Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite.

Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021, and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in general and internal medicine). Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19; 110 scientists received ≥10,000 citations for COVID-19 work, but none received ≥10,000 citations for non-COVID-19 work published in 2020 to 2021. For many scientists, citations to their COVID-19 work already accounted for more than half of their total career citation count. Overall, these data show a strong covidization of research citations across science, with major impact on shaping the citation elite.

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.

BACKGROUND: University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported. RESULTS: Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs. RESULTS: We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

Results publications are inadequately linked to trial registrations: An automated pipeline and evaluation of German university medical centers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Informed clinical guidance and health policy relies on clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers finding comprehensive clinical evidence and linking registrations and publications of the same clinical trial. To support the finding and linking of trial evidence, the World Health Organization, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ask researchers to provide the trial registration number in their publication and a reference to the publication in the registration. This practice costs researchers minimal effort and makes evidence synthesis more thorough and efficient. Nevertheless, trial evidence appears inadequately linked, and the extent of trial links in Germany remains unquantified. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate links between registrations and publications across clinical trials conducted by German university medical centers and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Registry. Secondary aims are to develop an automated pipeline that can be applied to other cohorts of trial registrations and publications, and to provide stakeholders, from trialists to registries, with guidance to improve trial links. METHODS: We used automated strategies to download and extract data from trial registries, PubMed, and results publications for a cohort of registered, published trials conducted across German university medical centers and completed between 2009 and 2017. We implemented regular expressions to detect and classify publication identifiers in registrations, and trial registration numbers in publication metadata, abstracts, and full-texts. RESULTS: In breach of long-standing guidelines, 75% (1,418) of trials failed to reference trial registration numbers in both the abstract and full-text of the journal article in which the results were published. Furthermore, 50% (946) of trial registrations did not contain links to their results publications. Seventeen percent (327) of trials had no links, so that associating registration and publication required manual searching and screening. Overall, trials in ClinicalTrials.gov were better linked than those in the German Clinical Trials Registry; PubMed and registry infrastructures appear to drive this difference. Trial registration numbers were more likely to be transferred to PubMed metadata from abstracts for ClinicalTrials.gov trials than for German Clinical Trials Registry trials. Most (78%, 662/849) ClinicalTrials.gov registrations with a publication link were automatically indexed from PubMed metadata, which is not possible in the German Clinical Trials Registry. CONCLUSIONS: German university medical centers have not comprehensively linked trial registrations and publications, despite established recommendations. This shortcoming threatens the quality of evidence synthesis and medical practice, and burdens researchers with manually searching and linking trial data. Researchers could easily improve this by copy-and-pasting references between their trial registrations and publications. Other stakeholders could build on this practice, for example, PubMed could capture additional trial registration numbers using automated strategies (like those developed in this study), and the German Clinical Trials Registry could automatically index publications from PubMed.

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014 -2017 cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Timely publication of clinical trial results is central for evidence-based medicine. In this follow-up study we benchmark the performance of German university medical centers (UMCs) regarding timely dissemination of clinical trial results in recent years. METHODS: Following the same search and tracking methods used in our previous study for the years 2009 - 2013, we identified trials led by German UMCs completed between 2014 and 2017 and tracked results dissemination for the identified trials. RESULTS: We identified 1,658 trials in the 2014 -2017 cohort. Of these trials, 43% published results as either journal publication or summary results within 24 months after completion date, which is an improvement of 3.8% percentage points compared to the previous study. At the UMC level, the proportion published after 24 months ranged from 14% to 71%. Five years after completion, 30% of the trials still remained unpublished. CONCLUSION: Despite minor improvements compared to the previously investigated cohort, the proportion of timely reported trials led by German UMCs remains low. German UMCs should take further steps to improve the proportion of timely reported trials.

Is the future of peer review automated?

The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors' conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study's conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature.

We examined the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields was engaged in publishing COVID-19-related papers. According to Scopus (data cut, 1 August 2021), 210 183 COVID-19-related publications included 720 801 unique authors, of which 360 005 authors had published at least five full papers in their career and 23 520 authors were at the top 2% of their scientific subfield based on a career-long composite citation indicator. The growth of COVID-19 authors was far more rapid and massive compared with cohorts of authors historically publishing on H1N1, Zika, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. All 174 scientific subfields had some specialists who had published on COVID-19. In 109 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in 10 active, influential (top 2% composite citation indicator) authors in the subfield had authored something on COVID-19. Fifty-three hyper-prolific authors had already at least 60 (and up to 227) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for their COVID-19 publications, most common countries were USA (n = 67), China (n = 52), UK (n = 32) and Italy (n = 18). The rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work is unprecedented and creates opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The COVID-19 clinical trial landscape. PARTICIPANTS: 285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (ie, by journal article, preprint or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route. RESULTS: Following automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n=25) followed by journal articles (n=18), and results on a registry (n=2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 trials completed during the first 6 months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared with non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data are accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for the next phase of the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials study expanding both our trial population and follow-up time.