Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-020-01059-y
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-02
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Ong, Marcus Eng Hock
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liu, Nan;Chee, Marcel Lucas;Ong, Marcus Eng Hock
背景自2019年12月COVID-19爆发以来，已产生大量COVID-19医学文献。截至2020年6月，COVID-19医学文献中的差距和纵向趋势仍未确定，尽管在COVID-19大流行和未来大规模公共卫生危机中的研究优先级和政策制定方面存在潜在优势。我们使用证据地图和文献计量学分析来描述早期COVID-19医学文献的增长，以引出横截面和纵向趋势，并系统地识别gaps.ResultsThe早期COVID-19医学文献主要来自亚洲，主要集中在疾病的临床特征和诊断上。许多潜在的研究领域仍有待探索，例如心理健康、新技术和人工智能的使用、COVID-19在不同身体系统中的病理生理学，以及COVID-19对非COVID-19患者护理的间接影响。很少有文章涉及国际水平的研究合作（24.7%）。中位提交至发表持续时间为8天（四分位数间距：4-16）。结论尽管处于早期阶段，COVID-19研究已经产生了大量的出版物。然而，全球研究界仍有知识差距有待填补，还有需要改进的领域。我们对COVID-19早期研究的分析可能对当前COVID-19大流行和类似全球健康危机中的研究优先次序和政策规划有价值。
BackgroundSince the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a substantial body of COVID-19 medical literature has been generated. As of June 2020, gaps and longitudinal trends in the COVID-19 medical literature remain unidentified, despite potential benefits for research prioritisation and policy setting in both the COVID-19 pandemic and future large-scale public health crises.MethodsIn this paper, we searched PubMed and Embase for medical literature on COVID-19 between 1 January and 24 March 2020. We characterised the growth of the early COVID-19 medical literature using evidence maps and bibliometric analyses to elicit cross-sectional and longitudinal trends and systematically identify gaps.ResultsThe early COVID-19 medical literature originated primarily from Asia and focused mainly on clinical features and diagnosis of the disease. Many areas of potential research remain underexplored, such as mental health, the use of novel technologies and artificial intelligence, pathophysiology of COVID-19 within different body systems, and indirect effects of COVID-19 on the care of non-COVID-19 patients. Few articles involved research collaboration at the international level (24.7%). The median submission-to-publication duration was 8 days (interquartile range: 4-16).ConclusionsAlthough in its early phase, COVID-19 research has generated a large volume of publications. However, there are still knowledge gaps yet to be filled and areas for improvement for the global research community. Our analysis of early COVID-19 research may be valuable in informing research prioritisation and policy planning both in the current COVID-19 pandemic and similar global health crises.