Using preprints in evidence synthesis: Commentary on experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

Clyne, Barbara; Walsh, Kieran; O’Murchu, Eamon; Sharp, Melissa K.; Comber, Laura; Brien, Kirsty K O'; Smith, Susan M; Harrington, Patricia; O’Neill, Michelle; Teljeur, Conor; Ryan, Máirín

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.010

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16.22271068 doi: medRxiv preprint potential peer-reviewed article before citing a paper as a preprint would better reflect the latest evidence available in many cases. However, identifying the subsequent publication of a preprint can be difficult since we observed, that MedRxiv often does not mention the publication of the preprints in a peer-reviewed journal, although it is supposed to display link to journal publication within a month [14], which confirms previous studies [9,15]. Furthermore, in our study, nearly half of the preprints have a different title than their published version and just a copy and paste in PubMed or Google might not allow identifying the published version.…”

Section: (Which Was Not Certified By Peer Review)supporting

confidence: 87%

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Gehanno

Grosjean

Darmoni

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : Preprints have been widely cited during the COVID-19 pandemics, even in the major medical journals. However, since subsequent publication of preprint is not always mentioned in preprint repositories, some may be inappropriately cited or quoted. Our objectives were to assess the reliability of preprint citations in articles on COVID-19, to the rate of publication of preprints cited in these articles and to compare, if relevant, the content of the preprints to their published version. Methods : Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version. Results : Among the 205 research articles on COVID published by the four major medical journals in 2020, 60 (29.3%) cited at least one medRxiv preprint. Among the 182 preprints cited, 124 were published in a peer-reviewed journal, with 51 (41.1%) before the citing article was published online and 73 (58.9%) later. There were differences in the title, the data or the conclusion between the preprint cited and the published version for nearly half of them. MedRxiv did not mentioned the publication for 53 (42.7%) of preprints. Conclusions : More than a quarter of preprints citations were inappropriate since preprints were in fact already published at the time of publication of the citing article, often with a different content. Authors and editors should check the accuracy of the citations and of the quotations of preprints before publishing manuscripts that cite them.

show abstract

Section: (Which Was Not Certified By Peer Review)supporting

confidence: 87%

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Gehanno

Grosjean

Darmoni

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, searching for a potential peer-reviewed article before citing a paper as a preprint would better reflect the latest evidence available in many cases. However, identifying the subsequent publication of a preprint can be difficult since we observed, that MedRxiv often does not mention the publication of the preprints in a peer-reviewed journal, although it is supposed to display link to journal publication within a month [14], which confirms previous studies [9,15]. Furthermore, in our study, nearly half of the preprints have a different title than their published version and just a copy and paste in PubMed or Google might not allow identifying the published version.…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 86%

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Gehanno

Grosjean²,

Darmoni³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Preprints have been widely cited during the COVID-19 pandemics, even in the major medical journals. However, since subsequent publication of preprint is not always mentioned in preprint repositories, some may be inappropriately cited or quoted. Our objectives were to assess the reliability of preprint citations in articles on COVID-19, to the rate of publication of preprints cited in these articles and to compare, if relevant, the content of the preprints to their published version. Methods Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version. Results Among the 205 research articles on COVID published by the four major medical journals in 2020, 60 (29.3%) cited at least one medRxiv preprint. Among the 182 preprints cited, 124 were published in a peer-reviewed journal, with 51 (41.1%) before the citing article was published online and 73 (58.9%) later. There were differences in the title, the data or the conclusion between the preprint cited and the published version for nearly half of them. MedRxiv did not mentioned the publication for 53 (42.7%) of preprints. Conclusions More than a quarter of preprints citations were inappropriate since preprints were in fact already published at the time of publication of the citing article, often with a different content. Authors and editors should check the accuracy of the citations and of the quotations of preprints before publishing manuscripts that cite them.

show abstract

“…We included preprints because they form a substantial part of the available COVID-19 evidence, but due to their lack of peer-review, we conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding preprints [ 23 ]. Four studies included non-mRNA type vaccines, so we conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding them.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serologic response following SARS-COV2 vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Patients with cancer have an increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and an attenuated responses to various vaccines. This meta-analysis aims to assess the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. Methods Electronic databases were systematically searched on August 1, 2021 for studies that reported the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients. Random effects models were used to achieve pooled serologic response rates and odds ratios (ORs). Results We analyzed 16 observational studies with a total of 1453 patients with cancer. A majority of studies used mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). The proportion of patients achieving a serologic response after a single and two doses of COVID-19 vaccine were 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.0–66.9) and 87.7% (95% CI 82.5–91.5), respectively. Patients with hematologic cancers had a lower response rate after the second dose of vaccine compared to those with solid organ cancers (63.7% vs. 94.9%), which was attributable to the low response rates associated with certain conditions (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, lymphoma) and therapies (anti-CD20, kinase inhibitors). A lower proportion of patients with cancer achieved a serologic response compared to control patients after one and two doses of vaccine (OR0.073 [95% CI 0.026–0.20] and 0.10 [95% CI 0.039–0.26], respectively). Conclusions Patients with cancer, especially those with hematologic B-cell malignancies, have a lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines. The results suggest that cancer patients should continue to follow safety measures including mask-wearing after vaccination and suggest the need for additional strategies for prophylaxis.

show abstract

Using preprints in evidence synthesis: Commentary on experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited by 30 publications

References 43 publications

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals

Serologic response following SARS-COV2 vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About