Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 63
Filtrar
1.
Front Immunol ; 12: 669539, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34093568

RESUMEN

Acute lung injury (ALI) is an intractable disorder associated with macrophages. This bibliometric analysis was applied to identify the characteristics of global scientific output, the hotspots, and frontiers about macrophages in ALI over the past 10 years. We retrieved publications published from 2011 to 2020 and their recorded information from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-expanded) of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Bibliometrix package was used to analyze bibliometric indicators, and the VOSviewer was used to visualize the trend and hotspots of researches on macrophages in ALI. Altogether, 2,632 original articles were reviewed, and the results showed that the annual number of publications (Np) concerning the role of macrophages in ALI kept increasing over the past 10 years. China produced the most papers, the number of citations (Nc) and H-index of the USA ranked first. Shanghai Jiaotong University and INT IMMUNOPHARMACOL were the most prolific affiliation and journal, respectively. Papers published by Matute-Bello G in 2011 had the highest local citation score (LCS). Recently, the keywords "NLRP3" and "extracellular vesicles" appeared most frequently. Besides, researches on COVID-19-induced ALI related to macrophages seemed to be the hotspot recently. This bibliometric study revealed that publications related to macrophages in ALI tend to increase continuously. China was a big producer and the USA was an influential country in this field. Most studies were mainly centered on basic researches in the past decade, and pathways associated with the regulatory role of macrophages in inhibiting and attenuating ALI have become the focus of attention in more recent studies. What is more, our bibliometric analysis showed that macrophages play an important role in COVID-19-induced ALI and may be a target for the treatment of COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
Lesión Pulmonar Aguda/inmunología , Bibliometría , Macrófagos/inmunología , Lesión Pulmonar Aguda/etiología , Asia , Brasil , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/inmunología , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , América del Norte , Edición/tendencias , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Rev Esp Salud Publica ; 952021 May 27.
Artículo en Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34042088

RESUMEN

The impact and the universality of the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2 has caused the need to have information quickly and accessible for the benefit of decision-making among healthcare professionals. In 10 months the scientific production on this new coronavirus has exceeded the number of 66 thousand articles, according to the LitCovid database, created by the National Library of Medicine, doubling and tripling every few weeks. This same urgency has characterized some of the main features of this voluminous production, in addition to its continuous and exponential growth, such as greater dissemination in open access and preprint repositories, a certain acceleration in the manuscript review process by editorials and an abundance of opinion articles, recommendations or comments compared to a smaller number of original articles with clinical data from large groups of patients.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , COVID-19 , Edición/tendencias , Acceso a la Información , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Bases de Datos Factuales , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Salud Global , Humanos , Pandemias
3.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(5)2021 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33972261

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented global research effort to build a body of knowledge that can inform mitigation strategies. We carried out a bibliometric analysis to describe the COVID-19 research output in Africa in terms of setting, study design, research themes and author affiliation. METHODS: We searched for articles published between 1 December 2019 and 3 January 2021 from various databases including PubMed, African Journals Online, medRxiv, Collabovid, the WHO global research database and Google. All article types and study design were included. RESULTS: A total of 1296 articles were retrieved. 46.6% were primary research articles, 48.6% were editorial-type articles while 4.6% were secondary research articles. 20.3% articles used the entire continent of Africa as their study setting while South Africa (15.4%) was the most common country-focused setting. The most common research topics include 'country preparedness and response' (24.9%) and 'the direct and indirect health impacts of the pandemic' (21.6%). However, only 1.0% of articles focus on therapeutics and vaccines. 90.3% of the articles had at least one African researcher as author, 78.5% had an African researcher as first author, while 63.5% had an African researcher as last author. The University of Cape Town leads with the greatest number of first and last authors. 13% of the articles were published in medRxiv and of the studies that declared funding, the Wellcome Trust was the top funding body. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights Africa's COVID-19 research and the continent's existing capacity to carry out research that addresses local problems. However, more studies focused on vaccines and therapeutics are needed to inform local development. In addition, the uneven distribution of research productivity among African countries emphasises the need for increased investment where needed.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica , COVID-19 , África/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos
7.
Global Health ; 17(1): 31, 2021 03 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33766073

