Reflecting on the COVID‐19 Surgical Literature Surge: A Scoping Review of Pandemic Otolaryngology Publications

Abstract

Objective To assess the high-volume 2020 COVID-19-related surgical literature, with special attention to otolaryngology articles in regard to content, level of evidence, citations, and public attention. Study Design A scoping literature review was performed with PubMed and Web of Science, including articles pertaining to COVID-19 and surgical specialties (March 20–May 19, 2020) or otolaryngologic subspecialties (March 20–December 31, 2020). Setting Scoping literature review. Methods Otolaryngology-specific COVID-19-related articles were reviewed for publication date, county of origin, subspecialty, content, level of evidence, and Altmetric Attention Score (a weighted approximation of online attention received). Data were analyzed with Pearson correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, independent t tests, and univariable and logistic regressions. Results This review included 773 early COVID-19 surgical articles and 907 otolaryngology-specific COVID-19-related articles from 2020. Otolaryngology was the most represented surgical specialty within the early COVID-19-related surgical literature (30.4%). The otolaryngology-specific COVID-19 surgical literature responsively reflects the unique concerns within each otolaryngologic subspecialty. Although this literature was largely based on expert opinion (64.5%), articles with stronger levels of evidence received significantly more citations (on Web of Science and Google Scholar, P < .001 for both) and public attention (according to Altmetric Attention Scores, P < .001). Conclusion Despite concerns of a surge in underrefereed publications during the COVID-19 pandemic, our review of the surgical literature offers some degree of reassurance. Specifically, the COVID-19 otolaryngology literature responsively reflects the unique concerns and needs of the field, and more scholarly citations and greater online attention have been given to articles offering stronger levels of scientific evidence.

Inanimate surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 during midfacial fracture repair in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients

“…Instruments for orbital/oculoplastic surgery should be treated in the similar manner with intraoral instruments, if the patient is SARS-CoV-2-positive. Our findings confirm those of our previous publication [24] and other studies[ 25 , 26 , 30 ] that ocular surfaces are SARS-CoV-2-septic. Our previous meta-narrative review (OCEBM's LoE 2a) [24] and the present study (OCEBM's LoE 2b) provide higher LoEs than expert-opinion guidelines (OCEBM's LoE 5) 1 , 2 , 3 (and along with data from relevant literature[ 9 , 16 , 19 , 24 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], are shown in Table 4 ), as well as according to Burn et al [4] , could attract far more citations and public attention.…”

“… 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 The larger viral load levels in critically ill patients could lead to a relative increase in the probability of transmission of 24% to 58% in household contacts, and of 15% to 39% in non-household contacts. [28] Contrary to low concentrations of serum C3 and C4, which indicate compliment activation [29] , the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab appears insignificant for predicting COVID-19 severity and prognosis[ 8 , 24 , 30 ], and may not be related to surface contamination. Last but not least, our study was performed before the pandemic of the Omicron (B1.1.529) variant.…”