No abstract

Background Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints about COVID-19 were published in scholarly journals and cited. Methods We searched the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio to identify all preprints related to COVID-19 posted on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Research Square from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We used a custom-designed program to obtain metadata using the Crossref public API. After that, we determined the publication rate and made comparisons based on citation counts using non-parametric methods. Also, we compared the publication rate, citation counts, and time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal among the three different preprint servers. Results Our sample included 5,061 preprints, out of which 288 were published in scholarly journals and 4,773 remained unpublished (publication rate of 5.7%). We found that articles published in scholarly journals had a significantly higher total citation count than unpublished preprints within our sample (p < 0.001), and that preprints that were eventually published had a higher citation count as preprints when compared to unpublished preprints (p < 0.001). As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a preprint (p < 0.001). Our results also show that medRxiv had the highest publication rate, while bioRxiv had the highest citation count and shortest time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal. Conclusions We found a remarkably low publication rate for preprints within our sample, despite accelerated time to publication by multiple scholarly journals. These findings could be partially attributed to the unprecedented surge in scientific production observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might saturate reviewing and editing processes in scholarly journals. However, our findings show that preprints had a significantly lower scientific impact, which might suggest that some preprints have lower quality and will not be able to endure peer-reviewing processes to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints regarding pharmacological interventions against COVID-19 were cited, in spite of the fact that some of these preprints remained unpublished.Methods: We conducted a search on medRxiv and bioRxiv to identify preprints related to pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. We included any study type that addressed or reported data on pharmacological interventions. We gathered metadata on June 26, 2020 of included preprints and identified if they had been published in a scholarly journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation counts or metrics, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract reads, when compared to unpublished preprints.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which 23 were published on scholarly journals and 74 remained unpublished (Publication rate of 23,7%). The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. The number of citations in our sample ranged from 0 to 1409 for published articles, and ranged from 0 to 175 citations for unpublished preprints. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations when compared to unpublished preprints (p=0,000013). We did not find a statistical difference in PDF download (p=0,167) and abstract reads (p= 0,181). In the published articles, the time from posting on a preprint server to publication on a journal ranged from 0 to 98 days (median: 42.0 days). The time period from date of submission to a journal to date of acceptance in our sample ranged from 1 to 228 days (median: 23 days). Almost half of the preprints that were subsequently published (47,8%) had modifications made to the result section after peer-review.Conclusions: The publication rate of the preprints in this sample was low (1 in 4), although review times in scholarly journals seems to be accelerated. However, there was no difference in the number of views or downloads between preprints already published in scholarly journals and those not yet.

Introduction. SARS-CoV-2 infection is a public health emergency and several treatments against COVID-19 are in place while investigated simultaneously. Objective. To update on current pharmacological therapies against COVID-19, and its implications in Latin American countries. Material and Methods. Publications on PubMed and in open access journals regarding pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 infection were reviewed, followed by analysis of the protocols already in place in Latin American countries. Results. Recent clinical data showed that lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was not effective against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, further trials are underway and will help define the role of this therapy. Remdesivir showed significant efficacy in vitro, and clinical improvement in a report of compassionate-use, but data from controlled trials is not available currently. Tocilizumab plays an important role during cytokine storm, and studies revealed promising results. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine showed efficacy in vitro but clinical data are controversial, then further trials are needed to assess their role. Convalescent plasma, tocilizumab, lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine have been approved by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the context of clinical research. Various Latin American countries have already implemented antimicrobial therapy within their local protocols. Conclusions. Promising agents, due to the emergency, are currently in some of the Latin American treatment protocols, although restricted to patients with non-favourable clinical course. Results from controlled clinical trials will be required to define the role of these drugs. Misuse and abuse of drugs can cause drug shortages if supply is not secured, and serious adverse effects might occur.

Background: This study aims to identify the preferred sources for acquiring knowledge about COVID-19 and to evaluate basic knowledge on critical scientific literature appraisal in students from medical schools located in Spanish speaking countries in Latin America.  Methods: We designed an online survey of 15 closed-ended questions related to demographics, preferred resources for COVID-19 training, and items to assess critical appraisal skills. A snowball method was used for sampling. We conducted a descriptive analysis and Chi-squared tests to compare the proportion of correct identification of the concept of a preprint and a predatory journal when considering a) self-perceived level of knowledge, b) public vs private school, c) inclusion of a scientific literature appraisal subject in the curriculum, and d) progress in medical school. Results: Our sample included 770 valid responses, out of which most of the participants included were from Mexico (n=283, 36.8%) and Ecuador (n=229, 29.7%). Participants preferred using evidence-based clinical resources (EBCRs) to learn more about COVID-19 (n=182, 23.6%). The preferred study design was case report/series (n=218, 28.1%). We found that only 265 participants correctly identified the concept of a preprint (34.4%), while 243 students (31.6%) correctly identified the characteristics of a predatory journal. We found no significant differences in the proportion of correct answers regardless of the self-perceived level of knowledge, progress in medical school, or scientific literature critical appraisal classes. Conclusion: This study is novel in its approach of identifying sources of knowledge used by Latin American medical students and provides insights into the need to reinforce training in critical appraisal of scientific literature during medical school.