The "Infodemic" of Journal Publication Associated with the Novel Coronavirus Disease

Translation in action: Influence, collaboration, and evolution of COVID-19 research with Clinical and Translational Science Awards consortium support

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium aims to accelerate translational processes that move discoveries from bench to bedside. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented unmatched challenges and applications for CTSA hubs nationwide. Our study used bibliometrics to assess features of COVID-19 publications supported by the national CTSA program to characterize the consortium's response to the pandemic. Our goal was to understand relative scientific influence, collaboration across hubs, and trends in research emphasis over time. We identified publications from NIH's curated iSearch COVID-19 Publication Portfolio from February 2020 to February 2023; 3234 peer-reviewed articles relevant to COVID-19 cited a CTSA grant. All 66 CTSA hubs were represented, with large-size and longstanding hubs contributing more publications. Most publications cited UL1 grants, 457 cited KL2/TL1 training grants, and 164 cited multiple hub grants. Compared to a random sample of non-CTSA-supported COVID-19 publications, the CTSA portfolio exhibited greater clinical relevance, more human research, and higher altmetric and citation influence. Results were similar for multi-hub publications involving networked initiatives like multi-site clinical trials or the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative. Shifts from molecular/cellular-oriented research toward human-oriented research over time were evident, demonstrating translation in action. Results illuminate how the CTSA consortium confronted the pandemic through high-quality projects oriented toward human research, working across hubs on high-value collaborations, advancing along the translational spectrum over time. Findings validate CTSA hubs as critical support structures during health emergencies.

Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with orthopaedic fracture surgery in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to investigate the outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients undergoing orthopaedic fracture surgery using data from a national database of U.S. adults with a COVID-19 test for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from a national database to compare orthopaedic fracture surgery outcomes between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients in the United States. Participants aged 18-99 with orthopaedic fracture surgery between March and December 2020 were included. The main exposure was COVID-19 status. Outcomes included perioperative complications, 30-day all-cause mortality, and overall all-cause mortality. Multivariable adjusted models were fitted to determine the association of COVID-positivity with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The total population of 6.5 million patient records was queried, identifying 76,697 participants with a fracture. There were 7,628 participants in the National COVID Cohort who had a fracture and operative management. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was higher in the COVID-19-positive group (n = 476, 6.2 %) than the COVID-19-negative group (n = 7,152, 93.8 %) (2.2 vs 1.4, p<0.001). The COVID-19-positive group had higher mortality (13.2 % vs 5.2 %, p<0.001) than the COVID-19-negative group with higher odds of death in the fully adjusted model (Odds Ratio=1.59; 95 % Confidence Interval: 1.16-2.18).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19-positive participants with a fracture requiring surgery had higher mortality and perioperative complications than COVID-19-negative patients in this national cohort of U.S. adults tested for COVID-19. The risks associated with COVID-19 can guide potential treatment options and counseling of patients and their families. Future studies can be conducted as data accumulates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Characterization and Reach of Orthopaedic Research Posted to Preprint Servers: Are We "Undercooking" Our Science?

BACKGROUND

Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication?

METHODS

Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: "orthopaedic," "orthopedic," "bone," "cartilage," "ligament," "tendon," "fracture," "dislocation," "hand," "wrist," "elbow," "shoulder," "spine," "spinal," "hip," "knee," "ankle," and "foot." Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched.

RESULTS

The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis.

CONCLUSION

Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® , The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research , removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.

Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Consider Online and E-publication Resources for the Most Current Evidence-Based Medicine Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

To compare the time to publication of accepted manuscripts and content in orthopaedic sports medicine journals during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A convenience sample of articles published in January, May, and September during the years 2019-2021 was taken from Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA). The duration between the aspects of the article publication process was compared between journals and years.

Results

Overall, 826 journal articles were included. Arthroscopy demonstrated no significant differences in the time from manuscript submission to journal publication from 2019 to 2021, a significant decrease in time from acceptance to e-Pub (140 vs 74 vs 16 days; P < .001), but an increase from e-Pub to journal publication (23 vs 74 vs 130 days; P < .001). In AJSM, there was an overall increase in time from submission to journal publication significant between 2019 and 2021 (P = .05) and 2020 and 2021 (P = .001). KSSTA demonstrated the longest timelines in 2020. There was a trend toward a greater number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Conclusion

Changes in various aspects of the time to publication and journal content occurred in orthopaedic sports medicine journals in the years surrounding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although it is not possible to know whether these delays are caused by journal or author-related factors, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possible delay in time to publication and consider online and e-publication resources for the most current evidence-based medicine, while journals may take this information into account to consider ways of improving the publication process and when determining journal content.

