Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Global Health and Tropical Medicine (GHTM), WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Workforce Policy and Planning, Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine-NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 6;15(10):e0240123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240123. eCollection 2020.
The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still "recruiting". PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.
新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情引发了大量文献的发表。在这项横断面研究中,我们比较了与新型冠状病毒相关的学术文章和预印本的数量和报告特征,以及正在进行的临床试验和系统评价的数量。为此,我们使用适当的医学主题词 (MeSH 术语) 组合,在 PubMed 数据库中搜索已发表的生命科学期刊的引文和摘要,并在 2020 年 5 月 20 日(21 周)之前搜索 MedRxiv 和 BioRxiv 档案的新型冠状病毒肺炎部分。此外,我们还在 Clinicaltrial.gov、中国临床试验注册中心、欧盟临床试验注册中心以及其他 15 个试验登记处,以及 PROSPERO(国际系统评价前瞻性登记库)中进行了检索。提取了每个出版物的特征。回归分析和 Z 检验用于检测出版物趋势及其相对比例。共检索到 3635 篇学术出版物和 3805 篇预印本。只有 8.6%(n=329)的预印本已经在索引期刊上发表。学术出版物和预印本出版物的数量随着时间的推移显著增加(p<0.001)。病例报告(学术 6%,预印本 0.9%;p<0.001)和信件(学术 17.4%,预印本 0.5%;p<0.001)在学术出版物中所占比例大于预印本出版物。相反,随机对照试验(0.22%比 0.63%;p<0.001)和系统评价(0.08%比 5%)在预印本中所占比例较大。Clinicaltrials.gov、中国临床试验注册中心和欧盟临床试验注册中心注册的临床研究的相对比例分别为 57.9%、49.5%和 98.9%,其中大部分仍处于“招募”状态。PROSPERO 列出了 962 项系统评价方案。预印本的数量略高于学术文章,但数量都在增加。由于缺乏原始研究,人们发表了大量的即时意见(即给编辑的信)来填补这一空白,这些意见发表在 PubMed 索引期刊上。总之,预印本作为一种出版方式,在当前大流行期间,对快速获取经验性(尽管未经同行评审)发现的需求做出了回应,因此受到了更多的关注。