Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still "recruiting". PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

The Strategies to Support the COVID-19 Vaccination with Evidence-Based Communication and Tackling Misinformation

“…The pandemic has also been met with an unprecedented and rapid response from the scientific community with a massive publication output [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], and a number of the repurposed pharmaceuticals such as remdesivir, arbidol, chloroquine, darunavir, dexamethasone, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, interferons, ribavirin, ritonavir, and tocilizumab have been extensively tested [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. There has also been a substantial effort to seek novel pharmaceutical agents [ 16 , 17 ] and the use of convalescent plasma [ 18 , 19 ].…”

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

“…Our data probably even underestimate the explosive growth of COVID-19-related work, since some papers are published but not yet indexed, while some others have been released only as preprints (a popular method of disseminating information in the COVID-19 era) 10,11 and most COVID-19 preprints appear in medRxiv, 12 a repository not yet covered by Scopus. Probably over 100,000 COVID-19 papers are published in 2020.…”

Fundamental Shifts in Research, Ethics and Peer Review in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…The numbers of online academic publications (i.e., case reports and letters) and preprint publications (i.e., randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews) have increased significantly, with preprints being more slightly prevalent as a source of empirical but not peer-reviewed findings. 27 Perhaps prompted by the need to disseminate data rapidly, preprints involve less robust interpretation and critical evaluation of a scientific report. Their conclusions are often drawn from data without assessment of the full context of the experiment.…”