Clinical Relevance

It is important to understand the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the publications which orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons rely on for clinical knowledge and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Public information needs during the COVID-19 outbreak: a qualitative study in mainland China

Purpose

The impact of COVID-19 has led to a surge in the public’s reliance on the Internet for pandemic information, and the policy of home isolation has exacerbated this. This study aimed to investigate public information needs and ways of accessing and disseminating information during COVID-19 in mainland China.

Design/methodology/approach

This study used a qualitative research approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with 15 participants from 9 cities in mainland China about information needs and access behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak. All interview recordings were converted into text and proofread, then coded and summarised in correspondence with the research questions using the grounded theory.

Findings

This study summarized the dynamics of public information needs during the 2.5-year pandemic and identified the difficulties in accessing certain information.

Originality/value

Although information needs of public health emergencies have been a hot topic during COVID-19, scant studies focus on information needs in specific countries in Asia, especially in mainland China, the first country with a major outbreak and stringent lockdown mandates. Therefore, the current study is well enriched by focusing on information demand behavior in the context of COVID-19. Possible measures for improvement were also given to existing and potential problems, taking into account the participants’ views.

Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

The dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals.

Methods

After analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded.

Results

A total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35-182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5-5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78-165) days, 157 (IQR, 102-216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243-378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods.

Conclusion

There was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.

Academic productivity in pediatric neurosurgery in relation to elective surgery slowdown during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 has not only impacted healthcare systems directly via hospitalizations and resource utilization, but also indirectly via adaptations in healthcare practice, such as the evolution of the academic environment and the rise of telemedicine and virtual education. This void in clinical responsibilities has been filled with academic productivity in various fields. In this study the authors investigate the influence of COVID-19 on the academic focus within pediatric neurosurgery.

METHODS

All data were obtained from the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (JNS Peds). The number of submissions for each month from January 2017 to December 2021 was collected. Data including number of publications, publication level of evidence (LOE), and COVID-19-related articles were collected and verified. Each publication was categorized by manuscript and LOE according to adaptations from the Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health Examination. Publication groups were categorized as pre-COVID-19 (January 2017-February 2020), peri-COVID-19 (March 2020-July 2020), and post-COVID-19 (August 2020-December 2021). Statistical analysis was performed to compare pre-COVID-19, peri-COVID-19, and post-COVID-19 academic volume and quality.

RESULTS

During the study time period, a total of 3116 submissions and 997 publications were identified for JNS Peds. Only 2 articles specifically related to COVID-19 and its impact on pediatric neurosurgery were identified, both published in 2021. When analyzing submission volume, a statistically significant increase was seen during the shutdown relative to pre-COVID-19 and post-shutdown time periods, and a significant decrease was seen post-shutdown relative to pre-COVID-19. LOE changed significantly as well. When comparing pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 articles, a statistically significant increase was identified only in level 4 publications. When analyzing pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 (2020) and post-COVID-19 (2021), a statistically significant decrease in level 3 and increases in levels 4 and 5 were identified during post-COVID-19 (2020), with a rebound increase in level 3 and a decrease in level 5 during post-COVID-19 (2021).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in manuscript submission during the initial pandemic period. However, there was no change during subsequent spikes in COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Coincident with the initial surge in academic productivity, despite steady publication volume, was an inverse decline in quality as assessed by LOE.

Impact of Covid-19 on the global orthopaedic research output

The pandemic led to a significant change in the clinical routine of many orthopaedic surgeons. To observe the impact of the pandemic on scientific output all studies published in the fields of orthopaedics listed in the Web of Science databases were analysed regarding the scientific merit of the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Subsequently, correlation analyses were performed with parameters of regional pandemic situation (obtained from WHO) and economic strength (obtained from the World Bank). The investigations revealed that the Covid-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the annual publication rate for the first time in 20 years (2020 to 2021: –5.69%). There were regional differences in the publication rate, which correlated significantly with the respective Covid-19 case count (r = –.77, p < 0.01), associated death count (r = –.63, p < 0.01), and the gross domestic product per capita (r = –.40, p < 0.01) but not with the number of vaccinations (r = .09, p = 0.30). Furthermore, there was a drastic decrease in funding from private agencies (relative share: 2019: 36.43%, 2020: 22.66%, 2021: 19.22%), and a balanced decrease in publication output for research areas of acute and elective patient care. The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a decline in orthopaedic annual publication rates for the first time in 20 years. This reduction was subject to marked regional differences and correlated directly with the pandemic load and was associated with decreased research funding from the private sector.

