BackgroundAs publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs.MethodsA 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.ResultsBetween 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).ConclusionsThe DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
INTRODUCTION
We aimed to estimate the prevalence and incidence of specific symptoms and predictors of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome using data collected from an anonymous online survey.
METHODS
We included adult participants with symptoms ≥60 days (D60+), fulfilling the World Health Organization COVID-19 cases definition, and/or hospitalized for COVID-19 at the time of infection (D0). Self-reported symptoms were collected at D0 and D60+. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with self-reported cutaneous signs prevalence and self-reported tachycardia and/ or HBP incidence on D60+.
RESULTS
From April to June 2020, 956 members of a Twitter long-term COVID-19 community were included in the study population: 81% were women, 81% were aged <50 year, 22% were smokers, and 95% have never been hospitalized. At D60+, the 956 participants reported a broad spectrum of symptoms which were also present at D0+. At D60+, 16% and 39% of participants reported cutaneous signs and tachycardia and/or hypertension, respectively. The incidence of self-reported tachycardia and/or hypertension at D60+ was 12%. Female gender (AOR=2.56; 95% CI: 1.22–6.1) and smoking (AOR=2.34; 95% CI: 1.39–3.92) were associated with prevalence of cutaneous signs at D60+. Smoking (AOR=2.05; 95% CI: 1.2– 3.47) was the main correlate of tachycardia and/or HBP incidence at D60+.
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of self-reported tachycardia and/or hypertension is not negligible and suggests an interaction between COVID-19 and smoking. Reinforcing symptoms monitoring of people after acute COVID-19, mainly women and smokers, and expanding the promotion of smoking cessation strategies are novel priorities in this COVID-19 era.
Cet article détaille le processus et les aléas de publication de trois articles se rapportant au SARS-CoV-2 et à la maladie qu’il provoque (COVID-19). Ces trois articles ont été publiés à un mois d’intervalle, entre mars et mai 2020. Leur médiatisation a conduit les autorités de santé françaises à intervenir. Notre article ne s’intéresse pas et n’évalue pas la qualité scientifique des articles présentés, mais a pour unique objectif d’ouvrir la réflexion sur la publication médicale. En décrivant ces trois cas particuliers, il soulève des questions sur la rétractation des articles, l’évaluation par les pairs, la prépublication, la paternité des articles, et la diffusion des informations scientifiques médicales y compris via les médias de masse. Il discute des nouveaux modes d’édition qui se profilent et de la diffusion des informations publiées en recherche clinique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.