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: At the global level and in the Arab world, particularly in low-income countries, COVID-19 remains a major public health issue. As demonstrated by an incredible number of COVID-19-related publications, the research science community responded rapidly. Therefore, this study was intended to assess the growing contribution of the Arab world to global research on COVID-19. METHODS: For the period between December 2019 and March 2021, the search for publications was conducted via the Scopus database using terms linked to COVID-19. VOSviewer 1.6.16 software was applied to generate a network map to assess hot topics in this area and determine the collaboration patterns between different countries. Furthermore, the research output of Arab countries was adjusted in relation to population size and gross domestic product (GDP). RESULTS: A total of 143,975 publications reflecting the global overall COVID-19 research output were retrieved. By restricting analysis to the publications published by the Arab countries, the research production was 6131 documents, representing 4.26% of the global research output regarding COVID-19. Of all these publications, 3990 (65.08%) were original journal articles, 980 (15.98%) were review articles, 514 (8.38%) were letters and 647 (10.55%) were others, such as editorials or notes. The highest number of COVID-19 publications was published by Saudi Arabia (n = 2186, 35.65%), followed by Egypt (n = 1281, 20.78%) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), (n = 719, 11.73%). After standardization by population size and GDP, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon had the highest publication productivity. The collaborations were mostly with researchers from the United States (n = 968), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 661). The main research lines identified in COVID-19 from the Arab world are related to: public health and epidemiology; immunological and pharmaceutical research; signs, symptoms and clinical diagnosis; and virus detection. CONCLUSIONS: A novel analysis of the latest Arab COVID-19-related studies is discussed in the current study and how these findings are connected to global production. Continuing and improving future collaboration between developing and developed countries will also help to facilitate the sharing of responsibilities for COVID-19 in research results and the implementation of policies for COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica , COVID-19 , Países en Desarrollo , SARS-CoV-2 , Árabes , COVID-19/virología , Bases de Datos Factuales , Egipto , Humanos , Cooperación Internacional , Líbano , Edición , Arabia Saudita , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos
8.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(4): e25379, 2021 04 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33735097

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Gender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results. RESULTS: A total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19 , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Investigadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Sexo , COVID-19/epidemiología , Eficiencia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores Sexuales
9.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(2): 185-190, 2021 03 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33690198

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has been a global pandemic. Researchers have made great efforts to investigate SARS-CoV-2. However, there are few studies analyzing the general situation of SARS-CoV-2 research at global level. This study aimed to characterize global scientific efforts based on SARS-CoV-2 publications. METHODOLOGY: SARS-CoV-2 -related publications were retrieved using Web of Science. The number of publications, citation, country, journal, study topic, total confirmed cases, and total deaths were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 441 publications were identified. China contributed the largest number of publications (198, 44.90%), followed by USA (51, 11.56%), Italy (28, 6.35%), Germany (19, 4.31%), and South Korea (13, 2.95%). Upper-middle-income economies (51.70%) produced the most SARS-CoV-2 publications, followed by high-income (45.12%), lower-middle-income (2.95%), and low-income economies (0.23%). The research output had a significant correlations with total confirmed cases (r = 0.666, p = 0.000) and total deaths (r = 0.610, p = 0.000). China had the highest total citations (1947), followed by USA (204), and Germany (54). China also had the highest average citations (9.83), followed by Netherlands (5.80), and Canada (5.43). The most popular journals were Journal of Medical Virology, Eurosurveillance, and Emerging Microbes and Infections. The most discussed topic was the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific research on SARS-CoV-2 is from worldwide researchers' efforts, with some countries and journals having special contributions. The countries with more total confirmed cases and total deaths tend to have more research output in the field of SARS-CoV-2. China was the most prolific country, and had the highest quality of publications on SARS-CoV-2.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19 , Publicaciones Seriadas/estadística & datos numéricos , Bibliometría , China , Países Desarrollados , Países en Desarrollo , Alemania , Humanos , Italia , República de Corea , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
10.
Biosci Trends ; 15(2): 64-73, 2021 May 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33746182

