Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature

Liu, Nan; Chee, Marcel Lucas; Niu, Chenglin; Pek, Pin Pin; Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid; Ansah, John P.; Matchar, David B.; Lam, Sean Shao Wei; Abdullah, Hairil Rizal; Chan, Angelique; Malhotra, Rahul; Graves, Nicholas; Koh, Mariko Siyue; Yoon, Sungwon; Ho, Andrew Fu Wah; Ting, Daniel Shu Wei; Low, Jenny Guek Hong; Ong, Marcus Eng Hock

doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01059-y

Cited by 79 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is congruent with the high output of narrative reviews and expert opinions seen in our study, which encompasses these subtypes of publications. Additionally, Chahrour et al [ 11 ] and Liu et al [ 16 ] reported a lack of RCTs, which was also affirmed by our study. Overall, the findings of our study, and others, collectively suggest the need to increase production of high-quality research, such as RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, to better understand COVID-19 and explore potential interventions and treatments.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In addition, much of the current research focuses on themes and topics discussed in published papers. Zhang and Shaw [ 15 ] and Liu et al [ 16 ] identified that a large amount of research has been focused on virology, epidemiology, and immunology. Liu et al [ 16 ] also analyzed study-type trends and found that the majority of publications were opinion pieces, editorials, and news.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhang and Shaw [ 15 ] and Liu et al [ 16 ] identified that a large amount of research has been focused on virology, epidemiology, and immunology. Liu et al [ 16 ] also analyzed study-type trends and found that the majority of publications were opinion pieces, editorials, and news. This finding is congruent with the high output of narrative reviews and expert opinions seen in our study, which encompasses these subtypes of publications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Trends in COVID-19 Research Activity in Early 2020: The Creation and Utilization of a Novel Open-Access Database

Jones¹,

Ho²,

Kearney³

et al. 2020

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented in recent history. The rapid global spread has demonstrated how the emergence of a novel pathogen necessitates new information to advise both healthcare systems and policy-makers. The directives for the management of COVID-19 have been limited to infection control measures and treatment of patients, which has left physicians and researchers alone to navigate the massive amount of research being published while searching for evidence-based strategies to care for patients. To tackle this barrier, we launched CovidReview.ca , an open-access, continually updated, online platform that screens available COVID-19 research to determine higher quality publications. This paper uses data from this review process to explore the activity and trends of COVID-19 research worldwide over time, while specifically looking at the types of studies being published. Materials and Methods The literature search was conducted on PubMed. Search terms included “COVID-19”, “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”, “coronavirus 19”, “SARS-COV-2”, and “2019-nCoV”. All articles captured by this strategy were reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and categorized by type of research, relevant medical specialties, and type of publication. Criteria were developed to allow for inclusion or exclusion to the website. Due to the volume of research, only a level 1 (title and abstract) screen was performed. Results The time period for the analysis was January 17, 2020, to May 10, 2020. The total number of papers captured by the search criteria was 10,685, of which 2,742 were included on the website and 7,943 were excluded. The greatest increase in the types of studies over the 16 weeks was narrative review/expert opinion papers followed by case series/reports. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials remained the least published types of studies. Conclusions The surge of research that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic is unparalleled in recent years. From our analysis, it is clear that case reports and narrative reviews were the most widely published, particularly in the earlier days of this pandemic. Continued research that falls higher on the evidence pyramid and is more applicable to clinical settings is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Trends in COVID-19 Research Activity in Early 2020: The Creation and Utilization of a Novel Open-Access Database

Jones¹,

Ho²,

Kearney³

et al. 2020

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike prior analyses of the scientific literature on coronaviruses, ours did not limit to records in English ( Liu et al, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ; Tao et al, 2020 ; Zhai et al, 2020 ) or English and Chinese only ( Yu et al, 2020 ). We additionally extracted records from more than two databases ( Haghani et al, 2020 ; Liu et al, 2020 ) and included editorials, commentaries, letters, case reports, news, and narrative reviews ( Liu et al, 2020 ; Yu et al, 2020 ). In addition to looking at the number and countries of origin of publications, we also examined indicators related to international collaboration, funding, and research quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently published bibliometric analyses either looked at research output on various scientific and medical topics of all coronavirus outbreaks including the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) ( Bonilla-Aldana et al, 2020 ; Haghani et al, 2020 ; Liu et al, 2020 ; Tao et al, 2020 ; Yu et al, 2020 ; Zhai et al, 2020 ) or were limited to the current COVID-19 pandemic overall ( De Felice and Polimeni, 2020 ; Nowakowska et al, 2020 ). Our study is unique in that it examined an underexplored area in the COVID-19 research ( Liu et al, 2020 ), namely, the trend in mental health research, and compared the findings with two prior distinct viral outbreaks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: A comparative bibliometric analysis

