covid 19 research articles pdf

COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database

March 19, 2020

Updated January 12, 2024

COVID-19 Research Guide Home

• Research Articles Downloadable Database
• COVID-19 Science Updates
• Databases and Journals
• Secondary Data and Statistics

Important announcement:  

The CDC Database of COVID-19 Research Articles became a collaboration with the WHO to create the  WHO COVID-19 database  during the pandemic to make it easier for results to be searched, downloaded, and used by researchers worldwide.

The last version of the CDC COVID-19 database was archived and remain available on this website.  Please note that it has stopped updating as of October 9, 2020 and all new articles were integrated into the  WHO COVID-19 database .  The WHO Covid-19 Research Database was a resource created in response to the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Its content remains searchable and spans the time period March 2020 to June 2023. Since June 2023, manual updates to the database have been discontinued.

If you have any questions, concerns, or problems accessing the WHO COVID-19 Database please email the CDC Library for assistance.

Materials listed in these guides are selected to provide awareness of quality public health literature and resources. A material’s inclusion does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Public Health Service (PHS), or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nor does it imply endorsement of the material’s methods or findings.

Below are options to download the archive of COVID-19 research articles.  You can search the database of citations by author, keyword (in title, author, abstract, subject headings fields), journal, or abstract when available.  DOI, PMID, and URL links are included when available.

This database was last updated on October 9, 2020 .

• The CDC Database of COVID-19 Research Articles is now a part of the WHO COVID-19 database .  Our new  search results are now being sent to the WHO COVID-19 Database to make it easier for them to be searched, downloaded, and used by researchers worldwide. The WHO Covid-19 Research Database was a resource created in response to the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Its content remains searchable and spans the time period March 2020 to June 2023. Since June 2023, manual updates to the database have been discontinued.
• To help inform CDC’s COVID-19 Response, as well as to help CDC staff stay up to date on the latest COVID-19 research, the Response’s Office of the Chief Medical Officer has collaborated with the CDC Office of Library Science to create a series called COVID-19 Science Update . This series, the first of its kind for a CDC emergency response, provides brief summaries of new COVID-19-related studies on many topics, including epidemiology, clinical treatment and management, laboratory science, and modeling. As of December 18, 2021, CDC has stopped production of the weekly COVID-19 Science Update.

Excel download:

• Articles from August until October 9 2020 [XLS – 29 MB]
• Articles from December 2019 through July 2020 [XLS – 45 MB]
• The CDC Database of COVID-19 Research Articles is now a part of the WHO COVID-19 database .  Our new search results are now being sent to the WHO COVID-19 Database to make it easier for them to be searched, downloaded, and used by researchers worldwide.
• October 8 in Excel [XLS – 1 MB]
• October 7 in Excel [XLS – 1 MB]
• October 6 in Excel [XLS – 1 MB]
• Note the main Excel file can also be sorted by date added.

Citation Management Software (EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero, Refman, etc.)  download:

• Part 1 [ZIP – 38 MB]
• Part 2 [ZIP – 43 MB]
• October 8 in citation management software format [RIS – 2 MB]
• October 7 in citation management software format [RIS – 2 MB]
• October 6 in citation management software format [RIS – 2 MB]
• Note the main RIS file can also be sorted by date added.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly changing situation.  Some of the research included above is preliminary.  Materials listed in this database are selected to provide awareness of quality public health literature and resources. A material’s inclusion does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Public Health Service (PHS), or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nor does it imply endorsement of the material’s methods or findings.

To access the full text, click on the DOI, PMID, or URL links.  While most publishers are making their COVID-19 content Open Access, some articles are accessible only to those with a CDC user id and password. Find a library near you that may be able to help you get access to articles by clicking the following links: https://www.worldcat.org/libraries OR https://www.usa.gov/libraries .

CDC users can use EndNote’s Find Full Text feature to attach the full text PDFs within their EndNote Library.  CDC users, please email Martha Knuth for an EndNote file of all citations.  Once you have your EndNote file downloaded, to get the full-text of journal articles listed in the search results you can do the following steps:

• First, try using EndNote’s “Find Full-Text” feature to attach full-text articles to your EndNote Library.
• Next, check for full-text availability, via the E-Journals list, at: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/cdc/az   .
• If you can’t find full-text online, you can request articles via DocExpress, at: https://docexpress.cdc.gov/illiad/

The following databases were searched from Dec. 2019-Oct. 9 2020 for articles related to COVID-19: Medline (Ovid and PubMed), PubMed Central, Embase, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Africa Wide Information, CINAHL, ProQuest Central, SciFinder, the Virtual Health Library, and LitCovid.  Selected grey literature sources were searched as well, including the WHO COVID-19 website, CDC COVID-19 website, Eurosurveillance, China CDC Weekly, Homeland Security Digital Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, bioRxiv (preprints), medRxiv (preprints), chemRxiv (preprints), and SSRN (preprints).

Detailed search strings with synonyms used for COVID-19 are below.

Detailed search strategy for gathering COVID-19 articles, updated October 9, 2020 [PDF – 135 KB]

Note on preprints:   Preprints have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information.

Materials listed in these guides are selected to provide awareness of quality public health literature and resources. A material’s inclusion does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Public Health Service (PHS), or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nor does it imply endorsement of the material’s methods or findings. HHS, PHS, and CDC assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by HHS, PHS, and CDC. Opinion, findings, and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in these materials, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of HHS, PHS, or CDC. References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by HHS, PHS, or CDC.

To receive the COVID-19 Science Update, please enter your email address to subscribe today.

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2021

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

• Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento 1 , 2 ,
• Dónal P. O’Mathúna 3 , 4 ,
• Thilo Caspar von Groote 5 ,
• Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem 6 ,
• Ishanka Weerasekara 7 , 8 ,
• Ana Marusic 9 ,
• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 10 ,
• Vinicius Tassoni Civile 11 ,
• Irena Zakarija-Grkovic 9 ,
• Tina Poklepovic Pericic 9 ,
• Alvaro Nagib Atallah 11 ,
• Santino Filoso 12 ,
• Nicola Luigi Bragazzi 13 &
• Milena Soriano Marcolino 1

On behalf of the International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)

BMC Infectious Diseases volume  21 , Article number:  525 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

28 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

Conclusions

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Peer Review reports

The spread of the “Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19, was characterized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 and has triggered an international public health emergency [ 1 ]. The numbers of confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 are rapidly escalating, counting in millions [ 2 ], causing massive economic strain, and escalating healthcare and public health expenses [ 3 , 4 ].

The research community has responded by publishing an impressive number of scientific reports related to COVID-19. The world was alerted to the new disease at the beginning of 2020 [ 1 ], and by mid-March 2020, more than 2000 articles had been published on COVID-19 in scholarly journals, with 25% of them containing original data [ 5 ]. The living map of COVID-19 evidence, curated by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), contained more than 40,000 records by February 2021 [ 6 ]. More than 100,000 records on PubMed were labeled as “SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content” by February 2021 [ 7 ].

Due to publication speed, the research community has voiced concerns regarding the quality and reproducibility of evidence produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, warning of the potential damaging approach of “publish first, retract later” [ 8 ]. It appears that these concerns are not unfounded, as it has been reported that COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020 [ 9 ]. These concerns about inadequate evidence are of major importance because they can lead to poor clinical practice and inappropriate policies [ 10 ].

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of today’s evidence-informed decision-making. By synthesizing all relevant evidence regarding a particular topic, systematic reviews reflect the current scientific knowledge. Systematic reviews are considered to be at the highest level in the hierarchy of evidence and should be used to make informed decisions. However, with high numbers of systematic reviews of different scope and methodological quality being published, overviews of multiple systematic reviews that assess their methodological quality are essential [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. An overview of systematic reviews helps identify and organize the literature and highlights areas of priority in decision-making.

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

Methodology

Research question.

This overview’s primary objective was to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews that assessed any type of primary clinical data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our research question was purposefully broad because we wanted to analyze as many systematic reviews as possible that were available early following the COVID-19 outbreak.

Study design

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. The idea for this overview originated in a protocol for a systematic review submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42020170623), which indicated a plan to conduct an overview.

Overviews of systematic reviews use explicit and systematic methods for searching and identifying multiple systematic reviews addressing related research questions in the same field to extract and analyze evidence across important outcomes. Overviews of systematic reviews are in principle similar to systematic reviews of interventions, but the unit of analysis is a systematic review [ 14 , 15 , 16 ].

We used the overview methodology instead of other evidence synthesis methods to allow us to collate and appraise multiple systematic reviews on this topic, and to extract and analyze their results across relevant topics [ 17 ]. The overview and meta-analysis of systematic reviews allowed us to investigate the methodological quality of included studies, summarize results, and identify specific areas of available or limited evidence, thereby strengthening the current understanding of this novel disease and guiding future research [ 13 ].

A reporting guideline for overviews of reviews is currently under development, i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) [ 18 ]. As the PRIOR checklist is still not published, this study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement [ 19 ]. The methodology used in this review was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and also followed established methodological considerations for analyzing existing systematic reviews [ 14 ].

Approval of a research ethics committee was not necessary as the study analyzed only publicly available articles.

Eligibility criteria

Systematic reviews were included if they analyzed primary data from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as confirmed by RT-PCR or another pre-specified diagnostic technique. Eligible reviews covered all topics related to COVID-19 including, but not limited to, those that reported clinical symptoms, diagnostic methods, therapeutic interventions, laboratory findings, or radiological results. Both full manuscripts and abbreviated versions, such as letters, were eligible.

No restrictions were imposed on the design of the primary studies included within the systematic reviews, the last search date, whether the review included meta-analyses or language. Reviews related to SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses were eligible, but from those reviews, we analyzed only data related to SARS-CoV-2.

No consensus definition exists for a systematic review [ 20 ], and debates continue about the defining characteristics of a systematic review [ 21 ]. Cochrane’s guidance for overviews of reviews recommends setting pre-established criteria for making decisions around inclusion [ 14 ]. That is supported by a recent scoping review about guidance for overviews of systematic reviews [ 22 ].

Thus, for this study, we defined a systematic review as a research report which searched for primary research studies on a specific topic using an explicit search strategy, had a detailed description of the methods with explicit inclusion criteria provided, and provided a summary of the included studies either in narrative or quantitative format (such as a meta-analysis). Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews were considered eligible for inclusion, with or without meta-analysis, and regardless of the study design, language restriction and methodology of the included primary studies. To be eligible for inclusion, reviews had to be clearly analyzing data related to SARS-CoV-2 (associated or not with other viruses). We excluded narrative reviews without those characteristics as these are less likely to be replicable and are more prone to bias.

Scoping reviews and rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview if they met our pre-defined inclusion criteria noted above. We included reviews that addressed SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses if they reported separate data regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Information sources

Nine databases were searched for eligible records published between December 1, 2019, and March 24, 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Sciences, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), and Epistemonikos.

The comprehensive search strategy for each database is provided in Additional file 1 and was designed and conducted in collaboration with an information specialist. All retrieved records were primarily processed in EndNote, where duplicates were removed, and records were then imported into the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. In addition to database searches, we screened reference lists of reviews included after screening records retrieved via databases.

Study selection

All searches, screening of titles and abstracts, and record selection, were performed independently by two investigators using the Covidence platform [ 23 ]. Articles deemed potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text screening carried out independently by two investigators. Discrepancies at all stages were resolved by consensus. During the screening, records published in languages other than English were translated by a native/fluent speaker.

Data collection process

We custom designed a data extraction table for this study, which was piloted by two authors independently. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third researcher.

We extracted the following data: article identification data (authors’ name and journal of publication), search period, number of databases searched, population or settings considered, main results and outcomes observed, and number of participants. From Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), we extracted journal rank (quartile) and Journal Impact Factor (JIF).

We categorized the following as primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, need for and length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospitalization (in days), admission to intensive care unit (yes/no), and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

The following outcomes were categorized as exploratory: diagnostic methods used for detection of the virus, male to female ratio, clinical symptoms, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, laboratory findings (full blood count, liver enzymes, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, albumin, lipid profile, serum electrolytes, blood vitamin levels, glucose levels, and any other important biomarkers), and radiological findings (using radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound).

We also collected data on reporting guidelines and requirements for the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses from journal websites where included reviews were published.

Quality assessment in individual reviews

Two researchers independently assessed the reviews’ quality using the “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2)”. We acknowledge that the AMSTAR 2 was created as “a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both” [ 24 ]. However, since AMSTAR 2 was designed for systematic reviews of intervention trials, and we included additional types of systematic reviews, we adjusted some AMSTAR 2 ratings and reported these in Additional file 2 .

Adherence to each item was rated as follows: yes, partial yes, no, or not applicable (such as when a meta-analysis was not conducted). The overall confidence in the results of the review is rated as “critically low”, “low”, “moderate” or “high”, according to the AMSTAR 2 guidance based on seven critical domains, which are items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 as defined by AMSTAR 2 authors [ 24 ]. We reported our adherence ratings for transparency of our decision with accompanying explanations, for each item, in each included review.

One of the included systematic reviews was conducted by some members of this author team [ 25 ]. This review was initially assessed independently by two authors who were not co-authors of that review to prevent the risk of bias in assessing this study.

Synthesis of results

For data synthesis, we prepared a table summarizing each systematic review. Graphs illustrating the mortality rate and clinical symptoms were created. We then prepared a narrative summary of the methods, findings, study strengths, and limitations.

For analysis of the prevalence of clinical outcomes, we extracted data on the number of events and the total number of patients to perform proportional meta-analysis using RStudio© software, with the “meta” package (version 4.9–6), using the “metaprop” function for reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, excluding case studies because of the absence of variance. For reviews that did not perform a meta-analysis, we presented pooled results of proportions with their respective confidence intervals (95%) by the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for τ 2 . We adjusted data using Freeman-Tukey double arcosen transformation. Confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method for individual studies. We created forest plots using the RStudio© software, with the “metafor” package (version 2.1–0) and “forest” function.

Managing overlapping systematic reviews

Some of the included systematic reviews that address the same or similar research questions may include the same primary studies in overviews. Including such overlapping reviews may introduce bias when outcome data from the same primary study are included in the analyses of an overview multiple times. Thus, in summaries of evidence, multiple-counting of the same outcome data will give data from some primary studies too much influence [ 14 ]. In this overview, we did not exclude overlapping systematic reviews because, according to Cochrane’s guidance, it may be appropriate to include all relevant reviews’ results if the purpose of the overview is to present and describe the current body of evidence on a topic [ 14 ]. To avoid any bias in summary estimates associated with overlapping reviews, we generated forest plots showing data from individual systematic reviews, but the results were not pooled because some primary studies were included in multiple reviews.

Our search retrieved 1063 publications, of which 175 were duplicates. Most publications were excluded after the title and abstract analysis ( n = 860). Among the 28 studies selected for full-text screening, 10 were excluded for the reasons described in Additional file 3 , and 18 were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1 ) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Reference list screening did not retrieve any additional systematic reviews.

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included reviews

Summary features of 18 systematic reviews are presented in Table 1 . They were published in 14 different journals. Only four of these journals had specific requirements for systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis): European Journal of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Clinical Research in Cardiology . Two journals reported that they published only invited reviews ( Journal of Medical Virology and Clinica Chimica Acta ). Three systematic reviews in our study were published as letters; one was labeled as a scoping review and another as a rapid review (Table 2 ).

All reviews were published in English, in first quartile (Q1) journals, with JIF ranging from 1.692 to 6.062. One review was empty, meaning that its search did not identify any relevant studies; i.e., no primary studies were included [ 36 ]. The remaining 17 reviews included 269 unique studies; the majority ( N = 211; 78%) were included in only a single review included in our study (range: 1 to 12). Primary studies included in the reviews were published between December 2019 and March 18, 2020, and comprised case reports, case series, cohorts, and other observational studies. We found only one review that included randomized clinical trials [ 38 ]. In the included reviews, systematic literature searches were performed from 2019 (entire year) up to March 9, 2020. Ten systematic reviews included meta-analyses. The list of primary studies found in the included systematic reviews is shown in Additional file 4 , as well as the number of reviews in which each primary study was included.

Population and study designs

Most of the reviews analyzed data from patients with COVID-19 who developed pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or any other correlated complication. One review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using surgical masks on preventing transmission of the virus [ 36 ], one review was focused on pediatric patients [ 34 ], and one review investigated COVID-19 in pregnant women [ 37 ]. Most reviews assessed clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, or radiological results.

