Global research trend in the treatment of the new Coronavirus diseases (COVID-19): bibliometric analysis

  1. Maxime Descartes Mbogning Fonkou
  2. Abdourahamane Yacouba

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused worldwide concern and has become a major medical problem. Vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of this outbreak. This study aims to used bibliometric methods to identify research trends in the domain of therapeutics and vaccines to cure patients with COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic.

The Web of Science Core Collection database was retrieved for articles on therapeutic approaches to coronavirus disease management published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2020. Identified and analyzed the data included title, corresponding author, language, publication time, publication type, research focus.

A total of 1569 articles on coronavirus therapeutic means from 84 countries were published in 620 journals. We note the remarkable progressive increase in the number of publications related to research on therapies and vaccines for COVID-19. The United States provided the largest number of articles (405), followed by China (364). Journal of Medical Virology published most of them (n = 40). 1005 (64.05%) were articles, 286 (18.23%) were letters, 230 (14.66%) were reviews. The terms “COVID- 19” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “Coronavirus” or “hydroxychloroquine” or “chloroquine” or “2019-nCOV” or “ACE2” or “treatment” or “remdesivir” or “pneumonia” were most frequently used, as shown in the density visualization map. A network analysis based on keyword co-occurrence revealed five distinct types of studies: clinical, biological, epidemiological, pandemic management, and therapeutics (vaccines and treatments).

COVID-19 is a major disease that has had an impact on international public health at the global level. Several avenues for treatment and vaccines have been explored. Most of them focus on older drugs used to treat other diseases that have been effective for other types of coronaviruses. There is a discrepancy in the results obtained from the studies of the drugs included in this study. Randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate older drugs and develop new treatment options.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.13.20122762: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Nevertheless, some limitations inherent to bibliometric analysis may be unavoidable. The database is continuously updated, and we have only selected literature from January 1, 2020 to May 20, 2020, without literature published after this date. The number of studies may increase rapidly with the breakthrough of future research. In addition, it appears that some medical journals are not indexed in Web of Sciences and therefore some articles may be missed. Some people may object to the use of Web of Sciences for data retrieval. However, we still believe that such a large amount of macroeconomic data and such a detailed analysis of the literature are sufficient to represent the trend of development in this area of research. Finally, we believe that researchers can ignore a minute number of potentially missing publications and that our results are sufficient to represent trends in this field.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on pages 27, 28, 29 and 30. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.13.20122762v1 on medRxiv