Maalouf

Mdawar

Meho

et al. 2021

Journal of Psychiatric Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Both the COVID-19 pandemic and its management have had a negative impact on mental health worldwide. There is a growing body of research on mental health as it relates to the pandemic. The objective of this study is to use bibliometric analyses to assess the mental health research output related to the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it to that of the West Africa Ebola and H1N1 outbreaks. Methodology We performed comprehensive searches in Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases, and included all types of documents related to the three outbreaks published since the respective beginnings up to August 26, 2020. Results Despite the shorter time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, relative to Ebola and H1N1, we found a much greater number of mental health documents related to COVID-19 (n=3,070) compared to the two other outbreaks (127 for Ebola and 327 for H1N1). The proportion of documents in the top 10% journals was 31% for COVID-19, 24% for Ebola, and 40% for H1N1. Authors affiliated with institutions located in high-income countries published or contributed to 79% of all documents followed by authors from upper-middle-income countries (23%), lower-middle-income countries (10%), and low-income countries (2%). Approximately 19% of the documents reported receiving funding and 23% were the product of international collaboration. Conclusion Mental health research output is already greater for COVID-19 compared to Ebola and H1N1 combined. A minority of documents reported funding, was the product of international collaboration, or was published by authors located in low-income countries during the three outbreaks in general, and the COVID-19 pandemic in particular.

show abstract

A systematic scoping review of research on COVID‐19 impacts on eating disorders: A critical appraisal of the evidence and recommendations for the field

Linardon

Messer

Rodgers

et al. 2021

Intl J Eating Disorders

127

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Research investigating the effects of COVID‐19 on eating disorders is growing rapidly. A comprehensive evaluation of this literature is needed to identify key findings and evidence gaps to better inform policy decisions related to the management of eating disorders during and after this crisis. We conducted a systematic scoping review synthesizing and appraising this literature. Method Empirical research on COVID‐19 impacts on eating disorder severity, prevalence, and demand for treatment was searched. No sample restrictions were applied. Findings ( n = 70 studies) were synthesized across six themes: (a) suspected eating disorder cases during COVID‐19; (b) perceived pandemic impacts on symptoms; (c) symptom severity pre versus during the pandemic; (d) pandemic‐related correlates of symptom severity; (e) impacts on carers/parents; and (f) treatment experiences during COVID‐19. Results Pandemic impacts on rates of probable eating disorders, symptom deterioration, and general mental health varied substantially. Symptom escalation and mental health worsening during―and due to―the pandemic were commonly reported, and those most susceptible included confirmed eating disorder cases, at‐risk populations (young women, athletes, parent/carers), and individuals highly anxious or fearful of COVID‐19. Evidence emerged for increased demand for specialist eating disorder services during the pandemic. The forced transition to online treatment was challenging for many, yet telehealth alternatives seemed feasible and effective. Discussion Evidence for COVID‐19 effects is mostly limited to participant self‐report or retrospective recall, cross‐sectional and descriptive studies, and samples of convenience. Several novel pathways for future research that aim to better understand, monitor, and support those negatively affected by the pandemic are formulated.

show abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature

Cited by 79 publications

References 60 publications

Evaluating Trends in COVID-19 Research Activity in Early 2020: The Creation and Utilization of a Novel Open-Access Database

Evaluating Trends in COVID-19 Research Activity in Early 2020: The Creation and Utilization of a Novel Open-Access Database

Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: A comparative bibliometric analysis

A systematic scoping review of research on COVID‐19 impacts on eating disorders: A critical appraisal of the evidence and recommendations for the field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About