Systematic review findings

The summary of findings from individual reviews is shown in Table 2 . Overall, all-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9% (Fig. 2 ).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of mortality

Clinical symptoms

Seven reviews described the main clinical manifestations of COVID-19 [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 ]. Three of them provided only a narrative discussion of symptoms [ 26 , 34 , 35 ]. In the reviews that performed a statistical analysis of the incidence of different clinical symptoms, symptoms in patients with COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%), gastrointestinal disorders, such as diarrhea, nausea or vomiting (5.0–9.0%), and others (including, in one study only: dizziness 12.1%) (Figs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and 9 ). Three reviews assessed cough with and without sputum together; only one review assessed sputum production itself (28.5%).

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fever

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of cough

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dyspnea

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of fatigue or myalgia

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of headache

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of sore throat

Diagnostic aspects

Three reviews described methodologies, protocols, and tools used for establishing the diagnosis of COVID-19 [ 26 , 34 , 38 ]. The use of respiratory swabs (nasal or pharyngeal) or blood specimens to assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid using RT-PCR assays was the most commonly used diagnostic method mentioned in the included studies. These diagnostic tests have been widely used, but their precise sensitivity and specificity remain unknown. One review included a Chinese study with clinical diagnosis with no confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 if they presented with at least two symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, together with laboratory and chest radiography abnormalities) [ 34 ].

Therapeutic possibilities

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (supportive therapies) used in treating patients with COVID-19 were reported in five reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. Antivirals used empirically for COVID-19 treatment were reported in seven reviews [ 25 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 ]; most commonly used were protease inhibitors (lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (tenofovir), nucleotide analogs (remdesivir, galidesivir, ganciclovir), and neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir). Umifenovir, a membrane fusion inhibitor, was investigated in two studies [ 25 , 35 ]. Possible supportive interventions analyzed were different types of oxygen supplementation and breathing support (invasive or non-invasive ventilation) [ 25 ]. The use of antibiotics, both empirically and to treat secondary pneumonia, was reported in six studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 34 , 35 , 38 ]. One review specifically assessed evidence on the efficacy and safety of the anti-malaria drug chloroquine [ 27 ]. It identified 23 ongoing trials investigating the potential of chloroquine as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, but no verifiable clinical outcomes data. The use of mesenchymal stem cells, antifungals, and glucocorticoids were described in four reviews [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 38 ].

Laboratory and radiological findings

Of the 18 reviews included in this overview, eight analyzed laboratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 ]; elevated C-reactive protein levels, associated with lymphocytopenia, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, as well as slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST, ALT) were commonly described in those eight reviews. Lippi et al. assessed cardiac troponin I (cTnI) [ 25 ], procalcitonin [ 32 ], and platelet count [ 33 ] in COVID-19 patients. Elevated levels of procalcitonin [ 32 ] and cTnI [ 30 ] were more likely to be associated with a severe disease course (requiring intensive care unit admission and intubation). Furthermore, thrombocytopenia was frequently observed in patients with complicated COVID-19 infections [ 33 ].

Chest imaging (chest radiography and/or computed tomography) features were assessed in six reviews, all of which described a frequent pattern of local or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity [ 25 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Those six reviews showed that septal thickening, bronchiectasis, pleural and cardiac effusions, halo signs, and pneumothorax were observed in patients suffering from COVID-19.

Quality of evidence in individual systematic reviews

Table 3 shows the detailed results of the quality assessment of 18 systematic reviews, including the assessment of individual items and summary assessment. A detailed explanation for each decision in each review is available in Additional file 5 .

Using AMSTAR 2 criteria, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low” (Table 3 ). Common methodological drawbacks were: omission of prospective protocol submission or publication; use of inappropriate search strategy: lack of independent and dual literature screening and data-extraction (or methodology unclear); absence of an explanation for heterogeneity among the studies included; lack of reasons for study exclusion (or rationale unclear).

Risk of bias assessment, based on a reported methodological tool, and quality of evidence appraisal, in line with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, were reported only in one review [ 25 ]. Five reviews presented a table summarizing bias, using various risk of bias tools [ 25 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. One review analyzed “study quality” [ 37 ]. One review mentioned the risk of bias assessment in the methodology but did not provide any related analysis [ 28 ].

This overview of systematic reviews analyzed the first 18 systematic reviews published after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, up to March 24, 2020, with primary studies involving more than 60,000 patients. Using AMSTAR-2, we judged that our confidence in all those reviews was “critically low”. Ten reviews included meta-analyses. The reviews presented data on clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiological findings, and interventions. We found no systematic reviews on the utility of diagnostic tests.

Symptoms were reported in seven reviews; most of the patients had a fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia or muscle fatigue, and gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or dysosmia) has been described in patients infected with COVID-19 [ 43 ]; however, this was not reported in any of the reviews included in this overview. During the SARS outbreak in 2002, there were reports of impairment of the sense of smell associated with the disease [ 44 , 45 ].

The reported mortality rates ranged from 0.3 to 14% in the included reviews. Mortality estimates are influenced by the transmissibility rate (basic reproduction number), availability of diagnostic tools, notification policies, asymptomatic presentations of the disease, resources for disease prevention and control, and treatment facilities; variability in the mortality rate fits the pattern of emerging infectious diseases [ 46 ]. Furthermore, the reported cases did not consider asymptomatic cases, mild cases where individuals have not sought medical treatment, and the fact that many countries had limited access to diagnostic tests or have implemented testing policies later than the others. Considering the lack of reviews assessing diagnostic testing (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of RT-PCT or immunoglobulin tests), and the preponderance of studies that assessed only symptomatic individuals, considerable imprecision around the calculated mortality rates existed in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Few reviews included treatment data. Those reviews described studies considered to be at a very low level of evidence: usually small, retrospective studies with very heterogeneous populations. Seven reviews analyzed laboratory parameters; those reviews could have been useful for clinicians who attend patients suspected of COVID-19 in emergency services worldwide, such as assessing which patients need to be reassessed more frequently.

All systematic reviews scored poorly on the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Most of the original studies included in the reviews were case series and case reports, impacting the quality of evidence. Such evidence has major implications for clinical practice and the use of these reviews in evidence-based practice and policy. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can only have the highest confidence in systematic review findings if high-quality systematic review methodologies are employed. The urgent need for information during a pandemic does not justify poor quality reporting.

We acknowledge that there are numerous challenges associated with analyzing COVID-19 data during a pandemic [ 47 ]. High-quality evidence syntheses are needed for decision-making, but each type of evidence syntheses is associated with its inherent challenges.

The creation of classic systematic reviews requires considerable time and effort; with massive research output, they quickly become outdated, and preparing updated versions also requires considerable time. A recent study showed that updates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews are published a median of 5 years after the publication of the previous version [ 48 ].

Authors may register a review and then abandon it [ 49 ], but the existence of a public record that is not updated may lead other authors to believe that the review is still ongoing. A quarter of Cochrane review protocols remains unpublished as completed systematic reviews 8 years after protocol publication [ 50 ].

Rapid reviews can be used to summarize the evidence, but they involve methodological sacrifices and simplifications to produce information promptly, with inconsistent methodological approaches [ 51 ]. However, rapid reviews are justified in times of public health emergencies, and even Cochrane has resorted to publishing rapid reviews in response to the COVID-19 crisis [ 52 ]. Rapid reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview, but only one of the 18 reviews included in this study was labeled as a rapid review.

Ideally, COVID-19 evidence would be continually summarized in a series of high-quality living systematic reviews, types of evidence synthesis defined as “ a systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available ” [ 53 ]. However, conducting living systematic reviews requires considerable resources, calling into question the sustainability of such evidence synthesis over long periods [ 54 ].

Research reports about COVID-19 will contribute to research waste if they are poorly designed, poorly reported, or simply not necessary. In principle, systematic reviews should help reduce research waste as they usually provide recommendations for further research that is needed or may advise that sufficient evidence exists on a particular topic [ 55 ]. However, systematic reviews can also contribute to growing research waste when they are not needed, or poorly conducted and reported. Our present study clearly shows that most of the systematic reviews that were published early on in the COVID-19 pandemic could be categorized as research waste, as our confidence in their results is critically low.

Our study has some limitations. One is that for AMSTAR 2 assessment we relied on information available in publications; we did not attempt to contact study authors for clarifications or additional data. In three reviews, the methodological quality appraisal was challenging because they were published as letters, or labeled as rapid communications. As a result, various details about their review process were not included, leading to AMSTAR 2 questions being answered as “not reported”, resulting in low confidence scores. Full manuscripts might have provided additional information that could have led to higher confidence in the results. In other words, low scores could reflect incomplete reporting, not necessarily low-quality review methods. To make their review available more rapidly and more concisely, the authors may have omitted methodological details. A general issue during a crisis is that speed and completeness must be balanced. However, maintaining high standards requires proper resourcing and commitment to ensure that the users of systematic reviews can have high confidence in the results.

Furthermore, we used adjusted AMSTAR 2 scoring, as the tool was designed for critical appraisal of reviews of interventions. Some reviews may have received lower scores than actually warranted in spite of these adjustments.

Another limitation of our study may be the inclusion of multiple overlapping reviews, as some included reviews included the same primary studies. According to the Cochrane Handbook, including overlapping reviews may be appropriate when the review’s aim is “ to present and describe the current body of systematic review evidence on a topic ” [ 12 ], which was our aim. To avoid bias with summarizing evidence from overlapping reviews, we presented the forest plots without summary estimates. The forest plots serve to inform readers about the effect sizes for outcomes that were reported in each review.

Several authors from this study have contributed to one of the reviews identified [ 25 ]. To reduce the risk of any bias, two authors who did not co-author the review in question initially assessed its quality and limitations.

Finally, we note that the systematic reviews included in our overview may have had issues that our analysis did not identify because we did not analyze their primary studies to verify the accuracy of the data and information they presented. We give two examples to substantiate this possibility. Lovato et al. wrote a commentary on the review of Sun et al. [ 41 ], in which they criticized the authors’ conclusion that sore throat is rare in COVID-19 patients [ 56 ]. Lovato et al. highlighted that multiple studies included in Sun et al. did not accurately describe participants’ clinical presentations, warning that only three studies clearly reported data on sore throat [ 56 ].

In another example, Leung [ 57 ] warned about the review of Li, L.Q. et al. [ 29 ]: “ it is possible that this statistic was computed using overlapped samples, therefore some patients were double counted ”. Li et al. responded to Leung that it is uncertain whether the data overlapped, as they used data from published articles and did not have access to the original data; they also reported that they requested original data and that they plan to re-do their analyses once they receive them; they also urged readers to treat the data with caution [ 58 ]. This points to the evolving nature of evidence during a crisis.

Our study’s strength is that this overview adds to the current knowledge by providing a comprehensive summary of all the evidence synthesis about COVID-19 available early after the onset of the pandemic. This overview followed strict methodological criteria, including a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy and a standard tool for methodological appraisal of systematic reviews.

In conclusion, in this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all the reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic could be categorized as research waste. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards to provide patients, clinicians, and decision-makers trustworthy evidence.

Availability of data and materials

All data collected and analyzed within this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Timeline - COVID-19: Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline . Accessed 1 June 2021.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Anzai A, Kobayashi T, Linton NM, Kinoshita R, Hayashi K, Suzuki A, et al. Assessing the Impact of Reduced Travel on Exportation Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19). J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):601.

Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, Gioannini C, Litvinova M, Merler S, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science. 2020;368(6489):395–400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fidahic M, Nujic D, Runjic R, Civljak M, Markotic F, Lovric Makaric Z, et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2 .

EPPI Centre . COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 1 June 2021.

NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Gustot T. Quality and reproducibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. JHEP Rep. 2020;2(4):100141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100141 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kodvanj, I., et al., Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues. Preprint article. bioRxiv 2020.11.23.394577; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.394577 .

Dobler CC. Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(2):200112. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.0112-2020 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 .

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):231. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020; Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, Scott SD, Hartling L. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0768-8 .

Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8 .

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Pieper D, Tricco AC, Gates M, Gates A, et al. Preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0 .

Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.002 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, Pollock M, Hartling L. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0 .

Covidence - systematic review software. Available at: https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Borges do Nascimento IJ, et al. Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):941.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu YJ, Mao YP, Ye RX, Wang QZ, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-020-00646-x .

Cortegiani A, Ingoglia G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Einav S. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care. 2020;57:279–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005 .

Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, Zhi L, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(5):531–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):577–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25757 .

Lippi G, Lavie CJ, Sanchis-Gomar F. Cardiac troponin I in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): evidence from a meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63(3):390–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.001 .

Lippi G, Henry BM. Active smoking is not associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Eur J Intern Med. 2020;75:107–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.03.014 .

Lippi G, Plebani M. Procalcitonin in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;505:190–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.004 .

Lippi G, Plebani M, Henry BM. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;506:145–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022 .

Ludvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(6):1088–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15270 .

Lupia T, Scabini S, Mornese Pinna S, di Perri G, de Rosa FG, Corcione S. 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak: a new challenge. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;21:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.021 .

Marasinghe, K.M., A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among medically not diagnosed individuals: shedding light on current recommendations provided to individuals not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. Research Square. Preprint article. doi : https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-16701/v1 . 2020 .

Mullins E, Evans D, Viner RM, O’Brien P, Morris E. Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: rapid review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(5):586–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22014 .

Pang J, Wang MX, Ang IYH, Tan SHX, Lewis RF, Chen JIP, et al. Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):623.

Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, Villamizar-Peña R, Holguin-Rivera Y, Escalera-Antezana JP, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;34:101623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101623 .

Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of imaging findings in 919 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23034 .

Sun P, Qie S, Liu Z, Ren J, Li K, Xi J. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(6):612–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25735 .

Yang J, Zheng Y, Gou X, Pu K, Chen Z, Guo Q, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:91–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.017 .

Bassetti M, Vena A, Giacobbe DR. The novel Chinese coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections: challenges for fighting the storm. Eur J Clin Investig. 2020;50(3):e13209. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13209 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hwang CS. Olfactory neuropathy in severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of a case. Acta Neurol Taiwanica. 2006;15(1):26–8.

Google Scholar  

Suzuki M, Saito K, Min WP, Vladau C, Toida K, Itoh H, et al. Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(2):272–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e .

Rajgor DD, Lee MH, Archuleta S, Bagdasarian N, Quek SC. The many estimates of the COVID-19 case fatality rate. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(7):776–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30244-9 .

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00972-6 .

Rombey T, Lochner V, Puljak L, Könsgen N, Mathes T, Pieper D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):471–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1409 .

Runjic E, Rombey T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.08.010 .

Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006 .

Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 .

COVID-19 Rapid Reviews: Cochrane’s response so far. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/covid-19-rapid-reviews-cochrane-response-so-far . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Cochrane. Living systematic reviews. Available at: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews . Accessed 1 June 2021.

Millard T, Synnot A, Elliott J, Green S, McDonald S, Turner T. Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5 .

Babic A, Poklepovic Pericic T, Pieper D, Puljak L. How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: analysis of Cochrane reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):884–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1451 .

Lovato A, Rossettini G, de Filippis C. Sore throat in COVID-19: comment on “clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a single arm meta-analysis”. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):714–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25815 .

Leung C. Comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1431–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25912 .

Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, Wang ZP, Liang Y, Huang TB, et al. Response to Char’s comment: comment on Li et al: COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25924 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Henderson DPhil from Swanscoe Communications for pro bono medical writing and editing support. We acknowledge support from the Covidence Team, specifically Anneliese Arno. We thank the whole International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19) for their commitment and involvement. Members of the InterNetCOVID-19 are listed in Additional file 6 . We thank Pavel Cerny and Roger Crosthwaite for guiding the team supervisor (IJBN) on human resources management.

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Hospital and School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento & Milena Soriano Marcolino

Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento

Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for Evidence-based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare, College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Dónal P. O’Mathúna

School of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Thilo Caspar von Groote

Department of Sport and Health Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

Ishanka Weerasekara

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Cochrane Croatia, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Ana Marusic, Irena Zakarija-Grkovic & Tina Poklepovic Pericic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Cochrane Brazil, Evidence-Based Health Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Vinicius Tassoni Civile & Alvaro Nagib Atallah

Yorkville University, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Santino Filoso

Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IJBN conceived the research idea and worked as a project coordinator. DPOM, TCVG, HMA, IW, AM, LP, VTC, IZG, TPP, ANA, SF, NLB and MSM were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, and initial draft writing. All authors revised the manuscript critically for the content. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not required as data was based on published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Search strategies used in the study.

Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

Adjusted scoring of AMSTAR 2 used in this study for systematic reviews of studies that did not analyze interventions.

Additional file 3: Appendix 3.

List of excluded studies, with reasons.

Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

Table of overlapping studies, containing the list of primary studies included, their visual overlap in individual systematic reviews, and the number in how many reviews each primary study was included.

Additional file 5: Appendix 5.

A detailed explanation of AMSTAR scoring for each item in each review.

Additional file 6: Appendix 6.

List of members and affiliates of International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Borges do Nascimento, I.J., O’Mathúna, D.P., von Groote, T.C. et al. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Infect Dis 21 , 525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2020

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 04 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Evidence-based medicine
• Infectious diseases

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation AXES, IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Chair of Systems Design D-MTEC, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

• Massimo Riccaboni, 
• Luca Verginer

• Published: February 9, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented challenge to humanity and science. On the one side, public and private incentives have been put in place to promptly allocate resources toward research areas strictly related to the COVID-19 emergency. However, research in many fields not directly related to the pandemic has been displaced. In this paper, we assess the impact of COVID-19 on world scientific production in the life sciences and find indications that the usage of medical subject headings (MeSH) has changed following the outbreak. We estimate through a difference-in-differences approach the impact of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production using the PubMed database (3.6 Million research papers). We find that COVID-19-related MeSH terms have experienced a 6.5 fold increase in output on average, while publications on unrelated MeSH terms dropped by 10 to 12%. The publication weighted impact has an even more pronounced negative effect (-16% to -19%). Moreover, COVID-19 has displaced clinical trial publications (-24%) and diverted grants from research areas not closely related to COVID-19. Note that since COVID-19 publications may have been fast-tracked, the sudden surge in COVID-19 publications might be driven by editorial policy.

Citation: Riccaboni M, Verginer L (2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001

Editor: Florian Naudet, University of Rennes 1, FRANCE

Received: April 28, 2021; Accepted: January 10, 2022; Published: February 9, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Riccaboni, Verginer. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The processed data, instructions on how to process the raw PubMed dataset as well as all code are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5121216 .

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has mobilized the world scientific community in 2020, especially in the life sciences [ 1 , 2 ]. In the first three months after the pandemic, the number of scientific papers about COVID-19 was fivefold the number of articles on H1N1 swine influenza [ 3 ]. Similarly, the number of clinical trials related to COVID-19 prophylaxis and treatments skyrocketed [ 4 ]. Thanks to the rapid mobilization of the world scientific community, COVID-19 vaccines have been developed in record time. Despite this undeniable success, there is a rising concern about the negative consequences of COVID-19 on clinical trial research, with many projects being postponed [ 5 – 7 ]. According to Evaluate Pharma, clinical trials were one of the pandemic’s first casualties, with a record number of 160 studies suspended for reasons related to COVID-19 in April 2020 [ 8 , 9 ] reporting a total of 1,200 trials suspended as of July 2020. As a consequence, clinical researchers have been impaired by reduced access to healthcare research infrastructures. Particularly, the COVID-19 outbreak took a tall on women and early-career scientists [ 10 – 13 ]. On a different ground, Shan and colleagues found that non-COVID-19-related articles decreased as COVID-19-related articles increased in top clinical research journals [ 14 ]. Fraser and coworker found that COVID-19 preprints received more attention and citations than non-COVID-19 preprints [ 1 ]. More recently, Hook and Porter have found some early evidence of ‘covidisation’ of academic research, with research grants and output diverted to COVID-19 research in 2020 [ 15 ]. How much should scientists switch their efforts toward SARS-CoV-2 prevention, treatment, or mitigation? There is a growing consensus that the current level of ‘covidisation’ of research can be wasteful [ 4 , 5 , 16 ].

Against this background, in this paper, we investigate if the COVID-19 pandemic has induced a shift in biomedical publications toward COVID-19-related scientific production. The objective of the study is to show that scientific articles listing covid-related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) when compared against covid-unrelated MeSH have been partially displaced. Specifically, we look at several indicators of scientific production in the life sciences before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) number of papers published, (2) impact factor weighted number of papers, (3) opens access, (4) number of publications related to clinical trials, (5) number of papers listing grants, (6) number of papers listing grants existing before the pandemic. Through a natural experiment approach, we analyze the impact of the pandemic on scientific production in the life sciences. We consider COVID-19 an unexpected and unprecedented exogenous source of variation with heterogeneous effects across biomedical research fields (i.e., MeSH terms).

Based on the difference in difference results, we document the displacement effect that the pandemic has had on several aspects of scientific publishing. The overall picture that emerges from this analysis is that there has been a profound realignment of priorities and research efforts. This shift has displaced biomedical research in fields not related to COVID-19.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, we describe the data and our measure of relatedness to COVID-19. Next, we illustrate the difference-in-differences specification we rely on to identify the impact of the pandemic on scientific output. In the results section, we present the results of the difference-in-differences and network analyses. We document the sudden shift in publications, grants and trials towards COVID-19-related MeSH terms. Finally, we discuss the findings and highlight several policy implications.

Materials and methods

The present analysis is based primarily on PubMed and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology. This data is used to estimate the effect of the start of the COVID 19 pandemic via a difference in difference approach. This section is structured as follows. We first introduce the data and then the econometric methodology. This analysis is not based on a pre-registered protocol.

Selection of biomedical publications.

We rely on PubMed, a repository with more than 34 million biomedical citations, for the analysis. Specifically, we analyze the daily updated files up to 31/06/2021, extracting all publications of type ‘Journal Article’. For the principal analysis, we consider 3,638,584 papers published from January 2019 to December 2020. We also analyze 11,122,017 papers published from 2010 onwards to identify the earliest usage of a grant and infer if it was new in 2020. We use the SCImago journal ranking statistics to compute the impact factor weighted number (IFWN) of papers in a given field of research. To assign the publication date, we use the ‘electronically published’ dates and, if missing, the ‘print published’ dates.

Medical subject headings.

We rely on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology to approximate narrowly defined biomedical research fields. This terminology is a curated medical vocabulary, which is manually added to papers in the PubMed corpus. The fact that MeSH terms are manually annotated makes this terminology ideal for classification purposes. However, there is a delay between publication and annotation, on the order of several months. To address this delay and have the most recent classification, we search for all 28 425 MeSH terms using PubMed’s ESearch utility and classify paper by the results. The specific API endpoint is https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi , the relevant scripts are available with the code. For example, we assign the term ‘Ageusia’ (MeSH ID D000370) to all papers listed in the results of the ESearch API. We apply this method to the whole period (January 2019—December 2020) and obtain a mapping from papers to the MeSH terms. For every MeSH term, we keep track of the year they have been established. For instance, COVID-19 terms were established in 2020 (see Table 1 ): in January 2020, the WHO recommended 2019-nCoV and 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease as provisional names for the virus and disease. The WHO issued the official terms COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of February 2020. By manually annotating publications, all publications referring to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 since January 2020 have been labelled with the related MeSH terms. Other MeSH terms related to COVID-19, such as coronavirus, for instance, have been established years before the pandemic (see Table 2 ). We proxy MeSH term usage via search terms using the PubMed EUtilities API; this means that we are not using the hand-labelled MeSH terms but rather the PubMed search results. This means that the accuracy of the MeSH term we assign to a given paper is not perfect. In practice, this means that we have assigned more MeSH terms to a given term than a human annotator would have.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t001

The list contains only terms with at least 100 publications in 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t002

Clinical trials and publication types.

We classify publications using PubMed’s ‘PublicationType’ field in the XML baseline files (There are 187 publication types, see https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes.html ). We consider a publication to be related to a clinical trial if it lists any of the following descriptors:

• D016430: Clinical Trial
• D017426: Clinical Trial, Phase I
• D017427: Clinical Trial, Phase II
• D017428: Clinical Trial, Phase III
• D017429: Clinical Trial, Phase IV
• D018848: Controlled Clinical Trial
• D065007: Pragmatic Clinical Trial
• D000076362: Adaptive Clinical Trial
• D000077522: Clinical Trial, Veterinary

In our analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on publications related to clinical trials, we only consider MeSH terms that are associated at least once with a clinical trial publication over the two years. We apply this restriction to filter out MeSH terms that are very unlikely to be relevant for clinical trial types of research.

Open access.

We proxy the availability of a journal article to the public, i.e., open access, if it is available from PubMed Central. PubMed Central archives full-text journal articles and provides free access to the public. Note that the copyright license may vary across participating publishers. However, the text of the paper is for all effects and purposes freely available without requiring subscriptions or special affiliation.

We infer if a publication has been funded by checking if it lists any grants. We classify grants as either ‘old’, i.e. existed before 2019, or ‘new’, i.e. first observed afterwards. To do so, we collect all grant IDs for 11,122,017 papers from 2010 on-wards and record their first appearance. This procedure is an indirect inference of the year the grant has been granted. The basic assumption is that if a grant number has not been listed in any publication since 2010, it is very likely a new grant. Specifically, an old grant is a grant listed since 2019 observed at least once from 2010 to 2018.

Note that this procedure is only approximate and has a few shortcomings. Mistyped grant numbers (e.g. ‘1234-M JPN’ and ‘1234-M-JPN’) could appear as new grants, even though they existed before, or new grants might be classified as old grants if they have a common ID (e.g. ‘Grant 1’). Unfortunately, there is no central repository of grant numbers and the associated metadata; however, there are plans to assign DOI numbers to grants to alleviate this problem (See https://gitlab.com/crossref/open_funder_registry for the project).

Impact factor weighted publication numbers (IFWN).

In our analysis, we consider two measures of scientific output. First, we simply count the number of publications by MeSH term. However, since journals vary considerably in terms of impact factor, we also weigh the number of publications by the impact factor of the venue (e.g., journal) where it was published. Specifically, we use the SCImago journal ranking statistics to weigh a paper by the impact factor of the journal it appears in. We use the ‘citation per document in the past two years’ for 45,230 ISSNs. Note that a journal may and often has more than one ISSN, i.e., one for the printed edition and one for the online edition. SCImago applies the same score for a venue across linked ISSNs.

For the impact factor weighted number (IFWN) of publication per MeSH terms, this means that all publications are replaced by the impact score of the journal they appear in and summed up.

COVID-19-relatedness.

To measure how closely related to COVID-19 is a MeSH term, we introduce an index of relatedness to COVID-19. First, we identify the focal COVID-19 terms, which appeared in the literature in 2020 (see Table 1 ). Next, for all other pre-existing MeSH terms, we measure how closely related to COVID-19 they end up being.

Our aim is to show that MeSH terms that existed before and are related have experienced a sudden increase in the number of (impact factor weighted) papers.

Intuitively we can read this measure as: what is the probability in 2020 that a COVID-19 MeSH term is present given that we chose a paper with MeSH term i ? For example, given that in 2020 we choose a paper dealing with “Ageusia” (i.e., Complete or severe loss of the subjective sense of taste), there is a 96% probability that this paper also lists COVID-19, see Table 1 .

Note that a paper listing a related MeSH term does not imply that that paper is doing COVID-19 research, but it implies that one of the MeSH terms listed is often used in COVID-19 research.

In sum, in our analysis, we use the following variables:

• Papers: Number of papers by MeSH term;
• Impact: Impact factor weighted number of papers by MeSH term;
• PMC: Papers listed in PubMed central by MeSH term, as a measure of Open Access publications;
• Trials: number of publications of type “Clinical Trial” by MeSH term;
• Grants: number of papers with at least one grant by MeSH term;
• Old Grants: number of papers listing a grant that has been observed between 2010 and 2018, by MeSH term;

Difference-in-differences

The difference-in-differences (DiD) method is an econometric technique to imitate an experimental research design from observation data, sometimes referred to as a quasi-experimental setup. In a randomized controlled trial, subjects are randomly assigned either to the treated or the control group. Analogously, in this natural experiment, we assume that medical subject headings (MeSH) have been randomly assigned to be either treated (related) or not treated (unrelated) by the pandemic crisis.

Before the COVID, for a future health crisis, the set of potentially impacted medical knowledge was not predictable since it depended on the specifics of the emergency. For instance, ageusia (loss of taste), a medical concept existing since 1991, became known to be a specific symptom of COVID-19 only after the pandemic.

Specifically, we exploit the COVID-19 as an unpredictable and exogenous shock that has deeply affected the publication priorities for biomedical scientific production, as compared to the situation before the pandemic. In this setting, COVID-19 is the treatment, and the identification of this new human coronavirus is the event. We claim that treated MeSH terms, i.e., MeSH terms related to COVID-19, have experienced a sudden increase in terms of scientific production and attention. In contrast, research on untreated MeSH terms, i.e., MeSH terms not related to COVID-19, has been displaced by COVID-19. Our analysis compares the scientific output of COVID-19 related and unrelated MeSH terms before and after January 2020.

In our case, some of the terms turn out to be related to COVID-19 in 2020, whereas most of the MeSH terms are not closely related to COVID-19.

Thus β 1 identifies the overall effect on the control group after the event, β 2 the difference across treated and control groups before the event (i.e. the first difference in DiD) and finally the effect on the treated group after the event, net of the first difference, β 3 . This last parameter identifies the treatment effect on the treated group netting out the pre-treatment difference.

For the DiD to have a causal interpretation, it must be noted that pre-event, the trends of the two groups should be parallel, i.e., the common trend assumption (CTA) must be satisfied. We will show that the CTA holds in the results section.

To specify the DiD model, we need to define a period before and after the event and assign a treatment status or level of exposure to each term.

Before and after.

The pre-treatment period is defined as January 2019 to December 2019. The post-treatment period is defined as the months from January 2020 to December 2020. We argue that the state of biomedical research was similar in those two years, apart from the effect of the pandemic.

Treatment status and exposure.

The treatment is determined by the COVID-19 relatedness index σ i introduced earlier. Specifically, this number indicates the likelihood that COVID-19 will be a listed MeSH term, given that we observe the focal MeSH term i . To show that the effect becomes even stronger the closer related the subject is, and for ease of interpretation, we also discretize the relatedness value into three levels of treatment. Namely, we group MeSH terms with a σ between, 0% to 20%, 20% to 80% and 80% to 100%. The choice of alternative grouping strategies does not significantly affect our results. Results for alternative thresholds of relatedness can be computed using the available source code. We complement the dichotomized analysis by using the treatment intensity (relatedness measure σ ) to show that the result persists.

Panel regression.

In this work, we estimate a random effects panel regression where the units of analysis are 28 318 biomedical research fields (i.e. MeSH terms) observed over time before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The time resolution is at the monthly level, meaning that for each MeSH term, we have 24 observations from January 2019 to December 2020.

The outcome variable Y it identifies the outcome at time t (i.e., month), for MeSH term i . As before, P t identifies the period with P t = 0 if the month is before January 2020 and P t = 1 if it is on or after this date. In (3) , the treatment level is measure by the relatedness to COVID-19 ( σ i ), where again the γ 1 identifies pre-trend (constant) differences and δ 1 the overall effect.

In total, we estimate six coefficients. As before, the δ l coefficient identifies the DiD effect.

Verifying the Common Trend Assumption (CTA).

We show that the CTA holds for this model by comparing the pre-event trends of the control group to the treated groups (COVID-19 related MeSH terms). Namely, we show that the pre-event trends of the control group are the same as the pre-event trends of the treated group.

Co-occurrence analysis

To investigate if the pandemic has caused a reconfiguration of research priorities, we look at the MeSH term co-occurrence network. Precisely, we extract the co-occurrence network of all 28,318 MeSH terms as they appear in the 3.3 million papers. We considered the co-occurrence networks of 2018, 2019 and 2020. Each node represents a MeSH term in these networks, and a link between them indicates that they have been observed at least once together. The weight of the edge between the MeSH terms is given by the number of times those terms have been jointly observed in the same publications.

Medical language is hugely complicated, and this simple representation does not capture the intricacies, subtle nuances and, in fact, meaning of the terms. Therefore, we do not claim that we can identify how the actual usage of MeSH terms has changed from this object, but rather that it has. Nevertheless, the co-occurrence graph captures rudimentary relations between concepts. We argue that absent a shock to the system, their basic usage patterns, change in importance (within the network) would essentially be the same from year to year. However, if we find that the importance of terms changes more than expected in 2020, it stands to reason that there have been some significant changes.

