Transparency in infectious disease research: meta-research survey of specialty journals.

BACKGROUND: Infectious diseases carry large global burdens and have implications for society at large. Therefore, reproducible, transparent research is extremely important. METHODS: We evaluated transparency indicators (code and data sharing, registration, conflict and funding disclosures) in the 5340 PubMed Central Open Access articles published in 2019 or 2021 in the 9 most-cited specialty journals in infectious disease using the text-mining R package, rtransparent. RESULTS: 5340 articles were evaluated (1860 published in 2019 and 3480 in 2021 (of which 1828 on COVID-19)). Text-mining identified code sharing in 98 (2%) articles, data sharing in 498 (9%), registration in 446 (8%), conflict of interest disclosures in 4209 (79%) and funding disclosures in 4866 (91%). There were substantial differences across the 9 journals: 1-9% for code sharing, 5-25% for data sharing, 1-31% for registration, 7-100% for conflicts of interest, and 65-100% for funding disclosures. Validation-corrected imputed estimates were 3%, 11%, 8%, 79% and 92%, respectively. There were no major differences between articles published in 2019 and non-COVID-19 articles in 2021. In 2021, non-COVID-19 articles had more data sharing (12%) than COVID-19 articles (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Data sharing, code sharing, and registration are very uncommon in infectious disease specialty journals. Increased transparency is required.

Trends in clinical trials for olfactory dysfunction in the COVID-19 era.

KEY POINTS: Nearly half of all olfactory dysfunction (OD) clinical trials since 2010 are COVID-19-related. COVID-19-related OD trials are published significantly faster than COVID-19-unrelated trials. High-quality clinical trials and publications are crucial to discovering effective treatments.

Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe (1) registered and (2) published systematic reviews (SRs) on COVID-19 treatments, and to analyze (3) the proportion of publications among registered SRs and (4) the proportion of registrations among published SRs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This meta-research study (CRD42021240423) is part of CEOsys (http://www.covid-evidenz.de/). Two reviewers identified protocols in PROSPERO (registered January 2020 to September 2020) and SRs published as preprint or peer-reviewed article in L·OVE (Living OVerview of the Evidence) COVID-19 (by May 2021). SRs of all types assessing COVID-19 treatments in humans were included. RESULTS: We included 239 PROSPERO protocols and 346 SRs published in L·OVE. In both samples, the affiliation of the corresponding author with an Asian institution, standard SR as review type, and meta-analysis as synthesis method were the most frequent characteristics. Living SRs made up ≤10%. A total of 71 of 239 (29.7%) PROSPERO protocols were published as SR by February 2022, that is, after at least 17 months of follow-up (25 of 71 as preprints, 35.2%). In L·OVE, 261 of 346 (75.4%) SRs published by May 2021 were not registered in PROSPERO. CONCLUSION: Overall, one-third PROSPERO protocols were published and three-fourth published SRs were not registered. We strongly encourage authors to register and publish their SRs promptly to reduce research waste and to allocate resources efficiently during the pandemic and beyond.

ETC Distance Learning Studies during COVID-19, a meta-analysis

The recent increase in the amount of research on Distance Learning in Engineering, Technology, and Computing, produced by the adaptations in response to the sanitary emergency, makes it necessary to systematize, classify and analyze the current trends. This paper presents a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers written and published in the Iberoamerican region, regarding remote learning and distant teaching in ETC. Using PRISMA, we selected articles located in several academic repositories, which were classified in order to identify countries of origin, types of research (research, application, review), main keywords, and universities. The results were then analyzed to identify regional trends and possible lines of action to better ensure that the research efforts continue after the emergency.

Author-level data confirm the widening gender gap in publishing rates during COVID-19.

Publications are essential for a successful academic career, and there is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing gender disparities in the publishing process. We used longitudinal publication data on 431,207 authors in four disciplines - basic medicine, biology, chemistry and clinical medicine - to quantify the differential impact of COVID-19 on the annual publishing rates of men and women. In a difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated that the average gender difference in publication productivity increased from -0.26 in 2019 to -0.35 in 2020; this corresponds to the output of women being 17% lower than the output of men in 2109, and 24% lower in 2020. An age-group comparison showed a widening gender gap for both early-career and mid-career scientists. The increasing gender gap was most pronounced among highly productive authors and in biology and clinical medicine. Our study demonstrates the importance of reinforcing institutional commitments to diversity through policies that support the inclusion and retention of women in research.

