The ongoing pandemic coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a matter of global concern. Environmental factors such as air pollution and smoking and comorbid conditions (hypertension, diabetes mellitus and underlying cardio-respiratory illness) likely increase the severity of COVID-19.

The pathogenesis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is gradually being comprehended. A high number of thrombotic episodes are reported, along with the mortality benefits of heparin. COVID-19 can be viewed as a prothrombotic disease. We overviewed the available evidence to explore this possibility. We identified various histopathology reports and clinical case series reporting thromboses in COVID-19. Also, multiple coagulation markers support this. COVID-19 can be regarded as a risk factor for thrombosis. Applying the principles of Virchow's triad, we described abnormalities in the vascular endothelium, altered blood flow, and platelet function abnormalities that lead to venous and arterial thromboses in COVID-19. Endothelial dysfunction, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) with the release of procoagulant plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1), and hyperimmune response with activated platelets seem to be significant contributors to thrombogenesis in COVID-19. Stratifying risk of COVID-19 thromboses should be based on age, presence of comorbidities, D-dimer, CT scoring, and various blood cell ratios. Isolated heparin therapy may not be sufficient to combat thrombosis in this disease. There is an urgent need to explore newer avenues like activated protein C, PAI-1 antagonists, and tissue plasminogen activators (tPA). These should be augmented with therapies targeting RAAS, antiplatelet drugs, repurposed antiinflammatory, and antirheumatic drugs.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. Methods: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre-and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). Conclusion: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.

The manifestations of COVID-19 have been evolving over time. Various post-COVID-19 syndromes are being recognised. Various viruses have been implicated in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, and we expect a similar outcome with the severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 virus penetrates various tissues and organs and has a predisposition to lead to endotheliitis that may cause vascular manifestations including thrombosis. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to activate Toll-like receptors and the complement system. It perpetuates NETosis and leads to autoantibody formation. These predispose to systemic autoimmunity. Both reactive arthritis and connective tissue disorders such as lupus and inflammatory myositis have been reported after COVID-19. Other reported autoimmune disorders include haemolytic anaemia, immune thrombocytopenia, cutaneous vasculitis, and Guillain Barré-like acute demyelinating disorders. The multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and its adult counterpart are another post-COVID-19 entity that presents as an admixture of Kawasaki disease and staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome. Patients with preexisting rheumatic diseases may flare during the SARS-CoV-2 infection. They may develop novel autoimmune features also. The immune-suppressants used during the acute COVID-19 illness may confound the outcomes whereas comorbidities present in patients with rheumatic diseases may mask them. There is an urgent need to follow-up patients recovering from COVID and monitor autoantibody production in the context of rheumatic manifestations. Key Points • COVID-19 is associated with both innate and acquired immune reactions and production of various autoantibodies. • Various immune-mediated manifestations such as arthritis, myositis, haemolytic anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and acute demyelination may develop after COVID-19. • Longitudinal cohort data are warranted to describe, predict, and test prevent various rheumatic manifestations in post-COVID-19 subjects.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed by the data analysis and choosing target journals. While providing a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios most conducive to carrying out a survey, the role of ethical approval, survey validation and pilot testing, this brief delves deeper into the survey designs, methods of dissemination, the ways to secure and maintain data anonymity, the various analytical approaches, the reporting techniques and the process of choosing the appropriate journal. Further, the authors analyze retracted survey-based studies and the reasons for the same. This review article intends to guide authors to improve the quality of survey-based research by describing the essential tools and means to do the same with the hope to improve the utility of such studies.