To show that that MeSH usage has been affected, we compute for each term in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 their PageRank centrality [ 17 ]. The PageRank centrality tells us how likely a random walker traversing a network would be found at a given node if she follows the weights of the empirical edges (i.e., co-usage probability). Specifically, for the case of the MeSH co-occurrence network, this number represents how often an annotator at the National Library of Medicine would assign that MeSH term following the observed general usage patterns. It is a simplistic measure to capture the complexities of biomedical research. Nevertheless, it captures far-reaching interdependence across MeSH terms as the measure uses the whole network to determine the centrality of every MeSH term. A sudden change in the rankings and thus the position of MeSH terms in this network suggests that a given research subject has risen as it is used more often with other important MeSH terms (or vice versa).

We then compare the growth for each MeSH i term in g i (2019), i.e. before the the COVID-19 pandemic, with the growth after the event ( g i (2020)).

Publication growth

Changes in output and COVID-19 relatedness

Before we show the regression results, we provide descriptive evidence that publications from 2019 to 2020 have drastically increased. By showing that this growth correlates strongly with a MeSH term’s COVID-19 relatedness ( σ ), we demonstrate that (1) σ captures an essential aspect of the growth dynamics and (2) highlight the meteoric rise of highly related terms.

We look at the year over year growth in the number of the impact weighted number of publications per MeSH term from 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 as defined in the methods section.

Fig 1 shows the yearly growth of the impact weighted number of publications per MeSH term. By comparing the growth of the number of publications from the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, we find that the impact factor weighted number of publications has increased by up to a factor of 100 compared to the previous year for Betacoronavirus, one of the most closely related to COVID-19 MeSH term.

Each dot represents, a MeSH term. The y axis (growth) is in symmetric log scale. The x axis shows the COVID-19 relatedness, σ . Note that the position of the dots on the x-axis is the same in the two plots. Below: MeSH term importance gain (PageRank) and their COVID-19 relatedness.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.g001

Fig 1 , first row, reveals how strongly correlated the growth in the IFWN of publication is to the term’s COVID-19 relatedness. For instance, we see that the term ‘Betacoronavirus’ skyrocketed from 2019 to 2020, which is expected given that SARS-CoV-2 is a species of the genus. Conversely, the term ‘Alphacoronavirus’ has not experienced any growth given that it is twin a genus of the Coronaviridae family, but SARS-CoV-2 is not one of its species. Note also the fast growth in the number of publications dealing with ‘Quarantine’. Moreover, MeSH terms that grew significantly from 2018 to 2019 and were not closely related to COVID-19, like ‘Vaping’, slowed down in 2020. From the graph, the picture emerges that publication growth is correlated with COVID-19 relatedness σ and that the growth for less related terms slowed down.

To show that the usage pattern of MeSH terms has changed following the pandemic, we compute the PageRank centrality using graph-tool [ 18 ] as discussed in the Methods section.

Fig 1 , second row, shows the change in the PageRank centrality of the MeSH terms after the pandemic (2019 to 2020, right plot) and before (2018 to 2019, left plot). If there were no change in the general usage pattern, we would expect the variance in PageRank changes to be narrow across the two periods, see (left plot). However, PageRank scores changed significantly more from 2019 to 2020 than from 2018 to 2019, suggesting that there has been a reconfiguration of the network.

To further support this argument, we carry out a DiD regression analysis.

Common trends assumption

As discussed in the Methods section, we need to show that the CTA assumption holds for the DiD to be defined appropriately. We do this by estimating for each month the number of publications and comparing it across treatment groups. This exercise also serves the purpose of a placebo test. By assuming that each month could have potentially been the event’s timing (i.e., the outbreak), we show that January 2020 is the most likely timing of the event. The regression table, as noted earlier, contains over 70 estimated coefficients, hence for ease of reading, we will only show the predicted outcome per month by group (see Fig 2 ). The full regression table with all coefficients is available in the S1 Table .

The y axis is in log scale. The dashed vertical line identifies January 2020. The dashed horizontal line shows the publications in January 2019 for the 0–20% group before the event. This line highlights that the drop happens after the event. The bands around the lines indicate the 95% confidence interval of the predicted values. The results are the output of the Stata margins command.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.g002

Fig 2 shows the predicted number per outcome variable obtained from the panel regression model. These predictions correspond to the predicted value per relatedness group using the regression parameters estimated via the linear panel regression. The bands around the curves are the 95% confidence intervals.

All outcome measures depict a similar trend per month. Before the event (i.e., January 2020), there is a common trend across all groups. In contrast, after the event, we observe a sudden rise for the outcomes of the COVID-19 related treated groups (green and red lines) and a decline in the outcomes for the unrelated group (blue line). Therefore, we can conclude that the CTA assumption holds.

Regression results

Table 3 shows the DiD regression results (see Eq (3) ) for the selected outcome measures: number of publications (Papers), impact factor weighted number of publications (Impact), open access (OA) publications, clinical trial related publications, and publications with existing grants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t003

Table 3 shows results for the discrete treatment level version of the DiD model (see Eq (4) ).

Note that the outcome variable is in natural log scale; hence to get the effect of the independent variable, we need to exponentiate the coefficient. For values close to 0, the effect is well approximated by the percentage change of that magnitude.

In both specifications we see that the least related group, drops in the number of publications between 10% and 13%, respectively (first row of Tables 3 and 4 , exp(−0.102) ≈ 0.87). In line with our expectations, the increase in the number of papers published by MeSH term is positively affected by the relatedness to COVID-19. In the discrete model (row 2), we note that the number of documents with MeSH terms with a COVID-19 relatedness between 20 and 80% grows by 18% and highly related terms by a factor of approximately 6.6 (exp(1.88)). The same general pattern can be observed for the impact weighted publication number, i.e., Model (2). Note, however, that the drop in the impact factor weighted output is more significant, reaching -19% for COVID-19 unrelated publications, and related publications growing by a factor of 8.7. This difference suggests that there might be a bias to publish papers on COVID-19 related subjects in high impact factor journals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.t004

By looking at the number of open access publications (PMC), we note that the least related group has not been affected negatively by the pandemic. However, the number of COVID-19 related publications has drastically increased for the most COVID-19 related group by a factor of 6.2. Note that the substantial increase in the number of papers available through open access is in large part due to journal and editorial policies to make preferentially COVID research immediately available to the public.

Regarding the number of clinical trial publications, we note that the least related group has been affected negatively, with the number of publications on clinical trials dropping by a staggering 24%. At the same time, publications on clinical trials for COVID-19-related MeSH have increased by a factor of 2.1. Note, however, that the effect on clinical trials is not significant in the continuous regression. The discrepancy across Tables 3 and 4 highlights that, especially for trials, the effect is not linear, where only the publications on clinical trials closely related to COVID-19 experiencing a boost.

It has been reported [ 19 ] that while the number of clinical trials registered to treat or prevent COVID-19 has surged with 179 new registrations in the second week of April 2020 alone. Only a few of these have led to publishable results in the 12 months since [ 20 ]. On the other hand, we find that clinical trial publications, considering related MeSH (but not COVID-19 directly), have had significant growth from the beginning of the pandemic. These results are not contradictory. Indeed counting the number of clinical trial publications listing the exact COVID-19 MeSH term (D000086382), we find 212 publications. While this might seem like a small number, consider that in 2020 only 8,485 publications were classified as clinical trials; thus, targeted trials still made up 2.5% of all clinical trials in 2020 . So while one might doubt the effectiveness of these research efforts, it is still the case that by sheer number, they represent a significant proportion of all publications on clinical trials in 2020. Moreover, COVID-19 specific Clinical trial publications in 2020, being a delayed signal of the actual trials, are a lower bound estimate on the true number of such clinical trials being conducted. This is because COVID-19 studies could only have commenced in 2020, whereas other studies had a head start. Thus our reported estimates are conservative, meaning that the true effect on actual clinical trials is likely larger, not smaller.

Research funding, as proxied by the number of publications with grants, follows a similar pattern, but notably, COVID-19-related MeSH terms list the same proportion of grants established before 2019 as other unrelated MeSH terms, suggesting that grants which were not designated for COVID-19 research have been used to support COVID-19 related research. Overall, the number of publications listing a grant has dropped. Note that this should be because the number of publications overall in the unrelated group has dropped. However, we note that the drop in publications is 10% while the decline in publications with at least one grant is 15%. This difference suggests that publications listing grants, which should have more funding, are disproportionately COVID-19 related papers. To further investigate this aspect, we look at whether the grant was old (pre-2019) or appeared for the first time in or after 2019. It stands to reason that an old grant (pre-2019) would not have been granted for a project dealing with the pandemic. Hence we would expect that COVID-19 related MeSH terms to have a lower proportion of old grants than the unrelated group. In models (6) in Table 4 we show that the number of old grants for the unrelated group drops by 13%. At the same time, the number of papers listing old grants (i.e., pre-2019) among the most related group increased by a factor of 3.1. Overall, these results suggest that COVID-19 related research has been funded largely by pre-existing grants, even though a specific mandate tied to the grants for this use is unlikely.

The scientific community has swiftly reallocated research efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, mobilizing knowledge across disciplines to find innovative solutions in record time. We document this both in terms of changing trends in the biomedical scientific output and the usage of MeSH terms by the scientific community. The flip side of this sudden and energetic prioritization of effort to fight COVID-19 has been a sudden contraction of scientific production in other relevant research areas. All in all, we find strong support to the hypotheses that the COVID-19 crisis has induced a sudden increase of research output in COVID-19 related areas of biomedical research. Conversely, research in areas not related to COVID-19 has experienced a significant drop in overall publishing rates and funding.

Our paper contributes to the literature on the impact of COVID-19 on scientific research: we corroborate previous findings about the surge of COVID-19 related publications [ 1 – 3 ], partially displacing research in COVID-19 unrelated fields of research [ 4 , 14 ], particularly research related to clinical trials [ 5 – 7 ]. The drop in trial research might have severe consequences for patients affected by life-threatening diseases since it will delay access to new and better treatments. We also confirm the impact of COVID-19 on open access publication output [ 1 ]; also, this is milder than traditional outlets. On top of this, we provide more robust evidence on the impact weighted effect of COVID-19 and grant financed research, highlighting the strong displacement effect of COVID-19 on the allocation of financial resources [ 15 ]. We document a substantial change in the usage patterns of MeSH terms, suggesting that there has been a reconfiguration in the way research terms are being combined. MeSH terms highly related to COVID-19 were peripheral in the MeSH usage networks before the pandemic but have become central since 2020. We conclude that the usage patterns have changed, with COVID-19 related MeSH terms occupying a much more prominent role in 2020 than they did in the previous years.

We also contribute to the literature by estimating the effect of COVID-19 on biomedical research in a natural experiment framework, isolating the specific effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the biomedical scientific landscape. This is crucial to identify areas of public intervention to sustain areas of biomedical research which have been neglected during the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, the exploratory analysis on the changes in usage patterns of MeSH terms, points to an increase in the importance of covid-related topics in the broader biomedical research landscape.

Our results provide compelling evidence that research related to COVID-19 has indeed displaced scientific production in other biomedical fields of research not related to COVID-19, with a significant drop in (impact weighted) scientific output related to non-COVID-19 and a marked reduction of financial support for publications not related to COVID-19 [ 4 , 5 , 16 ]. The displacement effect is persistent to the end of 2020. As vaccination progresses, we highlight the urgent need for science policy to re-balance support for research activity that was put on pause because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We find that COVID-19 dramatically impacted clinical research. Reactivation of clinical trials activities that have been postponed or suspended for reasons related to COVID-19 is a priority that should be considered in the national vaccination plans. Moreover, since grants have been diverted and financial incentives have been targeted to sustain COVID-19 research leading to an excessive entry in COVID-19-related clinical trials and the ‘covidisation’ of research, there is a need to reorient incentives to basic research and otherwise neglected or temporally abandoned areas of biomedical research. Without dedicated support in the recovery plans for neglected research of the COVID-19 era, there is a risk that more medical needs will be unmet in the future, possibly exacerbating the shortage of scientific research for orphan and neglected diseases, which do not belong to COVID-19-related research areas.

Limitations

Our empirical approach has some limits. First, we proxy MeSH term usage via search terms using the PubMed EUtilities API. This means that the accuracy of the MeSH term we assign to a given paper is not fully validated. More time is needed for the completion of manually annotated MeSH terms. Second, the timing of publication is not the moment the research has been carried out. There is a lead time between inception, analysis, write-up, review, revision, and final publication. This delay varies across disciplines. Nevertheless, given that the surge in publications happens around the alleged event date, January 2020, we are confident that the publication date is a reasonable yet imperfect estimate of the timing of the research. Third, several journals have publicly declared to fast-track COVID-19 research. This discrepancy in the speed of publication of COVID-19 related research and other research could affect our results. Specifically, a surge or displacement could be overestimated due to a lag in the publication of COVID-19 unrelated research. We alleviate this bias by estimating the effect considering a considerable time after the event (January 2020 to December 2020). Forth, on the one hand, clinical Trials may lead to multiple publications. Therefore we might overestimate the impact of COVID-19 on the number of clinical trials. On the other hand, COVID-19 publications on clinical trials lag behind, so the number of papers related COVID-19 trials is likely underestimated. Therefore, we note that the focus of this paper is scientific publications on clinical trials rather than on actual clinical trials. Fifth, regarding grants, unfortunately, there is no unique centralized repository mapping grant numbers to years, so we have to proxy old grants with grants that appeared in publications from 2010 to 2018. Besides, grant numbers are free-form entries, meaning that PubMed has no validation step to disambiguate or verify that the grant number has been entered correctly. This has the effect of classifying a grant as new even though it has appeared under a different name. We mitigate this problem by using a long period to collect grant numbers and catch many spellings of the same grant, thereby reducing the likelihood of miss-identifying a grant as new when it existed before. Still, unless unique identifiers are widely used, there is no way to verify this.

So far, there is no conclusive evidence on whether entry into COVID-19 has been excessive. However, there is a growing consensus that COVID-19 has displaced, at least temporally, scientific research in COVID-19 unrelated biomedical research areas. Even though it is certainly expected that more attention will be devoted to the emergency during a pandemic, the displacement of biomedical research in other fields is concerning. Future research is needed to investigate the long-run structural consequences of the COVID-19 crisis on biomedical research.

Supporting information

S1 table. common trend assumption (cta) regression table..

Full regression table with all controls and interactions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263001.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Brown A, Edwin E, Fagg J. Evaluate Pharma 2021 Preview; 2020. https://www.evaluate.com/thought-leadership/vantage/evaluate-vantage-2021-preview .
• 15. Hook D, Porter S. The COVID Brain Drain; 2020. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/covid-brain-drain-scientific-research .
• 17. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab; 1999.

Advertisement

• Previous Issue
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Important Role of Clinicians in Navigating This Issue

Addressing this request with patients using a shared decision-making model, lessons from vaccine hesitancy discussions with patients, one option: treat as any other patient declining blood products, what is autologous or directed blood donation are these options, potential problems with autologous and directed donations, policy development, addressing patient concerns with blood transfusion from donors vaccinated against covid-19: a clinician primer.

Submitted for publication November 9, 2023. Accepted for publication January 12, 2024. Published online first on March 8, 2024.

This article has been selected for the Anesthesiology CME Program ( www.asahq.org/JCME2024May ). Learning objectives and disclosure and ordering information can be found in the CME section at the front of this issue.