Exploring COVID-19 research papers published on journals in the field of LIS

As the COVID-19 pandemic prevails, research related to COVID-19 has spread beyond medicine, health science, and biology to almost all academic fields. Library and information science is one of the most active fields that publish COVID-19-related research papers. This study examined 696 research papers related to COVID-19 whose journal being categorized as “information science & library science” by Web of Science. The result of bibliometric analysis showed that the publications were active and on the rise. Most papers were published in English and produced in the United States. According to the keyword clustering map produced by semantic network analysis, two fields, bibliometrics and health communication, were publishing research papers related to COVID-19 most actively. Moreover, the most productive journal was a library and information science journal focusing on health informatics. Additionally, a tendency was found that researchers preferred to publish on journals with high impact factors. Compared with non-COVID-19-related research papers, there was a significant decrease of “time for acceptance” of COVID-19-related papers, and the proportion of open access was relatively high. Confronting the global crisis of COVID-19, the library and information science field also made efforts and challenges to resolve the slow peer-review, delayed publishing, and high paywalls, which have been recognized as a “chronic diseases” of the academic publishing ecosystem. It is expected that these endeavors can serve as a turning point to reconsider and innovate the traditional research-publishing lifecycle.

Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles

Objective.

To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions.

Methods.

A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results.

There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal.

Conclusions.

The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.

Association Between COVID-19 and Mortality in Hip Fracture Surgery in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background:

This study investigated the outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-positive patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a national database.

Methods:

This is a retrospective cohort study comparing hip fracture surgery outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative matched cohorts from 46 sites in the United States. Patients aged 65 and older with hip fracture surgery between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included. The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality and all-cause mortality.

Results:

In this national study that included 3303 adults with hip fracture surgery, the 30-day mortality was 14.6% with COVID-19-positive versus 3.8% in COVID-19-negative, a notable difference. The all-cause mortality for hip fracture surgery was 27.0% in the COVID-19-positive group during the study period.

Dicussion:

We found higher incidence of all-cause mortality in patients with versus without diagnosis of COVID-19 after undergoing hip fracture surgery. The mortality in hip fracture surgery in this national analysis was lower than other local and regional reports. The medical community can use this information to guide the management of hip fracture patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19.

Ankle Fracture and Length of Stay in US Adult Population Using Data From the National COVID Cohort Collaborative

Background:

The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is an innovative approach to integrate real-world clinical observations into a harmonized database during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical research on ankle fracture surgery is otherwise mostly limited to expert opinion and research letters. The purpose of this manuscript is to introduce the largest cohort of US ankle fracture surgery patients to date with a comparison between lab-confirmed COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort of adults with ankle fracture surgery using data from the N3C database with patients undergoing surgery between March 2020 and June 2021. The database is an NIH-funded platform through which the harmonized clinical data from 46 sites is stored. Patient characteristics included body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking status. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, overall mortality, surgical site infection (SSI), deep SSI, acute kidney injury, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, sepsis, time to surgery, and length of stay. COVID-19–positive patients were compared to COVID-19–negative controls to investigate perioperative outcomes during the pandemic.

Results:

A total population of 8.4 million patient records was queried, identifying 4735 adults with ankle fracture surgery. The COVID-19–positive group (n=158, 3.3%) had significantly longer times to surgery (6.5 ± 6.6 vs 5.1 ± 5.5 days, P = .001) and longer lengths of stay (8.3 ± 23.5 vs 4.3 ± 7.4 days, P < .001), compared to the COVID-19–negative group. The COVID-19–positive group also had a higher rate of 30-day mortality.

Conclusion:

Patients with ankle fracture surgery had longer time to surgery and prolonged hospitalizations in COVID-19–positive patients compared to those who tested negative (average delay was about 1 day and increased length of hospitalization was about 4 days). Few perioperative events were observed in either group. Overall, the risks associated with COVID-19 were measurable but not substantial.

Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Potential benefits, unintended consequences, and future roles of artificial intelligence in orthopaedic surgery research : a call to emphasize data quality and indications

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality.

The causes, impacts and countermeasures of COVID-19 "Infodemic": A systematic review using narrative synthesis

An unprecedented infodemic has been witnessed to create massive damage to human society. However, it was not thoroughly investigated. This systematic review aims to (1) synthesize the existing literature on the causes and impacts of COVID-19 infodemic; (2) summarize the proposed strategies to fight with COVID-19 infodemic; and (3) identify the directions for future research. A systematic literature search following the PRISMA guideline covering 12 scholarly databases was conducted to retrieve various types of peer-reviewed articles that reported causes, impacts, or countermeasures of the infodemic. Empirical studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. A coding theme was iteratively developed to categorize the causes, impacts, and countermeasures found from the included studies. Social media usage, low level of health/eHealth literacy, and fast publication process and preprint service are identified as the major causes of the infodemic. Besides, the vicious circle of human rumor-spreading behavior and the psychological issues from the public (e.g., anxiety, distress, fear) emerges as the characteristic of the infodemic. Comprehensive lists of countermeasures are summarized from different perspectives, among which risk communication and consumer health information need/seeking are of particular importance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future research directions are suggested.

An augmented multilingual Twitter dataset for studying the COVID-19 infodemic

This work presents an openly available dataset to facilitate researchers' exploration and hypothesis testing about the social discourse of the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset currently consists of over 2.2 billions tweets (count as of September, 2021), from all over the world, in multiple languages. Tweets start from January 22, 2020, when the total cases of reported COVID-19 were below 600 worldwide. The dataset was collected using the Twitter API and by rehydrating tweets from other available datasets, data collection is ongoing as of the time of writing. To facilitate hypothesis testing and exploration of social discourse, the English and Spanish tweets have been augmented with state-of-the-art Twitter Sentiment and Named Entity Recognition algorithms. The dataset and the summary files provided allow researchers to avoid some computationally intensive analyses, facilitating more widespread use of social media data to gain insights on issues such as (mis)information diffusion, semantic networks, sentiments, and the evolution of COVID-19 discussions. In addition, the dataset provides an archive for researchers in the social sciences wishing to have access to a dataset covering the entire duration of the pandemic.

Pearls on science, collaboration, and mentorship in health research: A masterclass conversation with Dr. John Ioannidis

Effective collaboration and mentorship are essential to success in a career of health research. We summarize our conversation with Dr. John Ioannidis, professor at Stanford University, author of the most accessed manuscript in the history of the Public Library of Science, and one of the most cited scientists in history. Dr. Ioannidis was invited for a question and answer session as part of a graduate-level course on biostatistical collaboration hosted at McMaster University in December 2020. This text provides insight into the experiences and pearls he shared, that we hope will inspire and guide other researchers early or junior in their careers. He emphasized the importance of passion, enthusiasm and a sincere pursuit for high quality research as being the cornerstones to success and continued productivity in this field.

Artificial Intelligence in Action: Addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic with Natural Language Processing

The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has had a significant impact on society, both because of the serious health effects of COVID-19 and because of public health measures implemented to slow its spread. Many of these difficulties are fundamentally information needs; attempts to address these needs have caused an information overload for both researchers and the public. Natural language processing (NLP)-the branch of artificial intelligence that interprets human language-can be applied to address many of the information needs made urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic. This review surveys approximately 150 NLP studies and more than 50 systems and datasets addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. We detail work on four core NLP tasks: information retrieval, named entity recognition, literature-based discovery, and question answering. We also describe work that directly addresses aspects of the pandemic through four additional tasks: topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, caseload forecasting, and misinformation detection. We conclude by discussing observable trends and remaining challenges.

Top 50 cited articles on Covid-19 after the first year of the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It has been just over a year since the Covid-19 pandemic started. The top 50 cited articles on this subject would help identify trends and focus on the research efforts.

METHODS

We utilised e-utilities in PubMed to find publications on Covid-19 until the date of search on 7/2/21. The iCite website was used to find the top 50 citations of the output from the search strategy. We looked into their full text for the editorial dates, type of study, level of evidence, focus of the article and country of origin. We also counted the errata and comments on each of them.

