Early in the epidemic: impact of preprints on global discourse about COVID-19 transmissibility

Majumder, Maimuna S.; Mandl, Kenneth D.

doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30113-3

Cited by 181 publications

(187 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

169

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we estimated the transmission rates, β1 and β2, based on calculations of the basic reproduction number, 0 , of COVID-19 and clearance estimates. Values for 0 in the literature range from 1.4 to 7.1 [11,[28][29][30]; given these values we assumed that the transmission rate for β was likely between 0.1 and 0.9.…”

Section: Biological Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Estimates for the R0 of COVID-19 range widely. Initial estimates suggested it was quite high [11,12], but most models that have been highly cited in the literature have assumed an R0 in the 2-3 range [13][14][15][16]. Capturing the magnitude of this value is critical to understanding how fast the disease will spread, how much of the population will be infected, and how quickly they will become infected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining the “Bomb-Like” Dynamics of COVID-19 with Modeling and the Implications for Policy

Lin

Bhaduri

Strauss

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a Bayesian approach to epidemiological compartmental modeling, we demonstrate the "bomb-like" behavior of exponential growth in COVID-19 cases can be explained by transmission of asymptomatic and mild cases that are typically unreported at the beginning of pandemic events due to lower prevalence of testing. We studied the exponential phase of the pandemic in Italy, Spain, and South Korea, and found the R0 to be 2.56 (95% CrI, 2.41-2.71), 3.23 (95% CrI, 3.06-3.4), and 2.36 (95% CrI, 2.22-2.5) if we use Bayesian priors that assume a large portion of cases are not detected. Weaker priors regarding the detection rate resulted in R0 values of 9.22 (95% CrI, 9.01-9.43), 9.14 (95% CrI, 8.99-9.29), and 8.06 (95% CrI, 7.82-8.3) and assumes nearly 90% of infected patients are identified. Given the mounting evidence that potentially large fractions of the population are asymptomatic, the weaker priors that generate the high R0 values to fit the data required assumptions about the epidemiology of COVID-19 that do not fit with the biology, particularly regarding the timeframe that people remain infectious. Our results suggest that models of transmission assuming a relatively lower R0 value that do not consider a large number of asymptomatic cases can result in misunderstanding of the underlying dynamics, leading to poor policy decisions and outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Biological Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the “Bomb-Like” Dynamics of COVID-19 with Modeling and the Implications for Policy

Lin

Bhaduri

Strauss

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some preprints might contain essential and time-sensitive information. For example, a study showed that the basic reproduction number, R0, calculated using data available on preprints was not different to the one estimated in peer-reviewed articles (Majumder & Mandl, 2020), and preprints on the viral sequence and structure have allowed for early investigation of potential therapeutic options and vaccines (Brainard, 2020;Kwon, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations and publication rate of preprints on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: The good, the bad and, the ugly.

Nicolalde

Añazco

Mushtaq

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…To our concern, we found that during the COVID-19 pandemic multiple preprints have been used in the development of clinical guidelines (15), public health policies, and the development of scienti c articles (7,13,16).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, some preprints might contain useful information, for example, a study showed that the infectivity index, R0, calculated using data available on preprints was not different to the one estimated in peer-reviewed articles (16), and preprints on the viral sequence and structure have allowed for early investigation of potential therapeutic options or vaccines (4,17). However, preprints should be used responsibly, as they contain preliminary information that needs to be con rmed through a peer-review process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacological interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of preprint articles: The good, the bad and the ugly

Nicolalde

Añazco

Mushtaq

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On Dec 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 Jan 1st to Mar 31, 2020. We gathered metadata on included preprints and identified if they had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation numbers or usage, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract views, when compared to preprints that were not published.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which only 14 were published on peer-reviewed journals and 83 remained unpublished. The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations and metrics (PDF and abstract downloads) when compared to unpublished preprints.Conclusions: The use of preprints during this pandemic has been higher than in previous outbreaks, however, the publication rate in peer-reviewed journals in our sample was low. Preprints should be used as a mean to display preliminary data rapidly in order to obtain feedback by the scientific community, or to guide further research. However, due to the lack of peer-review, and potentially flawed data analysis, preprints alone should not be used to guide clinical practice, as the risk of unwarranted modifications to management is concerning.

show abstract

Early in the epidemic: impact of preprints on global discourse about COVID-19 transmissibility

Cited by 181 publications

References 14 publications

Explaining the “Bomb-Like” Dynamics of COVID-19 with Modeling and the Implications for Policy

Explaining the “Bomb-Like” Dynamics of COVID-19 with Modeling and the Implications for Policy

Citations and publication rate of preprints on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: The good, the bad and, the ugly.

Pharmacological interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of preprint articles: The good, the bad and the ugly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About