This article is featured in “This Month in Anesthesiology,” page A1.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Cite Icon Cite
• Get Permissions
• Search Site

Katherine T. Forkin , Nicole R. Guinn , Matthew A. Warner , Anil K. Panigrahi; Addressing Patient Concerns with Blood Transfusion from Donors Vaccinated Against COVID-19: A Clinician Primer. Anesthesiology 2024; 140:1020–1025 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004913

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Clinicians across the country have experienced a rise in patient requests to avoid blood products from donors vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (referred hereafter using the more commonly used disease term COVID-19). Patient concerns regarding blood transfusions from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 are often centered around vaccine-related worries that can be propagated across social media platforms. This issue has become so pervasive that the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (Bethesda, Maryland), America’s Blood Centers (Washington, D.C.), and the American Red Cross (Washington, D.C.) issued a joint statement earlier this year reassuring patients of the safety of the blood supply in America. 1  

Receiving a blood transfusion in the United States remains incredibly safe in the current era. 2   As required by the Food and Drug Administration (Silver Spring, Maryland), every blood donation is screened for hepatitis B and C viruses, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human T-lymphotropic, West Nile viruses, Treponema pallidum (syphilis), babesiosis in endemic states, and, for first-time donors, Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas disease). The risk of transfusion-transmitted infection from donated blood is approximately 1 in 2.3 million for HIV, 1 in 2.6 million for hepatitis C virus, and 1 in 1.15 million for hepatitis B virus. 3   Public concern about the safety of allogeneic blood transfusion remains and has increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, although there are no data to suggest potential recipient harm based on donor vaccination status. Current evidence suggests that COVID-19 virus cannot be transmitted via blood transfusion. 4 , 5   The prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among blood donors due to infection and/or vaccination is estimated to be approximately 96% and has not been associated with an increase in adverse outcomes in transfusion recipients. 6 , 7   Such findings indicate that the COVID-19 vaccination status of an altruistic blood donor will not impact the health of the recipient of a blood transfusion. This review aims to summarize the current data on the safety of blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19, discuss strategies for patient education regarding this issue, and review alternative nontransfusion options that may be available for patients who decline blood products from altruistic donors. This information may be used to inform policy decisions that allow for consistent messaging.

Perioperative specialists, including anesthesiologists, surgeons, and proceduralists, are often the first clinicians to receive these requests and are exceptionally poised to provide guidance to patients in the time leading up to surgery. Consultations in the anesthesiology preoperative evaluation clinic may serve as a well-timed opportunity to discuss patients’ concerns regarding blood transfusion and provide educational materials for their review. However, these requests may also be encountered during nonprocedural healthcare encounters, such as during an inpatient admission. It is therefore essential that all clinicians are informed on this issue and prepared to discuss both the safety of our donor blood supply and the alternatives to transfusion (along with the associated risks and limitations) with patients.

When connecting with patients regarding their concerns, it is critical to first understand why a patient may make this request. Patients present to us with diverse preferences and varying degrees of understanding regarding medical care and general health, and it is our obligation as clinicians to understand these preferences and their drivers. Although there is a history of prejudice affecting requests for specific blood attributes, 8   many requests to avoid blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 are likely to be related to exposure to unsupported claims of vaccine-related harm associated with blood transfusions that are being disseminated across social media and other platforms. One such example is the incorrect notion that receiving blood from a person who received an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine may alter recipient genetics or result in unknown long-term adverse clinical consequences. In the current era of misinformation, including political proposals that threaten the blood supply, 9   it is imperative that clinicians convey empathy and provide tailored education and guidance when patients approach us with these concerns.

Conversations should always come from a place of nonjudgment, working collaboratively through a shared decision-making framework 10   to ensure patient-centered care. This framework is based on the patient–clinician relationship such that patients and clinicians work collaboratively to identify the patient’s problematic situation ( i.e. , reluctance to receive blood transfusion secondary to vaccine-related concerns), understand underlying drivers, find possible ways to address the problematic situation, reconcile conflicts, and formulate a collaborative care plan that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally for both the patient and the clinician. 11 , 12   Table 1 presents some strategies to consider when discussing the issue of donor blood vaccinated against COVID-19 with patients and provides specific examples.

Example Strategies to Take When Discussing the Issue of Donor Blood Vaccinated Against COVID-19 with Concerned Patients, Including Specific Examples

During this process, it may be helpful to have a broader discussion about the likelihood of transfusion in the patient’s medical or surgical care. For those unlikely to need transfusion ( e.g. , no preexisting anemia, undergoing procedures with minimal blood loss), that reassurance may be sufficient for the patient and care team to agree to proceed with surgery, although it will still be necessary to clarify the patient’s blood-related wishes in case of an emergency. Within these discussions, it is important for patients to recognize that specific donor characteristics such as vaccination status, sex, race, sexual orientation, or religion do not impact the safety of blood products and therefore are not required to be recorded, thereby making it impossible in our current blood banking infrastructure to determine which blood products are from donors who have or have not been vaccinated against COVID-19. Furthermore, just as there is no evidence to support the transmission of COVID-19 through blood donation, 4   there is no evidence demonstrating transmission of COVID-19 vaccine components through blood donation. 13   However, we must also acknowledge that no studies have explicitly addressed the latter. Importantly, patients should be reassured that vaccines based on mRNA technology provide instructions to build immunity against future infections and do not interact with or alter recipient DNA. The safety of the blood supply should be highlighted, and questions should be answered truthfully and respectfully. Finally, it is important for patients to consider whether, in the event of life-threatening hemorrhage, they would rather face serious harm or death than receive blood products from a donor vaccinated against COVID-19.

If the patient remains steadfast in wanting to avoid blood products from donors vaccinated against COVID-19, remaining options for the patient include not receiving blood products or seeking autologous and/or directed blood donations. However, there are serious risks associated with each of these alternatives and not all options are available for each patient or at each institution. Clear and detailed discussion and documentation of the conversation and patient desires is important to protect patient autonomy, ensure consistency in messaging during transitions in patient care, and for medicolegal reasons. Figure 1 outlines the approach to the patient requesting to avoid blood products from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 through a shared decision-making model along with potential alternative options that may be presented and the associated risks and challenges for each.

Approach to the patient requesting to avoid blood products from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 through a shared decision-making model along with potential alternatives and their associated risks and challenges. HLA, human leukocyte antigens.

Lessons learned from vaccination hesitancy discussions may provide some guidance in conversations regarding vaccine-driven blood concerns. For example, conveying clear messages with language the target audience can understand and framing relative risk was found to be beneficial in discussions regarding COVID-19 vaccination. 14   Additionally, thinking about interventions at the individual level, interpersonal level, and organization level has proven helpful in communicating with patients about vaccine hesitancy, and a bundled approach applying interventions at all three levels has been shown to be quite effective. 15  

Some of these approaches may help when addressing patient hesitancy surrounding blood transfusions from individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. For example, on an individual level, educating patients on factual information about the dangers of the communicable disease ( e.g. , measles) has proven much more effective than a focus on debunking vaccination myths. 16   In the context of blood transfusion safety, this approach could be applied by electing to focus on the potential risks and challenges associated with avoiding blood transfusions from an altruistic donor rather than focusing the discussion on refuting the misconceptions surrounding blood safety from donors potentially vaccinated against COVID-19.

If a patient declines allogeneic blood products despite information-sharing regarding the safety of the blood supply, the patient may receive treatment like other patients who decline blood products. A select group of patients, most notably those of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, choose not to receive blood products based on religious or moral preference, and there is abundant literature supporting successful management of these patients at specialized medical centers when blood is not an option. 17   Management focuses heavily on preoperative preparation, including clear conversations and documentation about what products and procedures a patient will or will not accept, risks of not transfusing (up to and including death), as well as diagnosis and treatment of anemia to minimize the risk of end-organ ischemia in the setting of acute blood loss. Intraoperative blood conservation techniques, including use of cell salvage, antifibrinolytics, and acute normovolemic hemodilution can further minimize blood loss, and phlebotomy should be minimized throughout the perioperative period. If it is deemed unlikely that surgery can be safely performed without transfusion, one may consider minimally invasive techniques ( e.g. , robotic or laparoscopic versus open procedures), alternate management ( e.g. , percutaneous coronary interventions as opposed to coronary artery bypass grafting) or, in the most extreme cases, surgery may be deferred.

Two other potential options include autologous donation and directed blood donation. Autologous blood donation involves a patient donating their own blood for use at a later date, typically for use during an upcoming surgical procedure. Such donations require a medical order from a physician, an adequate hemoglobin concentration, and sufficient time for hemoglobin recovery. Directed donations involve an ABO and RhD-compatible donor, often a family member or friend, providing blood specifically for the patient. These donations are collected and processed by a donor center and transferred for storage at the hospital blood bank until they are requested for transfusion. Directed donations may be medically indicated in situations where the recipient has a rare blood type and has developed antibodies to common blood cell antigens ( i.e. , antibodies to high-prevalence erythrocyte or platelet antigens). However, both autologous and directed blood donations come with significant risks, costs, and other issues that should be clearly understood and communicated to patients before pursuing either one.

While both autologous and directed donations are potential alternatives to accepting allogeneic blood transfusions from donors who may have received a COVID-19 vaccine, there are substantial costs and logistical concerns regarding blood collection and storage. Costs associated with autologous and directed donations may not be covered by insurance and increase out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Additionally, the number of centers prepared to handle autologous and directed donations has declined significantly since the 1980s when these options were first popularized during the HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) pandemic. Even at the height of directed blood donations four decades ago, there was much debate over this as a potential option. 18 , 19  

Autologous donation should be timed appropriately (ideally more than 4 weeks in advance) to allow the patient’s blood volume and hemoglobin level to recover before surgery. Thus, in a patient presenting for urgent or emergent surgery, the use of autologous preoperatively donated blood is not an option. Other contraindications include preexisting anemia and medical comorbidities that would place the patient at increased risk of harm by donating blood. Finally, many of the collected units ultimately go unused, because blood transfusions are not required for most surgeries and those units cannot be transfused to other patients.

Directed blood donation comes with additional important risks to consider. There is concern that the individual identified as the one “willing” to donate blood for the patient may do so under some element of coercion, whether perceived or not. Consequently, this individual may be less likely to disclose elements of their pertinent medical or social history during the donation process than an altruistic donor, thereby conferring increased risk to the patient. Surveys of first-time directed donors demonstrate higher rates of positive infectious disease testing compared to repeat blood donors, conferring an increased risk of transfusion-transmitted infections from this donor population. 20 , 21  

Additionally, transfusion of blood products from related donors who share human leukocyte antigens increases the risk of transfusion-associated graft versus host disease, a rare but often fatal transfusion-related disease. As a result, most directed donor blood products undergo irradiation to mitigate this risk; however, this treatment comes at the cost of increased potassium and hemoglobin leakage from erythrocytes. These changes in stored, irradiated erythrocytes can be particularly deleterious to patients susceptible to hyperkalemia and has historically created concern in high-risk populations (such as neonates) for increasing the potential for cardiac arrhythmias and cardiac arrest. 22 , 23   Finally, exposure to directed blood from related donors increases the risk of human leukocyte antigen alloimmunization that can limit the number of compatible donors for organ transplantation in the future.

Logistically, tracking and storage of autologous and directed donor blood products introduces additional administrative and nonstandard work that is time intensive, costly, and can increase risks of mistransfusion. Donations are time sensitive, because blood products have a limited shelf life; therefore, autologous and directed donor units must be used before their expiration date. Furthermore, the amount of blood collected via autologous or directed donations may not adequately meet transfusion needs in the setting of large volume blood loss.

Autologous and directed donations may also result in unintended consequences to the general blood supply. Significant adoption may reduce blood center resources for processing standard donations thereby reducing inventory. The advent of nonstandard blood suppliers who accommodate specific donor characteristic requests poses an additional concern, which was recently highlighted by the Food and Drug Administration in a statement recommending caution about websites advertising blood and blood components from donors not vaccinated against COVID-19. 24   Use of blood products from such suppliers would require developing dual inventory systems, adding an additional layer of regulatory complexity and cost to transfusions.

Finally, concerns regarding equity arise when approving directed donations in situations without a medical indication. 25   If requests for directed donations based on vaccination status are approved, would health systems be obligated to honor requests based on other donor criteria such as race or religion? If restrictions are placed on some directed donation requests but not others, then inequity is inevitable. Because most blood centers require an order to collect and process directed donations, physicians must consider the greater ethical consequences of accommodating such requests.

Establishing an institutional policy will ensure a unified approach for clinicians presented with these requests. Paramount to this process is to engage with your hospital’s blood bank physicians and staff and/or patient blood management representatives who have the most knowledge about the local or regional blood supply and the logistics involved in autologous and/or directed blood donation and storage in your area. Importantly, transfusion medicine professionals are likely aware of how often these requests are being received from surgical patients and other patients at higher risk of requiring a transfusion.

A policy should clearly state that blood products cannot be specifically identified or administered or refused based on age, sex, race, religion, or vaccination status of the donor. When an autologous or directed blood donation is requested for reasons other than medical necessity ( i.e. , rare blood type, antibodies), the policy should provide consistent and clear guidance on how these requests will be handled and what options may be available for care delivery at your institution. This policy should be communicated and distributed to all medical staff and be readily available when patients and/or their family members inquire about options. Patient education materials should be created to support policy development, ensure consistent messaging at the appropriate medical comprehension level, and facilitate shared decision-making. Further, the presence of an institutional policy may help attenuate challenging patient interactions and ensure consistency of responses. To that end, it is critically important to share this messaging with patients in the earliest stages of surgical planning, such that patients do not feel “caught off guard” much further along in their surgical journey.

Patient concerns over the safety of the blood supply because of potential COVID-19 vaccination status of donors is an increasingly encountered clinical dilemma. Requests to avoid blood products from donors vaccinated against COVID-19 present a number of challenges given that it is not possible in our current blood banking infrastructure to distinguish units of blood that have been received from donors vaccinated or not vaccinated against COVID-19. Collaborative, nonhurried, and nonjudgmental conversations using a shared decision-making framework are paramount when working through this concern with patients in the perioperative period. Policy development should be implemented at the institutional level to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, including what options are available for a particular patient.

Research Support

Supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland; to Dr. Warner).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Citing articles via

Most viewed, email alerts, related articles, social media, affiliations.

• ASA Practice Parameters
• Online First
• Author Resource Center
• About the Journal
• Editorial Board
• Rights & Permissions
• Online ISSN 1528-1175
• Print ISSN 0003-3022
• Anesthesiology
• ASA Monitor

• Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
• Manage Cookie Preferences
• © Copyright 2024 American Society of Anesthesiologists

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 110, Issue 9
• The role of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing post-COVID-19 thromboembolic and cardiovascular complications
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Núria Mercadé-Besora 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Xintong Li 1 ,
• Raivo Kolde 4 ,
• Nhung TH Trinh 5 ,
• Maria T Sanchez-Santos 1 ,
• Wai Yi Man 1 ,
• Elena Roel 3 ,
• Carlen Reyes 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0388-3403 Antonella Delmestri 1 ,
• Hedvig M E Nordeng 6 , 7 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4036-3856 Anneli Uusküla 8 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8274-0357 Talita Duarte-Salles 3 , 9 ,
• Clara Prats 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3950-6346 Daniel Prieto-Alhambra 1 , 9 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0000-0110 Annika M Jödicke 1 ,
• Martí Català 1
• 1 Pharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Health Data Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
• 2 Department of Physics , Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya , Barcelona , Spain
• 3 Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol) , IDIAP Jordi Gol , Barcelona , Catalunya , Spain
• 4 Institute of Computer Science , University of Tartu , Tartu , Estonia
• 5 Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Research Group, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences , University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway
• 6 School of Pharmacy , University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway
• 7 Division of Mental Health , Norwegian Institute of Public Health , Oslo , Norway
• 8 Department of Family Medicine and Public Health , University of Tartu , Tartu , Estonia
• 9 Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center , Erasmus University Rotterdam , Rotterdam , Zuid-Holland , Netherlands
• Correspondence to Prof Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Pharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Health Data Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; daniel.prietoalhambra{at}ndorms.ox.ac.uk

Objective To study the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic complications.

Methods We conducted a staggered cohort study based on national vaccination campaigns using electronic health records from the UK, Spain and Estonia. Vaccine rollout was grouped into four stages with predefined enrolment periods. Each stage included all individuals eligible for vaccination, with no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccine at the start date. Vaccination status was used as a time-varying exposure. Outcomes included heart failure (HF), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism (ATE) recorded in four time windows after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 0–30, 31–90, 91–180 and 181–365 days. Propensity score overlap weighting and empirical calibration were used to minimise observed and unobserved confounding, respectively.

Fine-Gray models estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). Random effect meta-analyses were conducted across staggered cohorts and databases.

Results The study included 10.17 million vaccinated and 10.39 million unvaccinated people. Vaccination was associated with reduced risks of acute (30-day) and post-acute COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF: for example, meta-analytic sHR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.29), 0.53 (0.44 to 0.63) and 0.45 (0.38 to 0.53), respectively, for 0–30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, while in the 91–180 days sHR were 0.53 (0.40 to 0.70), 0.72 (0.58 to 0.88) and 0.61 (0.51 to 0.73), respectively.

Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes. These effects were more pronounced for acute COVID-19 outcomes, consistent with known reductions in disease severity following breakthrough versus unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infection.

• Epidemiology
• PUBLIC HEALTH
• Electronic Health Records

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. CPRD: CPRD data were obtained under the CPRD multi-study license held by the University of Oxford after Research Data Governance (RDG) approval. Direct data sharing is not allowed. SIDIAP: In accordance with current European and national law, the data used in this study is only available for the researchers participating in this study. Thus, we are not allowed to distribute or make publicly available the data to other parties. However, researchers from public institutions can request data from SIDIAP if they comply with certain requirements. Further information is available online ( https://www.sidiap.org/index.php/menu-solicitudesen/application-proccedure ) or by contacting SIDIAP ([email protected]). CORIVA: CORIVA data were obtained under the approval of Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu and the patient level data sharing is not allowed. All analyses in this study were conducted in a federated manner, where analytical code and aggregated (anonymised) results were shared, but no patient-level data was transferred across the collaborating institutions.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-323483

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

COVID-19 vaccines proved to be highly effective in reducing the severity of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

While COVID-19 vaccines were associated with increased risk for cardiac and thromboembolic events, such as myocarditis and thrombosis, the risk of complications was substantially higher due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of heart failure, venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism in the acute (30 days) and post-acute (31 to 365 days) phase following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This effect was stronger in the acute phase.

The overall additive effect of vaccination on the risk of post-vaccine and/or post-COVID thromboembolic and cardiac events needs further research.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

COVID-19 vaccines proved to be highly effective in reducing the risk of post-COVID cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications.

Introduction

COVID-19 vaccines were approved under emergency authorisation in December 2020 and showed high effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death. 1 2 However, concerns were raised after spontaneous reports of unusual thromboembolic events following adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines, an association that was further assessed in observational studies. 3 4 More recently, mRNA-based vaccines were found to be associated with a risk of rare myocarditis events. 5 6

On the other hand, SARS-CoV-2 infection can trigger cardiac and thromboembolic complications. 7 8 Previous studies showed that, while slowly decreasing over time, the risk for serious complications remain high for up to a year after infection. 9 10 Although acute and post-acute cardiac and thromboembolic complications following COVID-19 are rare, they present a substantial burden to the affected patients, and the absolute number of cases globally could become substantial.

Recent studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccination could protect against cardiac and thromboembolic complications attributable to COVID-19. 11 12 However, most studies did not include long-term complications and were conducted among specific populations.

Evidence is still scarce as to whether the combined effects of COVID-19 vaccines protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection and reducing post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes, outweigh any risks of these complications potentially associated with vaccination.

We therefore used large, representative data sources from three European countries to assess the overall effect of COVID-19 vaccines on the risk of acute and post-acute COVID-19 complications including venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism (ATE) and other cardiac events. Additionally, we studied the comparative effects of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 on the risk of these same outcomes.

Data sources

We used four routinely collected population-based healthcare datasets from three European countries: the UK, Spain and Estonia.

For the UK, we used data from two primary care databases—namely, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD Aurum 13 and CPRD Gold. 14 CPRD Aurum currently covers 13 million people from predominantly English practices, while CPRD Gold comprises 3.1 million active participants mostly from GP practices in Wales and Scotland. Spanish data were provided by the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP), 15 which encompasses primary care records from 6 million active patients (around 75% of the population in the region of Catalonia) linked to hospital admissions data (Conjunt Mínim Bàsic de Dades d’Alta Hospitalària). Finally, the CORIVA dataset based on national health claims data from Estonia was used. It contains all COVID-19 cases from the first year of the pandemic and ~440 000 randomly selected controls. CORIVA was linked to the death registry and all COVID-19 testing from the national health information system.

Databases included sociodemographic information, diagnoses, measurements, prescriptions and secondary care referrals and were linked to vaccine registries, including records of all administered vaccines from all healthcare settings. Data availability for CPRD Gold ended in December 2021, CPRD Aurum in January 2022, SIDIAP in June 2022 and CORIVA in December 2022.

All databases were mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) 16 to facilitate federated analytics.

Multinational network staggered cohort study: study design and participants

The study design has been published in detail elsewhere. 17 Briefly, we used a staggered cohort design considering vaccination as a time-varying exposure. Four staggered cohorts were designed with each cohort representing a country-specific vaccination rollout phase (eg, dates when people became eligible for vaccination, and eligibility criteria).

The source population comprised all adults registered in the respective database for at least 180 days at the start of the study (4 January 2021 for CPRD Gold and Aurum, 20 February 2021 for SIDIAP and 28 January 2021 for CORIVA). Subsequently, each staggered cohort corresponded to an enrolment period: all people eligible for vaccination during this time were included in the cohort and people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination before the start of the enrolment period were excluded. Across countries, cohort 1 comprised older age groups, whereas cohort 2 comprised individuals at risk for severe COVID-19. Cohort 3 included people aged ≥40 and cohort 4 enrolled people aged ≥18.

In each cohort, people receiving a first vaccine dose during the enrolment period were allocated to the vaccinated group, with their index date being the date of vaccination. Individuals who did not receive a vaccine dose comprised the unvaccinated group and their index date was assigned within the enrolment period, based on the distribution of index dates in the vaccinated group. People with COVID-19 before the index date were excluded.

Follow-up started from the index date until the earliest of end of available data, death, change in exposure status (first vaccine dose for those unvaccinated) or outcome of interest.

COVID-19 vaccination

All vaccines approved within the study period from January 2021 to July 2021—namely, ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer]) Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), were included for this study.

Post-COVID-19 outcomes of interest

Outcomes of interest were defined as SARS-CoV-2 infection followed by a predefined thromboembolic or cardiac event of interest within a year after infection, and with no record of the same clinical event in the 6 months before COVID-19. Outcome date was set as the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 infection date.

COVID-19 was identified from either a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antigen), or a clinical COVID-19 diagnosis, with no record of COVID-19 in the previous 6 weeks. This wash-out period was imposed to exclude re-recordings of the same COVID-19 episode.

Post-COVID-19 outcome events were selected based on previous studies. 11–13 Events comprised ischaemic stroke (IS), haemorrhagic stroke (HS), transient ischaemic attack (TIA), ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest (VACA), myocarditis/pericarditis (MP), myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We used two composite outcomes: (1) VTE, as an aggregate of PE and DVT and (2) ATE, as a composite of IS, TIA and MI. To avoid re-recording of the same complication we imposed a wash-out period of 90 days between records. Phenotypes for these complications were based on previously published studies. 3 4 8 18

All outcomes were ascertained in four different time periods following SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first period described the acute infection phase—that is, 0–30 days after COVID-19, whereas the later periods - which are 31–90 days, 91–180 days and 181–365 days, illustrate the post-acute phase ( figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Study outcome design. Study outcomes of interest are defined as a COVID-19 infection followed by one of the complications in the figure, within a year after infection. Outcomes were ascertained in four different time windows after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 0–30 days (namely the acute phase), 31–90 days, 91–180 days and 181–365 days (these last three comprise the post-acute phase).

Negative control outcomes

Negative control outcomes (NCOs) were used to detect residual confounding. NCOs are outcomes which are not believed to be causally associated with the exposure, but share the same bias structure with the exposure and outcome of interest. Therefore, no significant association between exposure and NCO is to be expected. Our study used 43 different NCOs from previous work assessing vaccine effectiveness. 19

Statistical analysis

Federated network analyses.

A template for an analytical script was developed and subsequently tailored to include the country-specific aspects (eg, dates, priority groups) for the vaccination rollout. Analyses were conducted locally for each database. Only aggregated data were shared and person counts <5 were clouded.

Propensity score weighting

Large-scale propensity scores (PS) were calculated to estimate the likelihood of a person receiving the vaccine based on their demographic and health-related characteristics (eg, conditions, medications) prior to the index date. PS were then used to minimise observed confounding by creating a weighted population (overlap weighting 20 ), in which individuals contributed with a different weight based on their PS and vaccination status.

Prespecified key variables included in the PS comprised age, sex, location, index date, prior observation time in the database, number of previous outpatient visits and previous SARS-CoV-2 PCR/antigen tests. Regional vaccination, testing and COVID-19 incidence rates were also forced into the PS equation for the UK databases 21 and SIDIAP. 22 In addition, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, a technique for variable selection, was used to identify additional variables from all recorded conditions and prescriptions within 0–30 days, 31–180 days and 181-any time (conditions only) before the index date that had a prevalence of >0.5% in the study population.

PS were then separately estimated for each staggered cohort and analysis. We considered covariate balance to be achieved if absolute standardised mean differences (ASMDs) were ≤0.1 after weighting. Baseline characteristics such as demographics and comorbidities were reported.

Effect estimation

To account for the competing risk of death associated with COVID-19, Fine-and-Grey models 23 were used to calculate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs). Subsequently, sHRs and confidence intervals were empirically calibrated from NCO estimates 24 to account for unmeasured confounding. To calibrate the estimates, the empirical null distribution was derived from NCO estimates and was used to compute calibrated confidence intervals. For each outcome, sHRs from the four staggered cohorts were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis, both separately for each database and across all four databases.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analyses comprised 1) censoring follow-up for vaccinated people at the time when they received their second vaccine dose and 2) considering only the first post-COVID-19 outcome within the year after infection ( online supplemental figure S1 ). In addition, comparative effectiveness analyses were conducted for BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1.

Supplemental material

Data and code availability.

All analytic code for the study is available in GitHub ( https://github.com/oxford-pharmacoepi/vaccineEffectOnPostCovidCardiacThromboembolicEvents ), including code lists for vaccines, COVID-19 tests and diagnoses, cardiac and thromboembolic events, NCO and health conditions to prioritise patients for vaccination in each country. We used R version 4.2.3 and statistical packages survival (3.5–3), Empirical Calibration (3.1.1), glmnet (4.1-7), and Hmisc (5.0–1).

Patient and public involvement

Owing to the nature of the study and the limitations regarding data privacy, the study design, analysis, interpretation of data and revision of the manuscript did not involve any patients or members of the public.

All aggregated results are available in a web application ( https://dpa-pde-oxford.shinyapps.io/PostCovidComplications/ ).

We included over 10.17 million vaccinated individuals (1 618 395 from CPRD Gold; 5 729 800 from CPRD Aurum; 2 744 821 from SIDIAP and 77 603 from CORIVA) and 10.39 million unvaccinated individuals (1 640 371; 5 860 564; 2 588 518 and 302 267, respectively). Online supplemental figures S2-5 illustrate study inclusion for each database.

Adequate covariate balance was achieved after PS weighting in most studies: CORIVA (all cohorts) and SIDIAP (cohorts 1 and 4) did not contribute to ChAdOx1 subanalyses owing to sample size and covariate imbalance. ASMD results are accessible in the web application.

NCO analyses suggested residual bias after PS weighting, with a majority of NCOs associated positively with vaccination. Therefore, calibrated estimates are reported in this manuscript. Uncalibrated effect estimates and NCO analyses are available in the web interface.

Population characteristics

Table 1 presents baseline characteristics for the weighted populations in CPRD Aurum, for illustrative purposes. Online supplemental tables S1-25 summarise baseline characteristics for weighted and unweighted populations for each database and comparison. Across databases and cohorts, populations followed similar patterns: cohort 1 represented an older subpopulation (around 80 years old) with a high proportion of women (57%). Median age was lowest in cohort 4 ranging between 30 and 40 years.

• View inline

Characteristics of weighted populations in CPRD Aurum database, stratified by staggered cohort and exposure status. Exposure is any COVID-19 vaccine

COVID-19 vaccination and post-COVID-19 complications

Table 2 shows the incidence of post-COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF, the three most common post-COVID-19 conditions among the studied outcomes. Outcome counts are presented separately for 0–30, 31–90, 91–180 and 181–365 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Online supplemental tables S26-36 include all studied complications, also for the sensitivity and subanalyses. Similar pattern for incidences were observed across all databases: higher outcome rates in the older populations (cohort 1) and decreasing frequency with increasing time after infection in all cohorts.

Number of records (and risk per 10 000 individuals) for acute and post-acute COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic complications, across cohorts and databases for any COVID-19 vaccination

Forest plots for the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic complications; meta-analysis across cohorts and databases. Dashed line represents a level of heterogeneity I 2 >0.4. ATE, arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism; CD+HS, cardiac diseases and haemorrhagic stroke; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Results from calibrated estimates pooled in meta-analysis across cohorts and databases are shown in figure 2 .

Reduced risk associated with vaccination is observed for acute and post-acute VTE, DVT, and PE: acute meta-analytic sHR are 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17–0.29); 0.36 (0.28–0.45); and 0.19 (0.15–0.25), respectively. For VTE in the post-acute phase, sHR estimates are 0.43 (0.34–0.53), 0.53 (0.40–0.70) and 0.50 (0.36–0.70) for 31–90, 91–180, and 181–365 days post COVID-19, respectively. Reduced risk of VTE outcomes was observed in vaccinated across databases and cohorts, see online supplemental figures S14–22 .

Similarly, the risk of ATE, IS and MI in the acute phase after infection was reduced for the vaccinated group, sHR of 0.53 (0.44–0.63), 0.55 (0.43–0.70) and 0.49 (0.38–0.62), respectively. Reduced risk associated with vaccination persisted for post-acute ATE, with sHR of 0.74 (0.60–0.92), 0.72 (0.58–0.88) and 0.62 (0.48–0.80) for 31–90, 91–180 and 181–365 days post-COVID-19, respectively. Risk of post-acute MI remained lower for vaccinated in the 31–90 and 91–180 days after COVID-19, with sHR of 0.64 (0.46–0.87) and 0.64 (0.45–0.90), respectively. Vaccination effect on post-COVID-19 TIA was seen only in the 181–365 days, with sHR of 0.51 (0.31–0.82). Online supplemental figures S23-31 show database-specific and cohort-specific estimates for ATE-related complications.

Risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac complications was reduced in vaccinated individuals. Meta-analytic estimates in the acute phase showed sHR of 0.45 (0.38–0.53) for HF, 0.41 (0.26–0.66) for MP and 0.41 (0.27–0.63) for VACA. Reduced risk persisted for post-acute COVID-19 HF: sHR 0.61 (0.51–0.73) for 31–90 days, 0.61 (0.51–0.73) for 91–180 days and 0.52 (0.43–0.63) for 181–365 days. For post-acute MP, risk was only lowered in the first post-acute window (31–90 days), with sHR of 0.43 (0.21–0.85). Vaccination showed no association with post-COVID-19 HS. Database-specific and cohort-specific results for these cardiac diseases are shown in online supplemental figures S32-40 .

Stratified analyses by vaccine showed similar associations, except for ChAdOx1 which was not associated with reduced VTE and ATE risk in the last post-acute window. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with main results ( online supplemental figures S6-13 ).

Figure 3 shows the results of comparative effects of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1, based on UK data. Meta-analytic estimates favoured BNT162b2 (sHR of 0.66 (0.46–0.93)) for VTE in the 0–30 days after infection, but no differences were seen for post-acute VTE or for any of the other outcomes. Results from sensitivity analyses, database-specific and cohort-specific estimates were in line with the main findings ( online supplemental figures S41-51 ).

Forest plots for comparative vaccine effect (BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1); meta-analysis across cohorts and databases. ATE, arterial thrombosis/thromboembolism; CD+HS, cardiac diseases and haemorrhagic stroke; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Key findings

Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. This finding was consistent across four databases and three different European countries. Risks for post-acute COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF were reduced to a lesser extent (24–58%), whereas a reduced risk for post-COVID-19 MP and VACA in vaccinated people was seen only in the acute phase.

Results in context

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccines and thromboembolic and/or cardiac complications is tangled. Some large studies report an increased risk of VTE and ATE following both ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccination, 7 whereas other studies have not identified such a risk. 25 Elevated risk of VTE has also been reported among patients with COVID-19 and its occurrence can lead to poor prognosis and mortality. 26 27 Similarly, several observational studies have found an association between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and a short-term increased risk of myocarditis, particularly among younger male individuals. 5 6 For instance, a self-controlled case series study conducted in England revealed about 30% increased risk of hospital admission due to myocarditis within 28 days following both ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines. However, this same study also found a ninefold higher risk for myocarditis following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, clearly offsetting the observed post-vaccine risk.

COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated high efficacy and effectiveness in preventing infection and reducing the severity of acute-phase infection. However, with the emergence of newer variants of the virus, such as omicron, and the waning protective effect of the vaccine over time, there is a growing interest in understanding whether the vaccine can also reduce the risk of complications after breakthrough infections. Recent studies suggested that COVID-19 vaccination could potentially protect against acute post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic events. 11 12 A large prospective cohort study 11 reports risk of VTE after SARS-CoV-2 infection to be substantially reduced in fully vaccinated ambulatory patients. Likewise, Al-Aly et al 12 suggest a reduced risk for post-acute COVID-19 conditions in breakthrough infection versus SARS-CoV-2 infection without prior vaccination. However, the populations were limited to SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and estimates did not include the effect of the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in the first place. Other studies on post-acute COVID-19 conditions and symptoms have been conducted, 28 29 but there has been limited reporting on the condition-specific risks associated with COVID-19, even though the prognosis for different complications can vary significantly.

In line with previous studies, our findings suggest a potential benefit of vaccination in reducing the risk of post-COVID-19 thromboembolic and cardiac complications. We included broader populations, estimated the risk in both acute and post-acute infection phases and replicated these using four large independent observational databases. By pooling results across different settings, we provided the most up-to-date and robust evidence on this topic.

Strengths and limitations

The study has several strengths. Our multinational study covering different healthcare systems and settings showed consistent results across all databases, which highlights the robustness and replicability of our findings. All databases had complete recordings of vaccination status (date and vaccine) and are representative of the respective general population. Algorithms to identify study outcomes were used in previous published network studies, including regulatory-funded research. 3 4 8 18 Other strengths are the staggered cohort design which minimises confounding by indication and immortal time bias. PS overlap weighting and NCO empirical calibration have been shown to adequately minimise bias in vaccine effectiveness studies. 19 Furthermore, our estimates include the vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19, which is crucial in the pathway to experience post-COVID-19 complications.

Our study has some limitations. The use of real-world data comes with inherent limitations including data quality concerns and risk of confounding. To deal with these limitations, we employed state-of-the-art methods, including large-scale propensity score weighting and calibration of effect estimates using NCO. 19 24 A recent study 30 has demonstrated that methodologically sound observational studies based on routinely collected data can produce results similar to those of clinical trials. We acknowledge that results from NCO were positively associated with vaccination, and estimates might still be influenced by residual bias despite using calibration. Another limitation is potential under-reporting of post-COVID-19 complications: some asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 infections might have not been recorded. Additionally, post-COVID-19 outcomes of interest might be under-recorded in primary care databases (CPRD Aurum and Gold) without hospital linkage, which represent a large proportion of the data in the study. However, results in SIDIAP and CORIVA, which include secondary care data, were similar. Also, our study included a small number of young men and male teenagers, who were the main population concerned with increased risks of myocarditis/pericarditis following vaccination.

Conclusions

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 substantially reduced the risk of acute post-COVID-19 thromboembolic and cardiac complications, probably through a reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of COVID-19 disease due to vaccine-induced immunity. Reduced risk in vaccinated people lasted for up to 1 year for post-COVID-19 VTE, ATE and HF, but not clearly for other complications. Findings from this study highlight yet another benefit of COVID-19 vaccination. However, further research is needed on the possible waning of the risk reduction over time and on the impact of booster vaccination.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the CPRD’s Research Data Governance Process, Protocol No 21_000557 and the Clinical Research Ethics committee of Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol) (approval number 4R22/133) and the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu (approval No. 330/T-10).

Acknowledgments

This study is based in part on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We thank the patients who provided these data, and the NHS who collected the data as part of their care and support. All interpretations, conclusions and views expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of CPRD. We would also like to thank the healthcare professionals in the Catalan healthcare system involved in the management of COVID-19 during these challenging times, from primary care to intensive care units; the Institut de Català de la Salut and the Program d’Analítica de Dades per a la Recerca i la Innovació en Salut for providing access to the different data sources accessible through The System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP).

• Pritchard E ,
• Matthews PC ,
• Stoesser N , et al
• Lauring AS ,
• Tenforde MW ,
• Chappell JD , et al
• Pistillo A , et al
• Duarte-Salles T , et al
• Hansen JV ,
• Fosbøl E , et al
• Chen A , et al
• Hippisley-Cox J ,
• Mei XW , et al
• Duarte-Salles T ,
• Fernandez-Bertolin S , et al
• Ip S , et al
• Bowe B , et al
• Prats-Uribe A ,
• Feng Q , et al
• Campbell J , et al
• Herrett E ,
• Gallagher AM ,
• Bhaskaran K , et al
• Raventós B ,
• Fernández-Bertolín S ,
• Aragón M , et al
• Makadia R ,
• Matcho A , et al
• Mercadé-Besora N ,
• Kolde R , et al
• Ostropolets A ,
• Makadia R , et al
• Rathod-Mistry T , et al
• Thomas LE ,
• ↵ Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK . 2022 . Available : https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
• Generalitat de Catalunya
• Schuemie MJ ,
• Hripcsak G ,
• Ryan PB , et al
• Houghton DE ,
• Wysokinski W ,
• Casanegra AI , et al
• Katsoularis I ,
• Fonseca-Rodríguez O ,
• Farrington P , et al
• Jehangir Q ,
• Li P , et al
• Byambasuren O ,
• Stehlik P ,
• Clark J , et al
• Brannock MD ,
• Preiss AJ , et al
• Schneeweiss S , RCT-DUPLICATE Initiative , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1

AMJ and MC are joint senior authors.

Contributors DPA and AMJ led the conceptualisation of the study with contributions from MC and NM-B. AMJ, TD-S, ER, AU and NTHT adapted the study design with respect to the local vaccine rollouts. AD and WYM mapped and curated CPRD data. MC and NM-B developed code with methodological contributions advice from MTS-S and CP. DPA, MC, NTHT, TD-S, HMEN, XL, CR and AMJ clinically interpreted the results. NM-B, XL, AMJ and DPA wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors read, revised and approved the final version. DPA and AMJ obtained the funding for this research. DPA is responsible for the overall content as guarantor: he accepts full responsibility for the work and the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

Funding The research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). DPA is funded through a NIHR Senior Research Fellowship (Grant number SRF-2018–11-ST2-004). Funding to perform the study in the SIDIAP database was provided by the Real World Epidemiology (RWEpi) research group at IDIAPJGol. Costs of databases mapping to OMOP CDM were covered by the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN).

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Article Information

MERS indicates Middle East respiratory syndrome; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.

• Improving the Assessment of COVID-19–Associated Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—Reply JAMA Psychiatry Comment & Response July 1, 2021 Delfina Janiri, MD; Georgios D. Kotzalidis, MD, PhD; Gabriele Sani, MD
• Improving the Assessment of COVID-19–Associated Posttraumatic Stress Disorder JAMA Psychiatry Comment & Response July 1, 2021 Brian P. Marx, PhD; Paula P. Schnurr, PhD; Matthew J. Friedman, MD, PhD

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn
• CME & MOC

Janiri D , Carfì A , Kotzalidis GD, et al. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients After Severe COVID-19 Infection. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(5):567–569. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0109

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Patients After Severe COVID-19 Infection

• 1 Department of Psychiatry, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
• 2 Department of Geriatrics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
• Comment & Response Improving the Assessment of COVID-19–Associated Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—Reply Delfina Janiri, MD; Georgios D. Kotzalidis, MD, PhD; Gabriele Sani, MD JAMA Psychiatry
• Comment & Response Improving the Assessment of COVID-19–Associated Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Brian P. Marx, PhD; Paula P. Schnurr, PhD; Matthew J. Friedman, MD, PhD JAMA Psychiatry

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may occur in individuals who have experienced a traumatic event. Previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with PTSD diagnoses in postillness stages, with meta-analytic findings indicating a prevalence of 32.2% (95% CI, 23.7-42.0). 1 However, information after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is piecemeal. We aimed at filling this gap by studying a group of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who sought treatment at the emergency department, most of whom required hospitalization, eventually recovered, and were subsequently referred to a postacute care service for multidisciplinary assessment.

A total of 381 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department with SARS-CoV-2 and recovered from COVID-19 infection were referred for a postrecovery health check to a postacute care service established April 21, 2020, at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS in Rome, Italy. Patients were offered a comprehensive and interdisciplinary medical and psychiatric assessment, detailed elsewhere, 2 which included data on demographic, clinical, psychopathological, and COVID-19 characteristics. Trained psychiatrists diagnosed PTSD using the criterion-standard Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5), reaching a Cohen κ interrater reliability of 0.82. To meet PTSD criteria, in addition to traumatic event exposure (criterion A), patients must have had at least 1 DSM-5 criterion B and C symptom and at least 2 criterion D and E symptoms. Criteria F and G must have been met as well. Additional diagnoses were made through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 . Participants provided written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Università Cattolica and Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS Institutional Ethics Committee.

Data for patients with and without PTSD were compared with the χ 2 test for nominal variables and one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables. Factors significantly associated with PTSD were subjected to a binary logistic regression. P values were 2-tailed, and significance was set at a P value less than .05. Analyses were performed using R version 4 0.0 (The R Foundation).

From April 21 to October 15, 2020, the postacute care service assessed 381 White patients who had recovered from COVID-19 infection within 30 to 120 days, 166 (43.6%) of whom were women. The mean (SD; range) age was 55.26 (14.86; 18-89). During acute COVID-19 illness, most patients were hospitalized (309 of 381 [81.1%]), with a mean (SD) length of hospital stay of 18.41 (17.27) days.

PTSD was found in 115 participants (30.2%). In the total sample, additional diagnoses were depressive episode (66 [17.3%]), hypomanic episode (3 [0.7%]), generalized anxiety disorder (27 [7.0%]), and psychotic disorders (1 [0.2%]). Patients with PTSD were more frequently women (64 [55.7%]), reported higher rates of history of psychiatric disorders (40 [34.8%]) and delirium or agitation during acute illness (19 [16.5%]), and presented with more persistent medical symptoms in the postillness stage (more than 3 symptoms, 72 [62.6%]) ( Table ). Logistic regression specifically identified sex (Wald 1  = 4.79; P  = .02), delirium or agitation (Wald 1  = 5.14; P  = .02), and persistent medical symptoms (Wald 2  = 12.46; P  = .002) as factors associated with PTSD.

This cross-sectional study found a PTSD prevalence of 30.2% after acute COVID-19 infection, which is in line with findings in survivors of previous coronavirus illnesses 1 compared with findings reported after other types of collective traumatic events ( Figure ). 3 - 5 Associated characteristics were female sex, which has been extensively described as a risk factor for PTSD, 1 , 3 , 5 history of psychiatric disorders, and delirium or agitation during acute illness. In the PTSD group, we also found more persistent medical symptoms, often reported by patients after recovery from severe COVID-19. 6

This study had limitations, including the relatively small sample size and cross-sectional design, as PTSD symptom rates may vary over time. Furthermore, this was a single-center study that lacked a control group of patients attending the emergency department for other reasons. Further longitudinal studies are needed to tailor therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies.

Accepted for Publication: January 26, 2021.

Published Online: February 18, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0109

Corresponding Author: Delfina Janiri, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Dr Janiri had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design : Janiri, Carfì, Sani.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data : All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript : Janiri, Kotzalidis, Sani.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content : Carfì, Kotzalidis, Bernabei, Landi, Sani.

Statistical analysis : Janiri, Sani.

Administrative, technical, or material support : Carfì.

Supervision : Kotzalidis, Bernabei, Landi, Sani.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sani reports personal fees from Janssen, Angelini Spa, and Lundbeck outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional Contributions: We thank the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group and the patients who contributed their time and effort to participate in this study.

Additional Information: The members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group are listed in reference 2.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE PODCAST
• 17 December 2020

Coronapod: The big COVID research papers of 2020

• Benjamin Thompson ,
• Noah Baker &
• Traci Watson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Benjamin Thompson, Noah Baker and Traci Watson discuss some of 2020's most significant coronavirus research papers.

In the final Coronapod of 2020, we dive into the scientific literature to reflect on the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have discovered so much about SARS-CoV-2 – information that has been vital for public health responses and the rapid development of effective vaccines. But we also look forward to 2021, and the critical questions that remain to be answered about the pandemic.

Papers discussed

A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 - New England Journal of Medicine, 24 January

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China - The Lancet , 24 January

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin - Nature , 3 February

A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China - Nature , 3 February

Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19 - Nature Medicine , 15 April

Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the Icelandic Population - New England Journal of Medicine , 11 June

High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice — Skagit County, Washington, March 2020 - Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report , 15 August

Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks - Nature Medicine , 3 April

Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 - New England Journal of Medicine , 13 April

Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period - Science , 22 May

Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe - Nature, 8 June

The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic - Nature , 8 June

Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet, 20 June

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19 - New England Journal of Medicine , 3 June

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 - JAMA , 2 September

Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection - bioRxiv, 16 November

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Re-infection by a Phylogenetically Distinct Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Strain Confirmed by Whole Genome Sequencing - Clinical Infectious Diseases , 25 August

Nature’s COVID research updates – summarising key coronavirus papers as they appear

Never miss an episode: Subscribe to the Nature Podcast on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify or your favourite podcast app. Head here for the Nature Podcast RSS feed .

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03609-2

Related Articles

• Public health

Long COVID still has no cure — so these patients are turning to research

News Feature 02 APR 24

Google AI could soon use a person’s cough to diagnose disease

News 21 MAR 24

COVID’s toll on the brain: new clues emerge

News 20 MAR 24

It’s time to talk about the hidden human cost of the green transition

Correspondence 16 APR 24

Lethal dust storms blanket Asia every spring — now AI could help predict them

News 15 APR 24

Bird flu outbreak in US cows: why scientists are concerned

News Explainer 08 APR 24

The rise of eco-anxiety: scientists wake up to the mental-health toll of climate change

News Feature 10 APR 24

Metabolic rewiring promotes anti-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids

Article 10 APR 24

Use fines from EU social-media act to fund research on adolescent mental health

Correspondence 09 APR 24

Associate or Senior Editor (Immunology), Nature Communications

The Editor in Immunology at Nature Communications will handle original research papers and work on all aspects of the editorial process.

London, Beijing or Shanghai - Hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Assistant Professor - Cell Physiology & Molecular Biophysics

Opportunity in the Department of Cell Physiology and Molecular Biophysics (CPMB) at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC)

Lubbock, Texas

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate- Curing Brain Tumors

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Energy AI / Grid Modernization / Hydrogen Energy / Power Semiconductor Concentration / KENTECH College

21, Kentech-gil, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea(KR)

Korea Institute of Energy Technology

Professor in Macromolecular Chemistry

The Department of Chemistry - Ångström conducts research and education in Chemistry. The department has 260 employees and has a turnover of 290 mil...

Uppsala (Stad) (SE)

Uppsala University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Suggested Keywords

Businesses & Institutions

Global Research and Market Insights

Candace Browning

Head of BofA Global Research

March 24, 2024

Must Read Research: Changing the Game

This week we discuss the shift to Emerging Markets (EM), play-by-play from the 2024 Global Industrials Conference and 30 breakthrough technologies that can change the game.

Also featuring commentary from  Global Economic Weekly

Global trends need global vision

Each week, our analysts discuss what’s emerging in global markets on the Global Research Unlocked™ podcast.

Featured content

10 Macro Themes for 2024 – Breadth in rate cuts and markets

We identify 10 macro themes across global economics and strategy and provide our year ahead outlooks.

It’s not just research. It’s results.

We are honored to be named #1 in the All-America Research Team survey on Oct 24, 2023, collected during the polling period of May 30 – June 23. Read more for details and methodology.

Around the world in 5 questions

The world economy is going through significant structural changes after many years of smooth globalization dynamics.

Delivering the energy transition

The planet is warming but challenges hinder efforts to tackle climate change. We outline obstacles to the energy transition.

Artificial Intelligence…Is Intelligent!

We are at a defining moment – like the internet in the ‘90s – where Artificial Intelligence (AI) is moving toward mass adoption.

See the latest from Bank of America Institute

Uncovering powerful insights that move business and society forward.

