication and citation by journal.

RESULTS

A significant increase in IF change for manuscripts including COVID-19 published from 2019 to 2020 (P=.002; Annals: 283%; The BMJ: 199%; JAMA: 208%; The Lancet: 392%; NatMed: 111%; and NEJM: 196%) and to 2021 (P=.007; Annals: 41%; The BMJ: 90%; JAMA: 6%; The Lancet: 22%; NatMed: 53%; and NEJM: 72%) was seen, against non-COVID-19 ones. The likelihood of highly cited publications was significantly increased in COVID-19 manuscripts between 2019 and 2021 (Annals: z=3.4, P<.001; The BMJ: z=4.0, P<.001; JAMA: z=3.8, P<.001; The Lancet: z=3.5, P<.001; NatMed: z=5.2, P<.001; and NEJM: z=4.7, P<.001). The publication and citation rates of COVID-19 publications followed a positive trajectory, as opposed to non-COVID-19. The citation rate for COVID-19 publications peaked by the second quarter of 2020 while that of the publication rate approximately a year later.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid surge of COVID-19 publications emphasized the capacity of scientific communities to respond against a global health emergency, yet inflated IFs create ambiguity as benchmark tools for assessing scholarly impact. The immediate implication is a loss in value of and trust in journal IFs as metrics of research and scientific rigor perceived by academia and society. Loss of confidence toward procedures employed by highly reputable publishers may incentivize authors to exploit the publication process by monopolizing their research on COVID-19 and encourage them to publish in journals of predatory behavior.

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., i/ the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; ii/ the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; iii/ the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused death and economic injury around the globe. The urgent need for COVID-19 research created new ethical, regulatory, and practical challenges. The next public health emergency could be worse than COVID-19. We must learn about these challenges from the experiences of researchers and Research Ethics Committee professionals responsible for these COVID-19 studies to prepare for the next emergency.

Materials and methods

We conducted an online survey to identify the ethical, oversight, and regulatory challenges of conducting COVID-19 research during the early pandemic, and proposed solutions for overcoming these barriers. Using criterion-based, convenience sampling, we invited researchers who proposed or conducted COVID-19 research to complete an anonymous, online survey about their experiences. We administered a separate but related survey to Institutional Review Board (IRB) professionals who reviewed COVID-19 research studies. The surveys included open-ended and demographic items. We performed inductive content analysis on responses to open-ended survey questions.

Results

IRB professionals (n = 143) and researchers (n = 211) described 19 types of barriers to COVID-19 research, related to 5 overarching categories: policy and regulatory, biases and misperceptions, institutional and inter-institutional conflicts, risks of harm, and pressure of the pandemic. Researchers and IRB professionals described 8 categories of adaptations and solutions to these challenges: enacting technological solutions; developing protocol-based solutions; disposition and team management; establishing and communicating appropriate standards; national guidance and leadership; maintaining high standards; prioritizing studies before IRB review; and identifying and incorporating experts.

Discussion and conclusions

This inventory of challenges represents ongoing barriers to studying the current pandemic, and they represent a risk to research during future public health emergencies. Delays in studies of a pandemic during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of the public. We urge the development of a national working group to address these issues before the next public health emergency arises.