RESULTS

The total number of citations of all 50 articles was 123,960, the highest being 10, 754 for a single article. Huang C was the most cited first author. They were published from week 4-17, with February being the month with most citations. Lancet was the most cited journal, having published 9 of the 50 articles. Majority belonged to level 3 of the evidence ladder and were retrospective studies. Thirty percent of them had an errata published and an average of 7 comments per article.

CONCLUSION

The top 50 most cited articles identify the most impactful studies on Covid-19, providing a resource to educators while identifying trends to guide research and publishing efforts. There has been an explosion of publications and an unprecedented rate and number of citations within the first year for any single condition in the literature.

Imaging in the COVID-19 era: Lessons learned during a pandemic

The first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a year of unprecedented changes, scientific breakthroughs, and controversies. The radiology community has not been spared from the challenges imposed on global healthcare systems. Radiology has played a crucial part in tackling this pandemic, either by demonstrating the manifestations of the virus and guiding patient management, or by safely handling the patients and mitigating transmission within the hospital. Major modifications involving all aspects of daily radiology practice have occurred as a result of the pandemic, including workflow alterations, volume reductions, and strict infection control strategies. Despite the ongoing challenges, considerable knowledge has been gained that will guide future innovations. The aim of this review is to provide the latest evidence on the role of imaging in the diagnosis of the multifaceted manifestations of COVID-19, and to discuss the implications of the pandemic on radiology departments globally, including infection control strategies and delays in cancer screening. Lastly, the promising contribution of artificial intelligence in the COVID-19 pandemic is explored.

Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers

The impact of COVID-19 has underlined the need for reliable information to guide clinical practice and policy. This urgency has to be balanced against disruption to journal handling capacity and the continued need to ensure scientific rigour. We examined the reporting quality of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers using a bibliometric analysis examining reporting quality and risk of bias (RoB) amongst 250 top scoring Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) COVID-19 research papers between January and April 2020. Method-specific RoB tools were used to assess quality. After exclusions, 84 studies from 44 journals were included. Forty-three (51%) were case series/studies, and only one was an randomized controlled trial. Most authors were from institutions based in China (n = 44, 52%). The median AAS and impact factor was 2015 (interquartile range [IQR] 1,105-4,051.5) and 12.8 (IQR 5-44.2) respectively. Nine studies (11%) utilized a formal reporting framework, 62 (74%) included a funding statement, and 41 (49%) were at high RoB. This review of the most widely disseminated COVID-19 studies highlights a preponderance of low-quality case series with few research papers adhering to good standards of reporting. It emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of research and the increasingly vital responsibility that journals have in ensuring high-quality publications.

COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on peer review speed of anesthesiology journals: An observational study

Background and Aims:

Publication of a scientific article in a reputed journal is an uphill task that demands a significant amount of time and effort from the author and editorial team. It is a matter of great enthusiasm for all prospective researchers to know whether this daily evolving publication load of articles during this pandemic had changed the journal's inherent peer review or publication process. We aimed to compare the peer review speed of anesthesiology journal articles published during pandemic (2020) to the previous year and to analyze various factors affecting peer review speed.

Material and Methods:

Overall, 16 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed. A set of 24 articles published in 2019 of the included journals were selected from each journal for control and a set of 12 articles published between January to September 2020 was selected for comparison. Time taken for acceptance and publication from the time of submission was noted. Peer review timing was calculated and its relationship with h-index, continent of journal origin and article processing charges were evaluated.

Results:

The median peer review time in 2019 and 2020 were 116 (108-125) days and 79 (65-105.5) days, respectively. There was a 31.8% decrease (P = 0.0021) in peer review time of all articles in 2020 compared to 2019. The median peer review timings of COVID-19 articles were 35 (22-42.5) days. A 55.6% decrease was noted in peer review time of COVID-19 articles compared to non-COVID-19 articles in 2020. There was a significant correlation between peer review time and h-index (r = 0.558, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in peer review timing of journals with or without article processing charge (P = 0.75) and between journals from different continents (P = 0.56).

Conclusion:

Anesthesiology journals managed to curtail their turnaround time for peer review during the pandemic compared to previous year. Journal with higher h-index had longer peer review time. The option for articles processing charge and continent of publishing journal had no impact on peer review speed.

Getting trustworthy guidelines into the hands of decision-makers and supporting their consideration of contextual factors for implementation globally: recommendation mapping of COVID-19 guidelines

Published research on COVID-19 is increasing rapidly and integrated in guidelines. The trustworthiness of guidelines can vary depending on the methods used to assemble and evaluate the evidence, the completeness and transparency of reporting on the process undertaken and how conflicts of interest are addressed.

