Background: As a global pandemic, COVID-19 has aroused great concern in the last few months and a growing number of related researches have been published. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis of these publications may provide a direction of hot topics and future research trends. Methods:The global literatures about COVID-19 published between 2019 and 2020 were scanned in the Web of Science collection database. "COVID-19" "Novel Coronavirus" "2019-nCoV" and "SARS-CoV-2" were used as the keywords to reach the relevant publications. VOSviewer was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these articles.Results: Totally 3,626 publications on the topic of COVID-19 were identified and "COVID-19" with a total link strength of 2,649 appeared as the most frequent keyword, which had a strong link to "pneumonia" and "epidemiology". The mean citation count of the top 100 most cited articles was 96 (range, 26-883). Most of them were descriptive studies and concentrated on the clinical features. The highest-ranking journal was British medical journal with 211 publications and the most cited journal was Lancet with 2,485 citation counts. Eleven articles written by Christian Drosten from Berlin Institute of Virology have been cited for 389 times and 40 articles from Chinese Academy of Sciences have been cited for 1,597 times which are the most cited author and organization. The number of collaborators with China is 44 and the total link strength is 487. The main partners of China are USA, England and Germany. The published literatures have focused on three topics: disease management, clinical features and pathogenesis. Conclusions:The current growth trends predict a large increase in the number of global publications on COVID-19. China made the most outstanding contribution within this important field. Disease treatment, spike protein and vaccine may be hotspots in the future.
Asymmetric cinchona alkaloid-catalyzed acid chloride-aldehyde cyclocondensation (AAC) reactions afford enantioenriched 4-substituted and 3,4-disubstituted beta-lactones with near perfect absolute and relative stereocontrol. These reactions are characterized by the operational simplicity derived from using commercially available or easily obtained (one-step) reaction catalysts and in situ ketene generation from acid chlorides. The range of aldehyde substrates that serve as effective AAC substrates include sterically hindered aldehydes such as cyclohexanecarboxaldehyde and pivaldehyde.
Objective. To investigate whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy for reducing hypoxemia and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) in patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy after extubation. Methods. Patients with intermediate to high risk for PPC were enrolled in this study. Subjects were randomly assigned to HFNC group (HFNCG) or conventional oxygen group (COG) following extubation. Arterial blood samples were collected after extubation at 1, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h. Patients with postoperative hypoxemia and PPC were recorded. Adverse events were also documented. Results. Totally 110 patients were randomly assigned to HFNCG (n = 56) and COG (n = 54). The occurrence rate of hypoxemia in COG was twice more than that in HFNCG (29.62% versus 12.51%, P < 0.05) and PaO2, PaO2/FiO2, and SaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved in HFNCG (P < 0.05) in the first 72 h following extubation. Respiratory rate and incidence of reintubation as well as needing noninvasive ventilation were also decreased in HFNCG (P < 0.05), whereas the incidence of pneumonia and atelectasis were similar (P > 0.05). Adverse effects as throat and nasal pain occurred more frequently in COG. Conclusions. HFNC application improves oxygenation and reduces the risk of reintubation following thoracoscopic lobectomy but cannot decrease the incidence of PPC.
BackgroundCritically ill patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza are often treated in intensive care units (ICUs), representing significant risk of nosocomial transmission to critical care clinicians and other patients. Despite a large body of literature and guidelines recommending infection control practices, numerous barriers have been identified in ICUs, leading to poor compliance to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The use of PPE among critical care clinicians has not been extensively evaluated, especially during the pandemic influenza. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors, and barriers to compliance with the use of PPE among ICU healthcare workers (HCWs) during the pandemic influenza.Methodology/Principal FindingsA survey instrument consisting of 36 questions was developed and mailed to all HCWs in 21 ICUs in 17 provinces in China. A total of 733 physicians, nurses, and other professionals were surveyed, and 650 (88.7%) were included in the analysis. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported having received training program of pandemic influenza before they cared for H1N1 patients, while 77% reported to have adequate knowledge of self and patient protection. Only 18% of respondents were able to correctly identify all components of PPE, and 55% reported high compliance (>80%) with PPE use during patient care. In multivariate analysis, vaccination for 2009 H1N1 influenza, positive attitudes towards PPE use, organizational factors such as availability of PPE in ICU, and patient information of influenza precautions, as well as reprimand for noncompliance by the supervisors were associated with high compliance, whereas negative attitudes towards PPE use and violation of PPE use were independent predictors of low compliance.Conclusion/SignificanceKnowledge and self-reported compliance to recommended PPE use among Chinese critical care clinicians is suboptimal. The perceived barriers should be addressed in order to close the significant gap between perception and knowledge or behavior.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.