Due to the speed and rate of publishing for COVID-19, Palayew et al. raise concerns about “the quality of the evidence base and about the risk of misinformation being spread with harmful consequences.”

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

The researchers conducted single-query searches on PubMed and compared data for journal articles published on COVID-19, Ebola, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). For Ebola and COVID-19, they focused. on articles published in the 12 weeks after they were declared public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC). They found that COVID-19 journal articles had a median acceptance time of 6 days, while Ebola articles had a median acceptance time of 15 days.

Nature article provides data analysis of COVID-19 journal articles published during first 12 weeks after the virus was declared a PHEIC 

Palayew et al. raise concerns about quality of evidence base and potential for misinformation

Recommendation 1: Palayew et al. recommend establishing new journal editors’ standards during large-scale public health emergencies

Recommendation 1: Palayew et al. 

Recommendation 2: Palayew et al. recommend requiring peer reviewers be adequately trained before undertaking reviews

Recommendation 2: Palayew et al.

Recommendation 3: Palayew et al. recommend prioritizing funding, maintenance and access to literature databases and search engines

Recommendation 3: Palayew et al. 

Recommendation 4: Palayew et al. recommend maintaining and investing in the further development of curated databases

Recommendation 4: Palayew et al. 

“In light of the risk of bias with curation, it is vital to ensure that there are multiple independent quality-assured systems that are funded on an ongoing basis. This may require an element of public funding rather than solely or largely relying on the private sector.”

Palayew et al. note the risk of bias in curated databases and suggest multiple independent QA systems

Recommendation 5: Palayew et al. recommend commissioning and publishing more scoping, narrative and systematic reviews to evaluate and synthesize COVID-19 related evidence

Recommendation 5: Palayew et al.

When it comes to developing more literature reviews, Palayew et al. raise concerns about “duplication of reviews” which they suggest can be addressed by better coordination

Palayew et al. raise concerns about “duplication of reviews” 

Palayew et al. cite COVID-19 Cochrane Library and the COVID-END database maintained by McMaster University as good examples of efforts to synthesize COVID-19 literature.

Learn Before

Related