About Global Research

Our award-winning analysts, supported by our BofA Data Analytics team, provide insightful, objective and in-depth research to help you make informed investing decisions. We service individual investors and a wide variety of institutional money managers including hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and sovereign wealth management funds.

BofA Mercury®

Insights and tools to help optimize your trading strategies.  Sign in to BofA Mercury®.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Effect of COVID-19 on Education

Jacob hoofman.

a Wayne State University School of Medicine, 540 East Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

Elizabeth Secord

b Department of Pediatrics, Wayne Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Pediatrics Wayne State University, 400 Mack Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201, USA

COVID-19 has changed education for learners of all ages. Preliminary data project educational losses at many levels and verify the increased anxiety and depression associated with the changes, but there are not yet data on long-term outcomes. Guidance from oversight organizations regarding the safety and efficacy of new delivery modalities for education have been quickly forged. It is no surprise that the socioeconomic gaps and gaps for special learners have widened. The medical profession and other professions that teach by incrementally graduated internships are also severely affected and have had to make drastic changes.

• • Virtual learning has become a norm during COVID-19.
• • Children requiring special learning services, those living in poverty, and those speaking English as a second language have lost more from the pandemic educational changes.
• • For children with attention deficit disorder and no comorbidities, virtual learning has sometimes been advantageous.
• • Math learning scores are more likely to be affected than language arts scores by pandemic changes.
• • School meals, access to friends, and organized activities have also been lost with the closing of in-person school.

The transition to an online education during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may bring about adverse educational changes and adverse health consequences for children and young adult learners in grade school, middle school, high school, college, and professional schools. The effects may differ by age, maturity, and socioeconomic class. At this time, we have few data on outcomes, but many oversight organizations have tried to establish guidelines, expressed concerns, and extrapolated from previous experiences.

General educational losses and disparities

Many researchers are examining how the new environment affects learners’ mental, physical, and social health to help compensate for any losses incurred by this pandemic and to better prepare for future pandemics. There is a paucity of data at this juncture, but some investigators have extrapolated from earlier school shutdowns owing to hurricanes and other natural disasters. 1

Inclement weather closures are estimated in some studies to lower middle school math grades by 0.013 to 0.039 standard deviations and natural disaster closures by up to 0.10 standard deviation decreases in overall achievement scores. 2 The data from inclement weather closures did show a more significant decrease for children dependent on school meals, but generally the data were not stratified by socioeconomic differences. 3 , 4 Math scores are impacted overall more negatively by school absences than English language scores for all school closures. 4 , 5

The Northwest Evaluation Association is a global nonprofit organization that provides research-based assessments and professional development for educators. A team of researchers at Stanford University evaluated Northwest Evaluation Association test scores for students in 17 states and the District of Columbia in the Fall of 2020 and estimated that the average student had lost one-third of a year to a full year's worth of learning in reading, and about three-quarters of a year to more than 1 year in math since schools closed in March 2020. 5

With school shifted from traditional attendance at a school building to attendance via the Internet, families have come under new stressors. It is increasingly clear that families depended on schools for much more than math and reading. Shelter, food, health care, and social well-being are all part of what children and adolescents, as well as their parents or guardians, depend on schools to provide. 5 , 6

Many families have been impacted negatively by the loss of wages, leading to food insecurity and housing insecurity; some of loss this is a consequence of the need for parents to be at home with young children who cannot attend in-person school. 6 There is evidence that this economic instability is leading to an increase in depression and anxiety. 7 In 1 survey, 34.71% of parents reported behavioral problems in their children that they attributed to the pandemic and virtual schooling. 8

Children have been infected with and affected by coronavirus. In the United States, 93,605 students tested positive for COVID-19, and it was reported that 42% were Hispanic/Latino, 32% were non-Hispanic White, and 17% were non-Hispanic Black, emphasizing a disproportionate effect for children of color. 9 COVID infection itself is not the only issue that affects children’s health during the pandemic. School-based health care and school-based meals are lost when school goes virtual and children of lower socioeconomic class are more severely affected by these losses. Although some districts were able to deliver school meals, school-based health care is a primary source of health care for many children and has left some chronic conditions unchecked during the pandemic. 10

Many families report that the stress of the pandemic has led to a poorer diet in children with an increase in the consumption of sweet and fried foods. 11 , 12 Shelter at home orders and online education have led to fewer exercise opportunities. Research carried out by Ammar and colleagues 12 found that daily sitting had increased from 5 to 8 hours a day and binge eating, snacking, and the number of meals were all significantly increased owing to lockdown conditions and stay-at-home initiatives. There is growing evidence in both animal and human models that diets high in sugar and fat can play a detrimental role in cognition and should be of increased concern in light of the pandemic. 13

The family stress elicited by the COVID-19 shutdown is a particular concern because of compiled evidence that adverse life experiences at an early age are associated with an increased likelihood of mental health issues as an adult. 14 There is early evidence that children ages 6 to 18 years of age experienced a significant increase in their expression of “clinginess, irritability, and fear” during the early pandemic school shutdowns. 15 These emotions associated with anxiety may have a negative impact on the family unit, which was already stressed owing to the pandemic.

Another major concern is the length of isolation many children have had to endure since the pandemic began and what effects it might have on their ability to socialize. The school, for many children, is the agent for forming their social connections as well as where early social development occurs. 16 Noting that academic performance is also declining the pandemic may be creating a snowball effect, setting back children without access to resources from which they may never recover, even into adulthood.

Predictions from data analysis of school absenteeism, summer breaks, and natural disaster occurrences are imperfect for the current situation, but all indications are that we should not expect all children and adolescents to be affected equally. 4 , 5 Although some children and adolescents will likely suffer no long-term consequences, COVID-19 is expected to widen the already existing educational gap from socioeconomic differences, and children with learning differences are expected to suffer more losses than neurotypical children. 4 , 5

Special education and the COVID-19 pandemic

Although COVID-19 has affected all levels of education reception and delivery, children with special needs have been more profoundly impacted. Children in the United States who have special needs have legal protection for appropriate education by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 17 , 18 Collectively, this legislation is meant to allow for appropriate accommodations, services, modifications, and specialized academic instruction to ensure that “every child receives a free appropriate public education . . . in the least restrictive environment.” 17

Children with autism usually have applied behavioral analysis (ABA) as part of their individualized educational plan. ABA therapists for autism use a technique of discrete trial training that shapes and rewards incremental changes toward new behaviors. 19 Discrete trial training involves breaking behaviors into small steps and repetition of rewards for small advances in the steps toward those behaviors. It is an intensive one-on-one therapy that puts a child and therapist in close contact for many hours at a time, often 20 to 40 hours a week. This therapy works best when initiated at a young age in children with autism and is often initiated in the home. 19

Because ABA workers were considered essential workers from the early days of the pandemic, organizations providing this service had the responsibility and the freedom to develop safety protocols for delivery of this necessary service and did so in conjunction with certifying boards. 20

Early in the pandemic, there were interruptions in ABA followed by virtual visits, and finally by in-home therapy with COVID-19 isolation precautions. 21 Although the efficacy of virtual visits for ABA therapy would empirically seem to be inferior, there are few outcomes data available. The balance of safety versus efficacy quite early turned to in-home services with interruptions owing to illness and decreased therapist availability owing to the pandemic. 21 An overarching concern for children with autism is the possible loss of a window of opportunity to intervene early. Families of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder report increased stress compared with families of children with other disabilities before the pandemic, and during the pandemic this burden has increased with the added responsibility of monitoring in-home schooling. 20

Early data on virtual schooling children with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit with hyperactivity (ADHD) shows that adolescents with ADD/ADHD found the switch to virtual learning more anxiety producing and more challenging than their peers. 22 However, according to a study in Ireland, younger children with ADD/ADHD and no other neurologic or psychiatric diagnoses who were stable on medication tended to report less anxiety with at-home schooling and their parents and caregivers reported improved behavior during the pandemic. 23 An unexpected benefit of shelter in home versus shelter in place may be to identify these stressors in face-to-face school for children with ADD/ADHD. If children with ADD/ADHD had an additional diagnosis of autism or depression, they reported increased anxiety with the school shutdown. 23 , 24

Much of the available literature is anticipatory guidance for in-home schooling of children with disabilities rather than data about schooling during the pandemic. The American Academy of Pediatrics published guidance advising that, because 70% of students with ADHD have other conditions, such as learning differences, oppositional defiant disorder, or depression, they may have very different responses to in home schooling which are a result of the non-ADHD diagnosis, for example, refusal to attempt work for children with oppositional defiant disorder, severe anxiety for those with depression and or anxiety disorders, and anxiety and perseveration for children with autism. 25 Children and families already stressed with learning differences have had substantial challenges during the COVID-19 school closures.

High school, depression, and COVID-19

High schoolers have lost a great deal during this pandemic. What should have been a time of establishing more independence has been hampered by shelter-in-place recommendations. Graduations, proms, athletic events, college visits, and many other social and educational events have been altered or lost and cannot be recaptured.

Adolescents reported higher rates of depression and anxiety associated with the pandemic, and in 1 study 14.4% of teenagers report post-traumatic stress disorder, whereas 40.4% report having depression and anxiety. 26 In another survey adolescent boys reported a significant decrease in life satisfaction from 92% before COVID to 72% during lockdown conditions. For adolescent girls, the decrease in life satisfaction was from 81% before COVID to 62% during the pandemic, with the oldest teenage girls reporting the lowest life satisfaction values during COVID-19 restrictions. 27 During the school shutdown for COVID-19, 21% of boys and 27% of girls reported an increase in family arguments. 26 Combine all of these reports with decreasing access to mental health services owing to pandemic restrictions and it becomes a complicated matter for parents to address their children's mental health needs as well as their educational needs. 28

A study conducted in Norway measured aspects of socialization and mood changes in adolescents during the pandemic. The opportunity for prosocial action was rated on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much) based on how well certain phrases applied to them, for example, “I comforted a friend yesterday,” “Yesterday I did my best to care for a friend,” and “Yesterday I sent a message to a friend.” They also ranked mood by rating items on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well) as items reflected their mood. 29 They found that adolescents showed an overall decrease in empathic concern and opportunity for prosocial actions, as well as a decrease in mood ratings during the pandemic. 29

A survey of 24,155 residents of Michigan projected an escalation of suicide risk for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender youth as well as those youth questioning their sexual orientation (LGBTQ) associated with increased social isolation. There was also a 66% increase in domestic violence for LGBTQ youth during shelter in place. 30 LGBTQ youth are yet another example of those already at increased risk having disproportionate effects of the pandemic.

Increased social media use during COVID-19, along with traditional forms of education moving to digital platforms, has led to the majority of adolescents spending significantly more time in front of screens. Excessive screen time is well-known to be associated with poor sleep, sedentary habits, mental health problems, and physical health issues. 31 With decreased access to physical activity, especially in crowded inner-city areas, and increased dependence on screen time for schooling, it is more difficult to craft easy solutions to the screen time issue.

During these times, it is more important than ever for pediatricians to check in on the mental health of patients with queries about how school is going, how patients are keeping contact with peers, and how are they processing social issues related to violence. Queries to families about the need for assistance with food insecurity, housing insecurity, and access to mental health services are necessary during this time of public emergency.

Medical school and COVID-19

Although medical school is an adult schooling experience, it affects not only the medical profession and our junior colleagues, but, by extrapolation, all education that requires hands-on experience or interning, and has been included for those reasons.

In the new COVID-19 era, medical schools have been forced to make drastic and quick changes to multiple levels of their curriculum to ensure both student and patient safety during the pandemic. Students entering their clinical rotations have had the most drastic alteration to their experience.

COVID-19 has led to some of the same changes high schools and colleges have adopted, specifically, replacement of large in-person lectures with small group activities small group discussion and virtual lectures. 32 The transition to an online format for medical education has been rapid and impacted both students and faculty. 33 , 34 In a survey by Singh and colleagues, 33 of the 192 students reporting 43.9% found online lectures to be poorer than physical classrooms during the pandemic. In another report by Shahrvini and colleagues, 35 of 104 students surveyed, 74.5% students felt disconnected from their medical school and their peers and 43.3% felt that they were unprepared for their clerkships. Although there are no pre-COVID-19 data for comparison, it is expected that the COVID-19 changes will lead to increased insecurity and feelings of poor preparation for clinical work.

Gross anatomy is a well-established tradition within the medical school curriculum and one that is conducted almost entirely in person and in close quarters around a cadaver. Harmon and colleagues 36 surveyed 67 gross anatomy educators and found that 8% were still holding in-person sessions and 34 ± 43% transitioned to using cadaver images and dissecting videos that could be accessed through the Internet.

Many third- and fourth-year medical students have seen periods of cancellation for clinical rotations and supplementation with online learning, telemedicine, or virtual rounds owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. 37 A study from Shahrvini and colleagues 38 found that an unofficial document from Reddit (a widely used social network platform with a subgroup for medical students and residents) reported that 75% of medical schools had canceled clinical activities for third- and fourth-year students for some part of 2020. In another survey by Harries and colleagues, 39 of the 741 students who responded, 93.7% were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact. The reactions of students varied, with 75.8% admitting to agreeing with the decision, 34.7% feeling guilty, and 27.0% feeling relieved. 39 In the same survey, 74.7% of students felt that their medical education had been disrupted, 84.1% said they felt increased anxiety, and 83.4% would accept the risk of COVID-19 infection if they were able to return to the clinical setting. 39

Since the start of the pandemic, medical schools have had to find new and innovative ways to continue teaching and exposing students to clinical settings. The use of electronic conferencing services has been critical to continuing education. One approach has been to turn to online applications like Google Hangouts, which come at no cost and offer a wide variety of tools to form an integrative learning environment. 32 , 37 , 40 Schools have also adopted a hybrid model of teaching where lectures can be prerecorded then viewed by the student asynchronously on their own time followed by live virtual lectures where faculty can offer question-and-answer sessions related to the material. By offering this new format, students have been given more flexibility in terms of creating a schedule that suits their needs and may decrease stress. 37

Although these changes can be a hurdle to students and faculty, it might prove to be beneficial for the future of medical training in some ways. Telemedicine is a growing field, and the American Medical Association and other programs have endorsed its value. 41 Telemedicine visits can still be used to take a history, conduct a basic visual physical examination, and build rapport, as well as performing other aspects of the clinical examination during a pandemic, and will continue to be useful for patients unable to attend regular visits at remote locations. Learning effectively now how to communicate professionally and carry out telemedicine visits may better prepare students for a future where telemedicine is an expectation and allow students to learn the limitations as well as the advantages of this modality. 41

Pandemic changes have strongly impacted the process of college applications, medical school applications, and residency applications. 32 For US medical residencies, 72% of applicants will, if the pattern from 2016 to 2019 continues, move between states or countries. 42 This level of movement is increasingly dangerous given the spread of COVID-19 and the lack of currently accepted procedures to carry out such a mass migration safely. The same follows for medical schools and universities.

We need to accept and prepare for the fact that medial students as well as other learners who require in-person training may lack some skills when they enter their profession. These skills will have to be acquired during a later phase of training. We may have less skilled entry-level resident physicians and nurses in our hospitals and in other clinical professions as well.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected and will continue to affect the delivery of knowledge and skills at all levels of education. Although many children and adult learners will likely compensate for this interruption of traditional educational services and adapt to new modalities, some will struggle. The widening of the gap for those whose families cannot absorb the teaching and supervision of education required for in-home education because they lack the time and skills necessary are not addressed currently. The gap for those already at a disadvantage because of socioeconomic class, language, and special needs are most severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic school closures and will have the hardest time compensating. As pediatricians, it is critical that we continue to check in with our young patients about how they are coping and what assistance we can guide them toward in our communities.

Clinics care points

• • Learners and educators at all levels of education have been affected by COVID-19 restrictions with rapid adaptations to virtual learning platforms.
• • The impact of COVID-19 on learners is not evenly distributed and children of racial minorities, those who live in poverty, those requiring special education, and children who speak English as a second language are more negatively affected by the need for remote learning.
• • Math scores are more impacted than language arts scores by previous school closures and thus far by these shutdowns for COVID-19.
• • Anxiety and depression have increased in children and particularly in adolescents as a result of COVID-19 itself and as a consequence of school changes.
• • Pediatricians should regularly screen for unmet needs in their patients during the pandemic, such as food insecurity with the loss of school meals, an inability to adapt to remote learning and increased computer time, and heightened anxiety and depression as results of school changes.

The authors have nothing to disclose.