Misinformation: an empirical study with scientists and communicators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To study the experiences and views within the health science community regarding the spread and prevention of science misinformation within and beyond the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An exploratory study with an empirical ethics approach using qualitative interviews with Australians who produce, communicate and study health science research. RESULTS: Key elements that participants considered might facilitate misinformation included: the production of low-quality, fraudulent or biased science research; inadequate public access to high-quality research; insufficient public reading of high-quality research. Strategies to reduce or prevent misinformation could come from within the academic community, academic and lay media publishing systems, government funders and educators of the general public. Recommended solutions from within the scientific community included: rewarding research translation, encouraging standardised study design, increasing use of automated quality assessment tools, mandating study protocol registration, transparent peer review, facilitating wider use of open access and use of newer technologies to target public audiences. There was disagreement over whether preprints were part of the problem or part of the solution. CONCLUSIONS: There is concern from within the health science community about systemic failings that might facilitate the production and spread of false or misleading science information. We advocate for further research into ways to minimise the production and spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and other science crises in the future.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies. RESULTS: Among the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8-5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8-24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0-14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0-13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0-6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research. META-RESEARCH REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/9vtzp/ .

COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.

Analysis of clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment clinical trials: so much work, so many lost opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on, and clinical research has been promoted worldwide. We aimed to assess the clinical and methodological characteristics of treatment clinical trials that have been set forth as an early response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: First, we reviewed all registered clinical trials on COVID-19. The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform and national trial registries were searched for COVID-19 trials through April 19th, 2020. For each record, independent researchers extracted interventions, participants, and methodological characteristics. Second, on September 14th, 2020 we evaluated the recruitment status and availability of the results of COVID-19 treatment trials previously identified. RESULTS: In April 2020, a total of 580 trials evaluating COVID-19 treatment were registered. Reporting quality was poor (core participant information was missing in 24.1 to 92.7%). Between 54.0 and 93.8% of the trials did not plan to include older people or those with a higher baseline risk. Most studies were randomised (67.9%), single-centre (58.3%), non-industry-funded (81.1%), to be conducted in China (47.6%), with a median duration of 184 days and a median sample size of 100 participants. Core endpoints (mortality, clinical status, and hospitalization length) were planned to be assessed in 5.2 to 13.1% of the trials. Five months later, 66 trials (11.4%) were reported as "Completed", and only 46 (7.9%) had public results available. One hundred forty-four of 580 trials (24.8%) either had the status "Not yet recruiting" or "Suspended", and 18 (3.1%) trials were prematurely stopped ("Terminated" or "Withdrawn") The number of completed trials and trials with results are much lower than anticipated, considering the planned follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results raise concerns about the success of the initial global research effort on COVID-19 treatment. The clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment trials limit their capability to produce clear answers to critical questions in the shortest possible time.

COVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to pre-established research patterns.

It is known that research into human genes is heavily skewed towards genes that have been widely studied for decades, including many genes that were being studied before the productive phase of the Human Genome Project. This means that the genes most frequently investigated by the research community tend to be only marginally more important to human physiology and disease than a random selection of genes. Based on an analysis of 10,395 research publications about SARS-CoV-2 that mention at least one human gene, we report here that the COVID-19 literature up to mid-October 2020 follows a similar pattern. This means that a large number of host genes that have been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 infection by four genome-wide studies remain unstudied. While quantifying the consequences of this neglect is not possible, they could be significant.

Changes in evidence for studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 reported in preprints: meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of preprints to disseminate evidence on the effect of interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to multiple evidence sources for a single study, which may differ in the reported evidence. We aim to describe the proportion of evidence on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 from preprints and journal articles and map changes in evidence between and within different sources reporting on the same study. METHODS: Meta-research study. We screened the Cochrane living systematic review and network meta-analysis (COVID-NMA) database to identify all preprints and journal articles on all studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 published up to 15 August 2020. We compared all evidence sources (i.e., preprint and associated journal article) and the first and latest versions of preprints for each study to identify changes in two evidence components: study results (e.g., numeric change in hazard ratio, odds ratio, event rate, or change in p value > or < 0.05 in any outcome) and abstract conclusions (classified as positive, negative or neutral regarding the intervention effect, and as reporting uncertainty in the findings or not). Changes in study results were further classified as important changes if they (1) represented a change in any effect estimate by ≥ 10% and/or (2) led to a change in the p value crossing the threshold of 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 556 studies. In total, 338 (61%) had been reported in a preprint: 66 (20%) of these had an associated journal article (median time to publication 76 days [interquartile range (IQR) 55-106]) and 91 (27%) had > 1 preprint version. A total of 139 studies (25% of the overall sample) were reported in multiple evidence sources or versions of the same source: for 63 (45%), there was a change in at least one evidence component between or within sources (42 [30%] had a change in study results, and in 29 [21%] the change was classified as important; 33 [24%] had a change in the abstract conclusion). For studies with both a preprint and an article, a median of 29% (IQR 14-50) of total citations were attributed to the preprint instead of the article. CONCLUSIONS: Results on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 are often reported in multiple evidence sources or source versions for a single study. Evidence is not stable between and within evidence sources. Real-time linkage of all sources per study could help to keep systematic reviews up-to-date.