Background: The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020. Results: Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language. Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies (N = 88; 28%) and case reports (N = 86; 28%), analyzing patients' characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099. Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%). Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China (N = 522; 63%). The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine (N = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine (N = 16; 3%).

Background: The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020. Results: Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language. Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies (N=88; 28%) and case reports (N=86; 28%), analyzing patients’ characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099.Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%).Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China (N=522; 63%). The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine (N=39; 7.2%) and chloroquine (N=16; 3%).Conclusions: Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

The aim of the study was to compare radiomorphometric indices measured on panoramic radiographs: mandibular cortical width (MCW), panoramic mandibular index (PMI) and mandibular cortical index (MCI) with the densitometric values of skeletons in postmenopausal women, as well as and to determine the possibilities of their use in screening for early detection of osteoporosis in risky populations. Radiomorphometric indices were measured on panoramic radiographs of 146 postmenopausal patients, mean age 66.3 (±9.7) years, mean menopausal age 16.3 (±10.6) years. By dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) method were measured bone mineral density of the femur and the lumbar vertebrae (L1–L4). The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the changed densitometric finding, and to distinguish osteopenia and osteoporosis. The examinees with lower densitometric values had significantly lower MCW (3.60 mm) and PMI (0.36 mm) than those with regular densitometric values (p<0.001). The most frequent finding in patients with osteopenia was C2 stage of erosion (69.50%; p<0.001), while the C3 stage of erosion (57.40%; p<0.001) was in osteoporosis patients. When differing the normal from the changed finding of densitometry the results were: MCW – area under the curve (AUC) 0.862, sensitivity 92.04%, specificity 75.76%, resolution point ≤4.39 (p<0.001); for PMI-AUC 0.874, sensitivity 76.11%, specificity 84.85%, resolution point ≤ 0.41 (p<0.001) and for MCI-AUC 0.826, sensitivity 87.6%, specificity 69.7%, resolution point> 1 (p<0.001). For early detection of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in everyday clinical practice, panoramic radiograph as a screening method can be of help.

Summary Background Research findings of the association and its pattern between obesity and psychiatric/psychological comorbidities are not consistent across the types of comorbidities or the study subgroups. Objectives We aimed to perform meta‐analysis of cross‐sectional studies and longitudinal studies analysing obesity as a risk factor for conduct disorder in order to assess the association between child/adolescent overweight/obesity and conduct disorder. Methods Systematic literature search, study selection and data extraction were performed independently by the two authors. Data were analysed by Comprehensive Meta‐analysis software. Results Analysis of 13 high‐quality cross‐sectional studies including 79 027 children and adolescents indicated a significant association between overweight/obesity and conduct disorder among children and adolescents (OR 1.32 [95% CI, 1.18‐1.49], I2 = 86.68), with no publication bias. Subgroup analyses yielded a significant difference (P < .01) between boys and girls. Analysis of four low‐ to moderate‐quality longitudinal studies (OR 1.11 [95% CI, 0.89‐1.38], I2 = 57.69) showed no prospective association between overweight/obesity and conduct disorder. Subgroup analysis according to gender revealed a significant positive association for boys and negative association for girls. Conclusions Based on the high‐quality cross‐sectional data, overweight and obesity are associated with conduct disorder among children and adolescents, affecting boys more frequently than girls. Results of the longitudinal analysis indicated possible association in boys, while girls seem to be protected from conduct disorder. However, these results are very unreliable, indicating the need of well‐designed longitudinal studies to elucidate the pattern of association between these disorders.

No abstract