RESUMEN

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected tens of millions of people globally since it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. There is an urgent need for safe and effective preventive vaccines to curb this pandemic. A growing amount of related research has been published. This study aimed to provide the current status of COVID-19 vaccine using bibliometric analysis. We searched Embase.com and MEDLINE comprehensively and included articles, articles in press, reviews, short surveys, conference abstracts and conference papers about COVID-19 vaccine. VOSviewer1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these papers. A total of 1,312 papers were finally included. The BMJ has been the most popular journal in this field. The United States maintained a top position worldwide and has provided a pivotal influence, followed by China, India and United Kingdom. Among all the institutions, Harvard University was regarded as a leader for research collaboration. We analyzed the keywords and identified seven COVID-19 vaccine research hotspot clusters. COVID-19 vaccine research hotspots focus on clinical trials on vaccine safety and efficacy, research on vaccine immunology and immunoinformatics, and vaccine hesitancy. Our analysis results demonstrated that cooperation between countries, institutions, and authors were insufficient. The results suggested that clinical trials on vaccine safety, efficacy, immunology, immunoinformatics, production and delivery are research hotspots. Furthermore, we can predict that there will be a lot of research focusing on vaccine adverse reactions.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/farmacología , Bases de Datos Bibliográficas , Humanos , MEDLINE , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Seguridad
11.
CMAJ Open ; 9(1): E295-E301, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33785477

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention. RESULTS: Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention. INTERPRETATION: We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Lista de Verificación/normas , Edición/normas , Informe de Investigación/normas , Bibliografía de Medicina , Bibliometría , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/virología , Manejo de Datos , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Ética , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Informe de Investigación/tendencias , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Medios de Comunicación Sociales/estadística & datos numéricos
12.
Mycopathologia ; 186(2): 155-162, 2021 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33704625

RESUMEN

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the publishing landscape. The 'pre-peer-review' publication model is likely to become common as a lag in publishing is not acceptable in a pandemic or other time! Mycopathologia is well placed to adopt such changes with its improved editorial processes, article formats, author engagements, and published articles' access and citation. Mycopathologia had an improved journal impact factor and article downloads in 2018-2019. A limited sampling suggested a slight decrease in the total submissions in 2019 (352 articles) compared to 2018 (371 articles). However, the acceptance rate improved to 30% in 2019 from 19% in 2018. Nearly half of all submissions in 2019 were rejected before peer-review or transferred to other Springer Nature journals. The published articles were contributed from 34 different countries, with authors from China, the USA, and Brazil among the top three contributors. An enhanced editorial oversight allowed peer-reviewers to focus on fewer articles that were well-matched to their expertise, which led to lower rejection rates post-peer-review. The introduction of MycopathologiaGENOME and MycopathologiaIMAGE article types received a good reception with notable downloads and citations.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Micología , Patología , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares/normas , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Informe de Investigación/normas , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Radiology ; 300(1): E301-E307, 2021 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33724061

RESUMEN

Background Early reports show the unequal effect the COVID-19 pandemic might have on men versus women engaged in medical research. Purpose To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on scientific publishing by female physicians in medical imaging. Materials and Methods The authors conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of the gender of the first and last authors of manuscripts submitted to the top 50 medical imaging journals from March to May 2020 (n = 2480) compared with the same period of the year in 2018 (n = 2238) and 2019 (n = 2355). Manuscript title, date of submission, first and last names of the first and last authors, journal impact factor, and author country of provenance were recorded. The Gender-API software was used to determine author gender. Statistical analysis comprised χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression. Results Percentages of women listed as first and last authors were 31.6% (1172 of 3711 articles) and 19.3% (717 of 3711 articles), respectively, in 2018-2019 versus 32.3% (725 of 2248 articles) and 20.7% (465 of 2248 articles) in 2020 (P = .61 and P = .21, respectively). For COVID-19-related articles, 35.2% (89 of 253 articles) of first authors and 20.6% (52 of 253 articles) of last authors were women. No associations were found between first- and last-author gender, year of publication, and region of provenance. First and last authorship of high-ranking articles was not in favor of North American women whatever the year (odds ratio [OR], 0.79 [P = .05] and 0.72 [P = .02], respectively). Higher rates of female last authorship of high-ranking articles were observed in Europe (P = .003) and of female first authorship of low-ranking publications in Asia in 2020 (OR, 1.38; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.92; P = .06). Female first and last authorship of COVID-19-related articles was overrepresented for lowest-rank publications (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). Conclusion One in three first authors and one in five last authors were women in 2018-2019 and 2020, respectively. Although the first 2020 lockdown did not diminish the quantity of women-authored publications, the impact on the quality was variable. ©RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Robbins and Khosa in this issue.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19 , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Sexismo/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Cuarentena , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ; 28(14): 16913-16924, 2021 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33625710