With a global consortium of partners and collaborators, we have created a catalogue of COVID-19 recommendations as our direct response to the increased need for structured access to high quality guidance in the field. The COVID19 map of recommendations and gateway to contextualization (https://covid19.recmap.org) is a living project: emerging guideline literature is added on an ongoing basis, allowing granular access to individual recommendations.

Building on prior work on mapping recommendations for the World Health Organization tuberculosis guidelines, a novel feature of this map is the self-directed contextualization of the recommendations using the GRADE-Adolopment approach to adopt, adapt or synthesize de novo recommendations for context specific questions. Through our map, stakeholders access the evidence underpinning a recommendation, select what needs to be contextualized and go through the steps of development of adapted recommendations. This one-stop shop portal of evidence-informed recommendations, built with intuitive functionalities, easy to navigate and with a support team ready to guide users across the maps, represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers and the public at large.

Total Joint Arthroplasty During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review with Implications for Future Practice

Background

Recent studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of total joint arthroplasty. A scoping review of the literature with compiled recommendations is a useful tool for arthroplasty surgeons as they resume their orthopedic practices during the pandemic.

Methods

In June 2020, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Scopus, LitCovid, CINAHL, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were queried for articles using controlled vocabulary and keywords pertaining to COVID-19 and total joint arthroplasty. Studies were characterized by their region of origin, design, and Center of Evidence Based Medicine level of evidence. The identified relevant studies were grouped into 6 categories: changes to future clinical workflow, education, impact on patients, impact on surgeons, technology, and surgical volume.

Results

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on arthroplasty practice, including the disruption of the clinical teaching environment, personal and financial consequences for patients and physicians, and the drastic reduction in surgical volume. New pathways for clinical workflow have emerged, along with novel technologies with applications for both patients and trainees.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasizes the recent trend in arthroplasty toward risk stratification and outpatient surgery, which may result in improved clinical outcomes and significant cost-savings. Furthermore, virtual technologies are a promising area of future focus that may ultimately improve upon previous existing inefficiencies in the education and clinical environments.

Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Sports Medicine Surgeon: Implications for Current and Future Care

As the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic continues, the paradigm of treatment continues to rapidly evolve, especially for sports medicine surgeons, because treatment before the pandemic was considered predominantly elective. This article provides subjective and objective data on the changes implicated by the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to the interactions and practices of sports medicine surgeons. This perspective also considers the potential impact on the patients and athletes treated by sports medicine surgeons. This article discusses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports medicine and provides thoughts on how the landscape of the field may continue to change.

Impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic care: a call for nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

Surgical specialties face unique challenges caused by SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). These disruptions will call on clinicians to have greater consideration for non-operative treatment options to help manage patient symptoms and provide therapeutic care in lieu of the traditional surgical management course of action. This study aimed to summarize the current guidance on elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, assess how this guidance may impact orthopaedic care, and review any recommendations for non-operative management in light of elective surgery disruptions.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted, and included guidance were categorized as either "Selective Postponement" or "Complete Postponement" of elective surgery. Selective postponement was considered as guidance that suggested elective cases should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, whereas complete postponement suggested that all elective procedures be postponed until after the pandemic, with no case-by-case consideration. In addition, any statements regarding conservative/non-operative management were summarized when provided by included reports.

RESULTS

A total of 11 reports from nine different health organizations were included in this review. There were seven (63.6%) guidance reports that suggested a complete postponement of non-elective surgical procedures, whereas four (36.4%) reports suggested the use of selective postponement of these procedures. The guidance trends shifted from selective to complete elective surgery postponement occurred throughout the month of March. The general guidance provided by these reports was to have an increased consideration for non-operative treatment options whenever possible and safe. As elective surgery begins to re-open, non-operative management will play a key role in managing the surgical backlog caused by the elective surgery shutdown.

CONCLUSION

Global guidance from major medical associations are in agreement that elective surgical procedures require postponement in order to minimize the risk of COVID-19 spread, as well as increase available hospital resources for managing the influx of COVID-19 patients. It is imperative that clinicians and patients consider non-operative, conservative treatment options in order to manage conditions and symptoms until surgical management options become available again, and to manage the increased surgical waitlists caused by the elective surgery shutdowns.