RESUMEN

The ongoing pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health emergency. Thousands of articles have been published to tackle this crisis. Here, a bibliometric study of the publications in environmental studies has been conducted to identify the emerging research trends in this field in the era of COVID-19. Bibliometric analysis serves as a useful tool to evaluate research productivity and scholarly trends in a field. For this, publications were searched in nine environment-related subject categories indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) database of the Web of Science Core Collection. A bibliometric evaluation of 495 relevant documents was performed to identify various essential research indicators, including the type of the publication, the most prominent journals, subject categories, authors, institutions, and the countries, that contributed significantly to this theme. Major focus of this bibliometric study is to illustrate the potential research hotspots emerged during this pandemic. It has been found that significant amount of research has been conducted for the assessment of environmental quality and its contribution in environmental transmission of COVID-19. In addition to its positive impacts on environment, COVID-19 has contributed indirectly in worsening many environmental threats such as increased exposure to disinfectants and antimicrobials, poor solid waste management, and food insecurity. Researchers have also been focusing on the strategies for the planning of post-COVID-19 cities and buildings and to protect the ecology. This bibliometric study allowed the visualization of research agenda in the field of environmental studies during this pandemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Bibliometría , Salud Global , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2
15.
J Infect Public Health ; 14(3): 311-319, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33618275

RESUMEN

Infectious diseases remain a complex, recurring, and challenging public health hazard. Coronaviruses have led to multidimensional consequences on health, mobility, and socio-economic conditions. Despite the significance and magnitude of impact from epidemics to the pandemic, literature is sparse on comprehensive coronaviruses related research performance over time. This study aimed at a scientometric evaluation of coronaviruses related literature including COVID-19. Data related to Coronavirus research was extracted from the Web of Science (WoS). All types of publications (28,846) were included and retrieved. To measure the quantity and quality of the publications, "R-Bibliometrix" package was used for detailed analysis exploring a wide range of indicators. Generally, an increasing trend was observed over time led by the USA and China followed by the United Kingdom, Europe, and few other developed countries. The last two decades contributed around 39.5% of documents while only 06 months of 2020 additionally contributed around 46.5% of total documents. Earlier shorter spikes of increased post epidemic publications followed by decreased productivity were detected in the last 2 decades and showed a lack of continuity-'a research epidemic following a disease epidemic'. Articles (53.4%) were the most common publication type. Journal of Virology, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Virology were leading sources while BMJ, and Lancet showed increased contributions recently. Overall, similar trends of top authors were observed in terms of productivity, impact, collaborations, funding sources, and affiliations with few exceptions mainly from affected regions. Top 20 countries contributed >89% of documents suggesting a lack of global efforts. Networking was found to be mainly among developed nations with limited contributions from resource-limited countries perhaps requiring more cooperation. Recent post-COVID publications rise is highest, unprecedented, and rapidly growing. Authors strongly recommend recent COVID-19 pandemic as a call for continuous, more cooperative, and collective global research.


Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , COVID-19 , China , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos
16.
J Evid Based Med ; 14(1): 56-64, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33595200

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the characteristics of different designs of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) about COVID-19. METHODS: The search was performed in the PROSPERO database using the strategy proposed by the database and considered only human studies. The last date of the search was April 27, 2020. Full text of all records was accessed, and data were extracted by a single researcher, which was further double-checked by another researcher. A descriptive analysis was performed considering record characteristics using tables. RESULTS: We included 564 records from which the vast majority were registered as SRs (n = 513, 91%). In general, we found poor reporting and missing or confusing information, since 84% of the records (n = 474) did not report the full search that would be adopted, 16% (n = 90) did not report clearly the databases that would be used, and 49.1% (n = 277) did not report the number of primary outcomes. The main focus of most of the records involved clinical, epidemiological, complication, and laboratory characteristics (n = 173, 30.7%) or the treatment of COVID-19 (n = 138, 24.5%). CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs about COVID-19 have been conducted, and many of the assessed records were poorly reported and would be difficult to replicate. Besides, collected data points to an epidemic of redundant reviews on COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Proyectos de Investigación , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Bibliometría , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/virología , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Int Nurs Rev ; 68(2): 214-218, 2021 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33565619

RESUMEN

AIM: Reflect upon the visibility of nursing-led research during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: The emerging SARS-CoV-2 infection has galvanized collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts in clinical and research practice worldwide. The scarce evidence-base to manage patients with COVID-19 has included limited nurse-led research. INTRODUCTION: Clinical research nurses have greatly contributed to the delivery of COVID-19 research, yet the number of COVID-19 nursing-led research papers appears to be limited, with even fewer nurse-led research projects funded. METHODS: Authors' views and PubMed search on 'COVID-19 and nursing'. FINDINGS: There is a dearth of nursing-led research. Most papers describe the nursing contribution to COVID-19 care, changes in nursing working arrangements and emotional burden. There are opportunities to explore the consequences to vulnerable population groups of public health measures implemented to stop the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: Workforce gaps, limited integration in research structures and clinical redeployment may have hampered nurse-led research. COVID-19 may exacerbate staffing deficits by disrupting the education pipeline, obstructing the transition from clinical to academic practice, particularly in areas where clinical academic roles are yet to emerge. CONCLUSION: The absence of nurse-led research in COVID-19 can be explained by chronic, underlying factors and the features of the pandemic response. Emerging models of care, effective staffing and inequalities related to COVID-19 appear obvious research areas. Nursing leadership needs to strengthen its political voice and lobbying skills to secure nurse-led research funding. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: Embracing international nursing research, strengthening collaborations and lobbying policymakers for investment in nurse-sensitive research would enhance the response to COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/enfermería , Enfermería Basada en la Evidencia , Investigación en Enfermería/tendencias , Neumonía Viral/enfermería , Bibliometría , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/virología , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Transfusion ; 61(6): 1690-1693, 2021 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33527397

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the disparities in gender equity that exist in different medical specialties. The COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened the inequity faced by female physicians as they are challenged by increasing household and childcare duties in addition to their professional responsibilities. Given these hurdles, fewer women than men have published in various medical disciplines. In this brief report, we wanted to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic output of female physicians and researchers in transfusion medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared all articles in four transfusion medicine journals published from January 1 to July 31, 2019 with the same time period in 2020. Overall, 1024 articles were reviewed for whether they included women as first or senior authors. RESULTS: Overall, women were first authors in 45.9% (n = 458) of all publications and senior authors in 35% (n = 356) of all publications. There was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of women as first authors between 2019 (49.1%) and 2020 (42.7%) (p = .04). There was no significant change in the percentage of women as senior authors between 2019 (35.4%) and 2020 (35.5%) (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other medical specialties, the COVID-19 pandemic has further increased the disparities faced by female researchers in transfusion medicine as evidenced by a decrease in publications with women as first authors.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , COVID-19/epidemiología , Médicos Mujeres , Publicaciones/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicina Transfusional , Academias e Institutos/organización & administración , Academias e Institutos/estadística & datos numéricos , Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/organización & administración , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , Eficiencia , Femenino , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Masculino , Medicina , Pandemias , Médicos Mujeres/organización & administración , Médicos Mujeres/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos Mujeres/tendencias , Publicaciones/tendencias , Investigadores/organización & administración , Investigadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Investigadores/tendencias , Factores Sexuales , Medicina Transfusional/organización & administración , Medicina Transfusional/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicina Transfusional/tendencias
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...